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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #481  
Old 05-29-2020, 11:30 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 515
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It seems there is still nothing. Either we're waiting until Monday to find out it's been re-listed, we're about to get a grant/mass denials

So nothing new, I'm not getting my hopes up. These past few weeks could easily have been used for writing dissent for mass denials. Very disappointed in Kavanaugh and Gorsuch through all of this. They're all talk and no action.
Reply With Quote
  #482  
Old 05-29-2020, 11:37 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,554
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyer898 View Post
Here is a current analysis of the 2A cases pending cert. it is from the Duke Center for Firearms Law.
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/05...icle-problems/
A good read.
Thank you for the tip!
Reply With Quote
  #483  
Old 05-29-2020, 11:50 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wonder if any non-2nd A cases got relisted and their dockets' updated....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #484  
Old 05-29-2020, 11:52 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Orange County CA / Dallas TX
Posts: 969
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I checked a handful of other cases (certainly not all) and didn’t see any docket updates.
I’m guessing last weeks early docket updates were just a one time fluke.
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #485  
Old 05-29-2020, 11:55 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 896
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
I checked a handful of other cases (certainly not all) and didn’t see any docket updates.
I’m guessing last weeks early docket updates were just a one time fluke.
Or they will be dismissed next week.
Reply With Quote
  #486  
Old 05-29-2020, 11:59 AM
MEGSDAD's Avatar
MEGSDAD MEGSDAD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm hoping they see the games California is playing with the roster and smack this state down hard.
Reply With Quote
  #487  
Old 05-29-2020, 12:14 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Stay safe from CV19 and the riots & looting!

See you all for Orders 6:30 am Monday (and maybe Opinions at 7:00 am).

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #488  
Old 05-29-2020, 12:23 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Stay safe from CV19 and the riots & looting!

See you all for Orders 6:30 am Monday (and maybe Opinions at 7:00 am).

I spoke too soon....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I wonder if any non-2nd A cases got relisted and their dockets' updated....
After logging off, I went over to SCOTUSblog to see if they said anything re. the 10 2nd A cases, or other cases being relisted today. They didn't. BUT I found where they listed all the cases that got relisted last week. They were the 10 2nd A case plus 2 others. I just checked those other two cases (the first two in their list), and neither of them have been updated either (i.e., they don't say they'll be heard in another Conference). Hmm.

So, maybe last Friday's updating of the relisted cases was a mistake (done before it should have), or it was an exception and not a new practice?

Regardless, here's the link to SCOTUSblog's page with all of the relists from last week: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/05/status-quo-watch-4/

Later.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-29-2020 at 12:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #489  
Old 05-29-2020, 12:50 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 707
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Folks, last Monday was a holiday, thus the relisting on Friday. Government employees had Monday off. I know because my wife is a government employee. I had to put up with her **** for 1 more day than usual.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #490  
Old 05-29-2020, 1:17 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,302
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
Folks, last Monday was a holiday, thus the relisting on Friday.
^^^ the guy's got a point
Reply With Quote
  #491  
Old 05-29-2020, 1:38 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

BTW, one thing we've not mentioned? Or if it has been mentioned I missed it?

One reason why SCOTUS might grant to two similar cases and not combine them would be to lessen the probability of having a case mooted.

Take a case from California and New Jersey? New Jersey may figure there is no point in trying to moot their case since the California case will still be heard. California may figure there is no point in attempting to moot their case because the New Jersey case may still persists. Yes, they could try to coordinate things but it'd be complicated. . .

Take 3-4 cases and complicate things even further for the mooters. And if they all make an attempt to moot? You might find Roberts and Kavanaugh deciding the mooting has to be addressed/fixed.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 05-29-2020, 2:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
Folks, last Monday was a holiday, thus the relisting on Friday. Government employees had Monday off. ...
They could have just done it on Tues, just like they do normally -- on the day they released Orders. (And they did release Orders Tues morning.)

IOW, yeah, maybe, but not necessarily.

JMO
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 05-29-2020, 4:46 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,554
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
BTW, one thing we've not mentioned? Or if it has been mentioned I missed it?

One reason why SCOTUS might grant to two similar cases and not combine them would be to lessen the probability of having a case mooted.

Take a case from California and New Jersey? New Jersey may figure there is no point in trying to moot their case since the California case will still be heard. California may figure there is no point in attempting to moot their case because the New Jersey case may still persists. Yes, they could try to coordinate things but it'd be complicated. . .

Take 3-4 cases and complicate things even further for the mooters. And if they all make an attempt to moot? You might find Roberts and Kavanaugh deciding the mooting has to be addressed/fixed.
I would bet $$ that persons from all these state governments that have cases sitting on the doorstep of SCOTUS are having serious meetings, at least via web, if not in person, this weekend. They have a lot to loose, and I'm sure many are looking for ways to change the game at the very last minute, to preserve the status quo. They were handed a roadmap on a gold platter, courtesy of the combined efforts of New York State and SCOTUS. They had better hurry before one more SCOTUS member leaves.
Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 05-29-2020, 5:20 PM
meanspartan meanspartan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 82
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
It seems there is still nothing. Either we're waiting until Monday to find out it's been re-listed, we're about to get a grant/mass denials

So nothing new, I'm not getting my hopes up. These past few weeks could easily have been used for writing dissent for mass denials. Very disappointed in Kavanaugh and Gorsuch through all of this. They're all talk and no action.
Huh? Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are on record as wanting to take a case, and it only takes four to grant cert (Alito and Thomas are on board). So if they grant cert to none, it was done strategically, because they know Roberts is going to side with the liberals.

As disappointing as it would be, I'd prefer status quo over a 5-4 antigun precedent case.
Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 05-29-2020, 8:35 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 515
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meanspartan View Post
Huh? Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are on record as wanting to take a case, and it only takes four to grant cert (Alito and Thomas are on board). So if they grant cert to none, it was done strategically, because they know Roberts is going to side with the liberals.

As disappointing as it would be, I'd prefer status quo over a 5-4 antigun precedent case.
Looks at Guedes v ATF. We got a denial along with Gorsuch's "concerns" even though he agreed with the denial of cert. We received the same treatment from Kavanaugh in NYSRPA. He agreed with rejecting the protection of second amendment and due process rights. The best we have from Kavanaugh is the same as Gorsuch, small talk of concerns without action. Now we have Roberts agreeing with the leftists on the court to keep churches shut down in violation of the first amendment. These people are pathetic. They swore to uphold the constitution and yet they refuse to hold antagonistic governments accountable. At some point we are going to have to forget about the Supreme Court if we want our country back.
Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 05-29-2020, 9:19 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 896
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Looks at Guedes v ATF. We got a denial along with Gorsuch's "concerns" even though he agreed with the denial of cert. We received the same treatment from Kavanaugh in NYSRPA. He agreed with rejecting the protection of second amendment and due process rights. The best we have from Kavanaugh is the same as Gorsuch, small talk of concerns without action. Now we have Roberts agreeing with the leftists on the court to keep churches shut down in violation of the first amendment. These people are pathetic. They swore to uphold the constitution and yet they refuse to hold antagonistic governments accountable. At some point we are going to have to forget about the Supreme Court if we want our country back.
Come on. That's nonsense. NYSPRA was moot, and no way they had been getting a proper strong decision out of that one.

And keeping churches open in a pandemic (whether we disagree on its actual severity) is hogwash. They closed them during plaque since forever.
Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 05-29-2020, 10:44 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 707
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Come on. That's nonsense. NYSPRA was moot, and no way they had been getting a proper strong decision out of that one.



And keeping churches open in a pandemic (whether we disagree on its actual severity) is hogwash. They closed them during plaque since forever.
The 1st Amendment clearly states that Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the exercise of religion. The real question is, do you, or don't you, consider a governor to be part of "Congress"?

Those who say yes use a broad brush and claim the governor is part of state government, just like the state legislature.

Those who say no will point out the governor falls under the state executive branch, not the legislative branch.

SCOTUS likes to paint with a broad brush.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 05-30-2020, 1:46 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 896
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
The 1st Amendment clearly states that Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the exercise of religion. The real question is, do you, or don't you, consider a governor to be part of "Congress"?

Those who say yes use a broad brush and claim the governor is part of state government, just like the state legislature.

Those who say no will point out the governor falls under the state executive branch, not the legislative branch.

SCOTUS likes to paint with a broad brush.
Police power is reserved to the states. And that's pretty much plenary powers. Lockdowns are an exercise of police power, in an evident emergency, so yes, I think they can close down churches under the circumstances. And they did. But we digress.

Point is, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did not do anything sinister at all.
Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 05-30-2020, 4:58 AM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is online now
Vinyl Decal maker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 701
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

After Robert's falling on the CA Church order, I won't be surprised if these all get denied at this point.
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Ronda Kennedy for Congress-- CA-26
Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 05-30-2020, 5:37 AM
69ELKY 69ELKY is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Monterey County
Posts: 271
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
After Robert's falling on the CA Church order, I won't be surprised if these all get denied at this point.
I have the same gut feeling. Roberts is a traitor.
Reply With Quote
  #501  
Old 05-30-2020, 5:39 AM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is online now
Vinyl Decal maker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 701
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 69ELKY View Post
I have the same gut feeling. Roberts is a traitor.
I hope we are both wrong. The first thing that came to mind when I heard that was these 10 cases.
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Ronda Kennedy for Congress-- CA-26
Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 05-30-2020, 5:48 AM
North86 North86 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central Wisconsin
Posts: 1,181
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This scares the crap out of me:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...lenge-to-state

This does not bode well for 2A if they won't enforce 1A.
__________________
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt
Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 05-30-2020, 6:22 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,117
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

On May 25th Gov. Newscum changed his order to allow churches to open at %25 capacity.

It looks like that was enough for Roberts,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Justice Roberts
State guidelines cur-rently limit attendance at places of worship to 25% of build-ing capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees.
In the decent from Collins in the 9th this change in the order had not been made.

Last edited by abinsinia; 05-30-2020 at 6:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 05-30-2020, 12:34 PM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 681
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
On May 25th Gov. Newscum changed his order to allow churches to open at %25 capacity.

It looks like that was enough for Roberts,



In the decent from Collins in the 9th this change in the order had not been made.
Yeah, he throws the State any lifeline he can, every time. Friggin weasel.
Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 05-30-2020, 12:54 PM
Aragorn's Avatar
Aragorn Aragorn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 235
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
After Robert's falling on the CA Church order, I won't be surprised if these all get denied at this point.
After this morning's 1A related decision on church closings, where Roberts was the deciding vote, my hope now is this as well. All the pending 2A cases get denied.

Better no decisions in these critical gun cases than defeats. Roberts is now clearly nothing but a political animal.
__________________

Gun Owners of America, Life Member
2nd Amendment Foundation, Life Member
Arizona Citizens Defense League, Life Member
Lone Star Gun Rights, Member
President of Front Sight, Life Member
Admin. Glendora Concealed Carry
Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 05-30-2020, 1:21 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,666
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The 2A will never be embraced by the courts. The best we can expect are occasional victories with rulings that are so narrowly tailored, they are essentially useless.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 05-30-2020, 2:36 PM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
The 2A will never be embraced by the courts. The best we can expect are occasional victories with rulings that are so narrowly tailored, they are essentially useless.
That's certainly a very reasonable approach, but here's another perspective for your consideration . . .

State Level:

In 1986 there was only a single state offering Constitutional carry. Today there are 16.
In 1986 there were 8 Shall Issue states. There are now 26.
In 1986 there were 25 May Issue states; now only 8 remain.
And in 1986 there were 16 states that had no provision for carry licenses. Today there are zero. None. Every state recognizes the right to carry, at least at the conceptual level. Application varies, as you would probably expect.

Federal Level:

2008: Heller (2nd A does not require membership in a militia.)
2010: McDonald (Applies Heller to individual states.)

We are progressing. The low-hanging fruit has been picked. We have "Keep", and are now reaching towards the higher apples. We are stretching for "Bear". That's what the current basket of cases addresses. And we will soon win, whether next year or the year after. We are only one SCOTUS confirmation away, and we have four years to accomplish it.

The last, most difficult, level of cases will be on what "not infringed" means (see "application", above). That's where we'll be addressing how government applies the right to carry. We'll be arguing that one for years.
Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 05-30-2020, 7:31 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 707
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
And in 1986 there were 16 states that had no provision for carry licenses. Today there are zero. None. Every state recognizes the right to carry, at least at the conceptual level. Application varies, as you would probably expect.
The last to fall was Illinois in Dec 2012 via CA7 ruling in Shepard v Madigan. It didn't come easy, and it took a little old lady being brutally beaten and left for dead to change things. Near death experiences shouldn't be the requisite for the COTUS to be upheld, but sadly it is.

https://youtu.be/B_2JwRo5K4o

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 05-30-2020, 8:19 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
That's certainly a very reasonable approach, but here's another perspective for your consideration . . .

State Level:

In 1986 there was only a single state offering Constitutional carry. Today there are 16.
In 1986 there were 8 Shall Issue states. There are now 26.
In 1986 there were 25 May Issue states; now only 8 remain.
And in 1986 there were 16 states that had no provision for carry licenses. Today there are zero. None. Every state recognizes the right to carry, at least at the conceptual level.
Incorrect. In May Issue states, like CA, IAs are more than happy to tell you a CCW is a permit to allow you to exercise a privilege under state law, not to exercise a right under the federal constitution's BoR/2nd A.

We need a SCOTUS slap down of our petty tyrants in Sacto.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 05-30-2020, 8:21 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Simply heartbreaking....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #511  
Old 05-30-2020, 8:44 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 707
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Incorrect. In May Issue states, like CA, IAs are more than happy to tell you a CCW is a permit to allow you to exercise a privilege under state law, not to exercise a right under the federal constitution's BoR/2nd A.

We need a SCOTUS slap down of our petty tyrants in Sacto.
Culp v Madigan may help with that. Isn't one of the cases out of NJ also dealing with this?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 05-30-2020, 8:46 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 707
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Simply heartbreaking....



That's what I see when I hear "gun control". Brady, Everytown, Giffords, MDA, Michael Bloomberg, Father "Snuffy" Pfleger, all want that reality. They should be careful what they wish for. One day it may happen to them.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 05-30-2020, 8:53 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,368
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
That's certainly a very reasonable approach, but here's another perspective for your consideration . . .

State Level:

In 1986 there was only a single state offering Constitutional carry. Today there are 16.
In 1986 there were 8 Shall Issue states. There are now 26.
In 1986 there were 25 May Issue states; now only 8 remain.
And in 1986 there were 16 states that had no provision for carry licenses. Today there are zero. None. Every state recognizes the right to carry, at least at the conceptual level. Application varies, as you would probably expect.

Federal Level:

2008: Heller (2nd A does not require membership in a militia.)
2010: McDonald (Applies Heller to individual states.)

We are progressing. The low-hanging fruit has been picked. We have "Keep", and are now reaching towards the higher apples. We are stretching for "Bear". That's what the current basket of cases addresses. And we will soon win, whether next year or the year after. We are only one SCOTUS confirmation away, and we have four years to accomplish it.

The last, most difficult, level of cases will be on what "not infringed" means (see "application", above). That's where we'll be addressing how government applies the right to carry. We'll be arguing that one for years.
A state that allows open carry, no permit is by default a Constitutional Carry state...irregardless of how they regulate concealed carry.

That's according to DC v. Heller in 2008...

...and pretty much in effect until further notice.

As to the "until further notice..." I'm starting to wonder if Robert's is willing to go backwards on DC v. Heller.




=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 05-30-2020, 8:54 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 707
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
A state that allows open carry, no permit is by default a Constitutional Carry state...irregardless of how they regulate concealed carry.



That's according to DC v. Heller in 2008...



...and pretty much in effect until further notice.



As to the "until further notice..." I'm starting to wonder if Robert's is willing to go backwards on DC v. Heller.









=8-|
I believe he already has. After all, he didn't vote to grant cert in Friedman v Highland Park.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 05-30-2020, 9:16 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transient View Post
Culp v Madigan may help with that. Isn't one of the cases out of NJ also dealing with this?
IIRC, 6 of the 10 2nd A cases before SCOTUS right now are Carry cases.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 05-31-2020, 8:52 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can we get back to discussing the ten 2nd A cases before SCOTUS?

There are plenty of other threads for other topics. Or you can start a new one.

20 1/2 hours to go!

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 05-31-2020, 9:39 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Less than 8 hours to go!

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 05-31-2020, 10:28 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 21,261
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Can we get back to discussing the ten 2nd A cases before SCOTUS?
Good idea...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA.
Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 05-31-2020, 10:47 PM
Transient Transient is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Currently in Virginia. Moving to San Diego summer 2020.
Posts: 707
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Good idea...
Thank you. I tried in one of the posts you deleted. Used a whole paragraph tying it into the topic. I failed.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 05-31-2020, 11:04 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,728
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Less than 8 hours to go!

Pass the popcorn
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 9:55 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical