Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7761  
Old 02-02-2017, 8:51 AM
Go Navy's Avatar
Go Navy Go Navy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,707
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 510rick View Post
Well the new Supreme Court Justice has been nominated . What effect will this persons views have. Seems like it could be in our favor .
Happy to say I'm not a lawyer. But based on what I've read about Judge Gorsuch, he is a superb nominee, and will be confirmed despite the unfair and irrational hysteria of the Democrats in the Senate.

THIS is the reason I voted for Trump, the only reason (other than a dislike of Hillary and all things Clinton). I voted for Trump because the election, in my mind, was all about the Supreme Court (and many vacancies in the Federal Appellate Courts including the 9th Circus). Yes, there are other issues, but the Supreme Court issue "trumps" everything.

So, I want Judge Gorsuch confirmed by any and all means.

Now, let's hope Trump gets to fill a second Supreme Court vacancy someday.
__________________
USN Veteran, Gun Owners of Calif. Member, NRA Life Member

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. ” (Ronald Reagan, 1964)
Reply With Quote
  #7762  
Old 02-02-2017, 9:26 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,222
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Why do you believe it will be granted cert? You think the cert vote will be postponed for month or two or more while the new justice undergoes hearings? Why would replacing Scalia with a clone result in cert in Peruta when Kachalsky, Woollard, and Drake were not granted cert with Scalia there? Please point to the specific arguments in the Peruta cert petition that make it significantly different from the above mentioned 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuit cases that were rejected.
This is sheer speculation, mind you, but could it be that Scalia, fully aware of his declining health, thought it might be too risky to grant cert and then have to excuse himself due to health reasons (or die) before the decision could be rendered in another landmark 2A case? especially if his vacancy might be filled by an appointee from Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton?

I have no reason to believe this is the case, but I don't find that line of reasoning implausible.

With the bench now fully re-staffed and none of the sitting Justices showing any imminent sign of stepping down, the time may be right. That *could* be the difference this time around.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #7763  
Old 02-02-2017, 9:47 AM
Go Navy's Avatar
Go Navy Go Navy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,707
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
This is sheer speculation, mind you, but could it be that Scalia, fully aware of his declining health, thought it might be too risky to grant cert and then have to excuse himself due to health reasons (or die) before the decision could be rendered in another landmark 2A case? especially if his vacancy might be filled by an appointee from Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton?

I have no reason to believe this is the case, but I don't find that line of reasoning implausible.

With the bench now fully re-staffed and none of the sitting Justices showing any imminent sign of stepping down, the time may be right. That *could* be the difference this time around.
What bench is now fully re-staffed? It's going to be probably April before Judge Gorsuch is sworn in.
__________________
USN Veteran, Gun Owners of Calif. Member, NRA Life Member

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. ” (Ronald Reagan, 1964)
Reply With Quote
  #7764  
Old 02-02-2017, 11:44 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,222
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Navy View Post
What bench is now fully re-staffed? It's going to be probably April before Judge Gorsuch is sworn in.
The high court does not begin hearing cases until April, and Peruta will likely not be the first case on the agenda, so the timing sounds ok to me.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #7765  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:03 PM
dekul34 dekul34 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Navy View Post
What bench is now fully re-staffed? It's going to be probably April before Judge Gorsuch is sworn in.
You think Trump will let them sit on their hands that long? He'll probably be calling every day to nuke the filibuster.
Reply With Quote
  #7766  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:15 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 11,339
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
I have no reason to believe this is the case, but I don't find that line of reasoning implausible.
If that was the reasoning, RBG would factor into it on our side and we would get 4 justices to grant cert.

I would find this reasoning as plausible as any garden variety conspiracy theory - way too many stretches and highly improbable assumptions are required to make it work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
With the bench now fully re-staffed and none of the sitting Justices showing any imminent sign of stepping down, the time may be right. That *could* be the difference this time around.
I would say that the biggest difference is that the issue is now "ripe" having had all the circuits with any discretionary issue states in them create a precedent AND having a well-defined circuit split with CA-7 in Moore (I believe all the rest of the cases where after Moore?).

However, the real problem is that a positive ruling would require all three: Kennedy (not a true 2A supporter), Roberts (somewhat unpredictable) and Gorsuch (not confirmed yet). Kennedy alone is what worries me since I believe he was the one to stop majority of the 2A cases bubbling up to SCOTUS. We wouldn't have Scalia and Thomas provide written dissent to the denial of cert if Kennedy was on board.

The way I see it is that we are waiting for two things: (1) A liberal justice dying ("whoever she might be"); alternatively: waiting for RBG to check out the rainbow bridge, and (2) Seeing whether Trump survives in 2020. Short of that, we are in the same limbo we've been in for the past 9 years.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #7767  
Old 02-02-2017, 12:59 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,972
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dekul34 View Post
You think Trump will let them sit on their hands that long? He'll probably be calling every day to nuke the filibuster.
An April confirmation is a reasonable confirmation time, even without a filibuster. These things aren't fast.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7768  
Old 02-02-2017, 1:32 PM
Sixshot87 Sixshot87 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 246
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Best case scenario, how soon can California as a whole be shall-issue?
Reply With Quote
  #7769  
Old 02-02-2017, 1:36 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixshot87 View Post
Best case scenario, how soon can California as a whole be shall-issue?
Reply With Quote
  #7770  
Old 02-02-2017, 1:46 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Banned-aid
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 916
Posts: 7,686
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sixshot87 View Post
Best case scenario, how soon can California as a whole be shall-issue?
Best case scenario? The DOJ decides to drop the case and require statewide shall-issue this afternoon.

Worst case scenario? Never.

Likely scenario? Somewhere in-between.
Reply With Quote
  #7771  
Old 02-03-2017, 8:14 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,913
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
The high court does not begin hearing cases until April, and Peruta will likely not be the first case on the agenda, so the timing sounds ok to me.
I think the court would hear a case this term if it's granted maybe by the end of March?
Otherwise if it gets cert it'll wait until October at a minimum to be heard.
Reply With Quote
  #7772  
Old 02-04-2017, 8:15 AM
Aegis's Avatar
Aegis Aegis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,799
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I think the court would hear a case this term if it's granted maybe by the end of March?
Otherwise if it gets cert it'll wait until October at a minimum to be heard.
Waiting for a SCOTUS decision and implementation could still take two years to sort through all of the details, although it may be a better option. The Hudson bill is a much faster option.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7773  
Old 02-06-2017, 1:29 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,214
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Denial of Cert.

Should the US Supreme Court deny "Cert" again, then there will be a lot more heat to Congress to do something.

Justice Kennedy is the wobbler, but he may be the next judge to voluntarily retire and that could be the game changer as to if 2A cases will be heard.

Gingsburg and Breyer will stay on the court till they die or until we get another Democrat as President.

IN 2020, "RBG" will be 87 years old, Breyer will be 82, not exactly spring chickens.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #7774  
Old 02-06-2017, 8:35 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you're right Nicki, I have no problem being ghoulish and wishing ill of Breyer and RBG. I've been substantively harmed now from this failure to acknowledge my natural rights.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #7775  
Old 02-06-2017, 10:17 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 11,339
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
If you're right Nicki, I have no problem being ghoulish and wishing ill of Breyer and RBG.
I can't wait for the next justice to pass, whoever she might be...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #7776  
Old 02-07-2017, 11:29 AM
Briancnelson's Avatar
Briancnelson Briancnelson is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Culver City, CA
Posts: 756
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

I have voodoo dolls. I poke them every morning just in case.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7777  
Old 02-07-2017, 11:33 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Banned-aid
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 916
Posts: 7,686
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Briancnelson View Post
I have voodoo dolls. I poke them every morning just in case.
I wondered why I woke up this morning with a sharp pain in my left butt cheek. Knock it off please
Reply With Quote
  #7778  
Old 02-07-2017, 1:19 PM
FirstTimer FirstTimer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Raven View Post
If you want people to take You seriously, then You should get Your Facts straight, 1st...........

It was members of the US Marshals Service that shot Weaver's Dog & Sam Weaver......

The FBI/ Gore didn't get involved in the Case till after Ron Harris killed DUSM Degan......
Kevin (not Ron) Harris killed Degan in self defense, and was acquitted on that basis. Moreover, this happened at the onset of the incident, before the Weaver family was slaughtered. Bill Gore is properly referred to as "the butcher of Ruby Ridge".
Reply With Quote
  #7779  
Old 02-07-2017, 3:10 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 11,339
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Briancnelson View Post
I have voodoo dolls. I poke them every morning just in case.
I didn't know they made voodoo inflatables. I thought you'd stick pins in them, no?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #7780  
Old 02-16-2017, 9:52 AM
krucam krucam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 319
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So today is the day for CA's response brief...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....les/16-894.htm

Quote:
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 31 2016 Application (16A440) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 13, 2016 to December 14, 2016, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 2 2016 Application (16A440) to extend further the time from December 14, 2016 to January 12, 2017, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 5 2016 Application (16A440) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until January 12, 2017.
Jan 12 2017 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 16, 2017)
Jan 26 2017 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel petitioners.
Jan 27 2017 Letter received from counsel for respondent.
Feb 6 2017 Consent the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., et al..
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
Reply With Quote
  #7781  
Old 02-16-2017, 3:28 PM
krucam krucam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 319
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like some Amici have been posted...

~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 31 2016 Application (16A440) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 13, 2016 to December 14, 2016, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 2 2016 Application (16A440) to extend further the time from December 14, 2016 to January 12, 2017, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 5 2016 Application (16A440) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until January 12, 2017.
Jan 12 2017 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 16, 2017)
Jan 26 2017 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel petitioners.
Jan 27 2017 Letter received from counsel for respondent.
Feb 6 2017 Consent the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., et al..
Feb 16 2017 Brief amicus curiae of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. filed.
Feb 16 2017 Brief amici curiae of Western States Sheriffs' Association, et al. filed.
Reply With Quote
  #7782  
Old 02-16-2017, 9:02 PM
Master_P Master_P is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sooo.... it's past midnight on the east coast. Did CA file their response?

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #7783  
Old 02-17-2017, 9:18 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Feb 16 2017Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
Anyone have a copy?
Reply With Quote
  #7784  
Old 02-17-2017, 9:19 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Feb 16 2017Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
Anyone have a copy?
Reply With Quote
  #7785  
Old 02-17-2017, 11:02 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 299
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
Anyone have a copy?
Only thing I see so far is, courtesy of Mr. Nichols, one amicus brief:

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...ruta_amici.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #7786  
Old 02-17-2017, 11:52 AM
krucam krucam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 319
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just heard back from Mr Clements office...

2 Briefs in Opposition, 1 from the State of CA, other from County of Yolo (Richards)

Amicus from Western States Sheriffs' Association.
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
Reply With Quote
  #7787  
Old 02-17-2017, 11:58 AM
GlockN'Roll's Avatar
GlockN'Roll GlockN'Roll is offline
Voice of Reason
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SOUTHERN CAL
Posts: 1,906
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucam View Post
Just heard back from Mr Clements office...

2 Briefs in Opposition, 1 from the State of CA, other from County of Yolo (Richards)

Amicus from Western States Sheriffs' Association.
"Rather than recognizing the right to bear arms as a unitary historic right subject to certain restrictions,

the en banc panel’s decision artificially splits the right to bear arms into a right to carry a firearm openly outside the home,

which may or may not exist,

and a right to carry concealed outside the home, which does not exist.

The logical, constitutional, and historical fallacies resulting from this disturbing approach are addressed in the petition for certiorari, and in the briefs of other amici in this case."
__________________
Carry Daily, Safely, Discreetly

LTC's:

AZ, CA, FL, OR, UT, WA

Kindly Refrain From Raucous Laughter, Clinking of Glasses, and Celebratory Gunfire...
Reply With Quote
  #7788  
Old 02-17-2017, 1:53 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 812
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Any chance of reaching out to the recently appointed US AG and asking for a their involvement
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Petition the US AG to sue states like CA for infringing on law abiding gun owners

Repeal Hughes amendment

Repeal the NFA
Reply With Quote
  #7789  
Old 02-17-2017, 2:36 PM
Scottie15's Avatar
Scottie15 Scottie15 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 710
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Looking at the Prieto response, it seems like a map of where one of the plaintiffs is allowed to UOC in their home county might be telling and contradictory to Yolo Co's claim that UOC isn't banned, just regulated.

I imagine a county map with the plaintiff's home and business, and any public lands where discharge is allowed in the county highlighted as green areas where they can carry, and the rest of the county - all the incorporated areas not owned by them, and all the private land outside of the towns - in red. This would be a pretty telling visual with how limited UOC is.
__________________
Its an expensive hobby, but more expensive when you try and convince yourself you don't need what you really want.
Reply With Quote
  #7790  
Old 02-20-2017, 4:57 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 808
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

GOA's amicus brief is pretty interesting

http://lawandfreedom.com/wordpress/w...n-petition.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #7791  
Old 02-20-2017, 8:19 PM
sully007's Avatar
sully007 sully007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,654
iTrader: 23 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
GOA's amicus brief is pretty interesting



http://lawandfreedom.com/wordpress/w...n-petition.pdf


I love this part:

The Second Amendment covenant between the People and their government promises that “the right of the people to ... bear arms shall not be infringed.” Petitioners interpret that unequivocally broad language to mean the right of those people who the state deems deserving (but not anyone else) should generally be permitted to concealed carry (but not open carry) a handgun (but no other arm) outside the home (but only in certain places) for self-defense (but not for any other purpose) — and only after they have paid for and obtained a permit to do so. Below, Petitioners unnecessarily conceded that, although the right to keep arms in the home is fundamental, “it might be ‘less acute’” outside the home.15


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #7792  
Old 02-20-2017, 8:41 PM
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County California
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
GOA's amicus brief is pretty interesting

http://lawandfreedom.com/wordpress/w...n-petition.pdf
Yes it is! While not as interesting, the amicus brief of the Western States Sheriffs' Association should hopefully refute those who are continually arguing that LEOs are not on our side.
Reply With Quote
  #7793  
Old 02-20-2017, 9:12 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any thoughts from the legal minds here about whether or not this kind of balls-to-the-wall, constitutional carry argument, when presented by an amicus, helps the case or hurts it by providing a straw man for the other side to shoot down?
__________________
The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #7794  
Old 02-20-2017, 11:27 PM
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County California
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
Any thoughts from the legal minds here about whether or not this kind of balls-to-the-wall, constitutional carry argument, when presented by an amicus, helps the case or hurts it by providing a straw man for the other side to shoot down?
I do not see it as hurting. Nor do I see it as a strawman for the other side to knock down. Kind of hard to say that the Constitution does not mean what is clearly says. The problem is that this is not the argument the plaintiffs made. From my view, the most troubling brief is the one from Yolo County and Sheriff Prieto because of its underlying case and controversy underpinnings. However, I think that the GOA’s brief sets the stage for the argument that all or most of the pre Heller cases are of limited value because, prior to Heller, the courts generally had an incorrect understanding of the militia clause. Furthermore, the various circuits can be analogized to be rudderless ships going all different directions and that the only way to avoid the unnecessary waste of judicial resources is for the court to provide clear direction at this time.

Last edited by BAJ475; 02-20-2017 at 11:37 PM.. Reason: correct typos
Reply With Quote
  #7795  
Old 02-21-2017, 12:14 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Banned-aid
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 916
Posts: 7,686
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
the only way to avoid the unnecessary waste of judicial resources is for the court to provide clear direction at this time.
That would certainly be ideal.

The Heller decision had some far-reaching consequences that went beyond the scope of just the right for one man to own a handgun in DC - it defined, officially for the first time ever, that the 2a protects the individual right to have common-use firearms. So I wonder what kind of far-reaching consequences a SCOTUS ruling on Peruta could have. Possibly that the 2a conclusively protects the individual right to be armed in public? And to what scope, concealed or open or both, and what kind of arms?
Reply With Quote
  #7796  
Old 02-21-2017, 12:20 AM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains (Santa Clara County)
Posts: 3,147
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Or the court could deny cert. Just like it has done in the last how many 2A carry cases? The addition of Gorsuch does nothing to change the composition of the court.
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #7797  
Old 02-22-2017, 2:34 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 645
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
GOA's amicus brief is pretty interesting

http://lawandfreedom.com/wordpress/w...n-petition.pdf
That is an excellent read!

Interesting point in the brief:

California could announce that the Second Amendment is respected because concealed carry is perfectly legal, but then create a regime so oppressive that no law-abiding person would ever dare to carry concealed.
Reply With Quote
  #7798  
Old 02-22-2017, 10:55 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 343
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdDeadHands1 View Post
Or the court could deny cert. Just like it has done in the last how many 2A carry cases? The addition of Gorsuch does nothing to change the composition of the court.
This is possible cert could be denied because Peruta is such a mess in the pleadings, decisions, briefs and through changes in the law mid-case. OTOH, that mess certainly begs the SCOTUS to do SOMETHING because this issue isn't going to go away on it's own.

I do like how the GOA's brief begins to actually recognize that those 4 words at the end of the 2A mean something. They don't quite get there IMO, but their conclusion hits the mark dead on.

I would like to see someone file a brief detailing some rather unique ideas on the various parts of the 2A as related to other Amendments AND SCOTUS's decisions in the past (Roe v Wade is good because it shows that some rights are personal rights. Rights that the language in any one part of the BOR doesn't necessarily cover properly or completely Plus it shows that there are Rights that are held by individual citizens/people which the gov cannot deny or infringe upon even while they can regulate the overall activity.).

To illustrate what I'm saying; "the right of the people" has been interpreted to mean the people in general. You and me. When you add that to "shall not be infringed" AND the 10th AND Macdonald's incorporation to the States decision, what you get is a clear idea that the 2A is outside the realm of the Gov to do ANYTHING because this right belongs to THE PEOPLE in toto and without reservation or concession to the gov.

2a + 10A means it's OURS and the gov needs to get it's sticky fingers off of our Right to keep and bear arms. I think that would be a wonderful brief to read. It won't fly because, hey, prog judges, but it'd be wonderful for someone to actually SAY SO. GOA's brief comes pretty close this time.

Peruta might get cert but probably only because the 9th's decision extends far beyond just California's borders. It reaches States where it potentially conflicts with other State constitutions and laws. As far as I know one scary theory I can posit doesn't exist. However, should there be even 1 State in the 9th with a "concealed carry right" in it's constitution, Peruta overturns that enshrined State Right via California's ban and regulatory scheme. That's pretty scarey where California can determine, via the 9th circuit, what Rights exist in other States and other States' Constitutions.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #7799  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:32 AM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 9,801
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

I've been wondering about the 9ths possible impact on the other states in their district based on CA decisions.
It could make moves to Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Washington state and Montana not quite far enough away from CA to avoid the mess here.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7800  
Old 02-22-2017, 11:42 AM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,951
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
I've been wondering about the 9ths possible impact on the other states in their district based on CA decisions.
It could make moves to Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Washington state and Montana not quite far enough away from CA to avoid the mess here.
I suspect some of those states simply would say go pound sand.
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:38 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.