|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [CERT *DENIED* 6/26/17] PART II
Continuation of thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=20192707
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I had the same issue this morning. It originally showed up as usual, then became a blank page (using Opera with VPN).
I opened Epic (with built in VPN) and the page loaded properly. Still doesn't work in Opera. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Any bets on which case will be decided first, roster or peruta?
Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
__________________
PM 4 Front Sight diamond "If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That's not to say roster WILL be decided, but that Peruta is almost certainly going to be denied now, whereas there's still a chance for the roster, as it hasn't made it that far yet.
__________________
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I was looking for a list of cases distributed for the conference meetings, but was unable to find it.
My guess is that they are working through the cases they have before the in terms of deciding if they are going to take them. We won't really know if they will put it on the calendar this year until a decision is posted, or the end of the term, whichever is first. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Chuck Michel on Facebook, yesterday (6/5):
Today there is STILL no SCOTUS decision on whether to take the Peruta case for review. Can't say for sure, but the odds are now that the Court will not take the case because there are not enough votes to take it (4) or to win it (5). The delay at this the point likely indicates that there is a dissent being written by the Justices who DO want to take the case. Even if this happens, we will keep trying, and have multiple cases already filed and lined up that will make their way to SCOTUS eventually. We need more Trump Justices on SCOTUS to make the difference and set things right. We hoped for the best, but planned for the worst. The good news: Trump will appoint them. Hillary would have rigged the deck.
__________________
------------------------- |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by stag6.8; 06-06-2017 at 6:24 AM.. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Well I'm thinking My Nichols theory is going to be correct. In the words of Jack Ryan: "How do you make them want to give you concealed carry?" "How do you make them want you to carry concealed instead of openly...!!!" "Admiral, I know how were going to get concealed carry".
If we win an open carry case, it will likely be pretty unrestricted. The CA Legislature will then rush through a very restrictive shall issue system in hopes that people choose that method of carry Vs open carry. In my opinion, we want Nichols, not Norman because Nichols deals with a "de facto" ban based on semantic word games. If SCOTUS takes Norman and we win, CA would just say Norman dealt with an all out ban. Here in CA we don't have an all out ban. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And they want people to send them more money so they can continue the streak? |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
That's pretty optimistic thinking... CA will be required to loosen gun restrictions, so they'll react by further relaxing even more gun restrictions?
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It seems unrealistic to expect that CA will try to discourage one form of legal carry by loosening restrictions on a different (and more useful, for most people) form of legal carry.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I do worry about may issue OC though, hopefully, a strongly worded opinion makes that disappear. We didn't get may issue on keeping arms after Heller, so maybe the same will hold on Norman or Nichols. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Since we are officially on to Part II, I will double down with my original prediction
Quote:
Last edited by MarCat; 06-06-2017 at 10:31 PM.. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Speculation from the head of NRAs CA legal team, arguably the foremost expert in CA firearms laws/litigation, carries more weight than "some guy on the interwebz" (no offense to Librarian), so I thought I'd pass it along as a public service
__________________
------------------------- |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
His "speculation" as to how to construct a lawsuit that would be successful appears to likely/quite possibly have been wrong. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The bet, in case you missed it, was $100 (donated to a charity of the winner's choice) that cert is granted and oral arguments are heard. Lorax is betting it won't happen, I'm betting that it will. Last I heard, he was still open to other people taking the bet.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
tag
__________________
Tolerate allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. I write almost everything in a jovial manner regardless of content . If that's not how you took it please try again |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
To be denied cert.
__________________
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I don't really think the term "what is true" can properly be applied to lawyers, litigation and the legal/court system.
But, yeah, next Monday we will find out what the lawyers/justices decided today about Peruta. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
I appreciate your more balanced post Mrrabbit, which includes the possibility of the courts screwing us out of nowhere and ignoring case law and history.
Much more complete post than what many others post here.
__________________
Last edited by lowimpactuser; 06-08-2017 at 4:25 PM.. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
I'm really tired of the waiting game, however I am cautiously optimistic, we do have the smarter lawyers and even more importantly, honesty and integrity.
The elite Progressives/socialist know that they are wrong, know they are prevaricating - poor working people have absolutely the same rights as the wealthy, they know this yet stall and deny. I believe honesty and integrity will prevail.
__________________
NRA Life Member |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"Hoping" could draw an Obstruction of Justice Charge if you're not careful. Just saying ......
__________________
Quote:
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
I've put that in a memo and promise not to leak it.
__________________
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|