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
  #441  
Old 09-28-2017, 9:51 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gryffinwings View Post
Another question that I need clarification on.

2nd amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Wouldn’t CCW and open carry be bearing of arms?
Hmmm, great point, I had never thought of it that way. We should finally have a discussion about that
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 09-28-2017, 10:32 AM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,798
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
The architects of the assault weapon bans ... are simply trying to fight the Culture War. And we can't win, not in California anyway because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you.
Crime rate per 100k people
General population: 3,817
Police officers: 108
Legal CCW: 18
Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 09-28-2017, 10:33 AM
gryffinwings gryffinwings is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 274
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Hmmm, great point, I had never thought of it that way. We should finally have a discussion about that
Honestly, there is historical precedent that points out that bearing arms includes carrying. I'll have to research what I've read about it to point it out, I'll likely do that this evening and post it.
__________________
I Hate Glocks, don't even bother recommending them to me...

Sig Sauer P226
CZ 75 SP-01
Yugoslavian M24/47

Active Duty US Navy Since 2003.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gryffinwings View Post
Fortunately I do not clean my firearms with pee
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 09-28-2017, 12:42 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,885
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Look at the Ginsburg dissent in Heller
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 09-28-2017, 3:28 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 149
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gryffinwings View Post
Honestly, there is historical precedent that points out that bearing arms includes carrying. I'll have to research what I've read about it to point it out, I'll likely do that this evening and post it.
I think you missed a certain amount of sarcasm in some responses. The subject has been discussed extensively here on Calguns (including in this thread), in popular press, law review articles, and court opinions. Look at the dissent from denial of cert on this very case just a few months back from Gorsuch and Thomas.

EDIT to add link to dissent: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf

Last edited by Cortelli; 09-28-2017 at 5:15 PM.. Reason: Edit to add link to Dissent on Denial of Cert
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 09-28-2017, 4:52 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,798
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Cortelli is correct.
The historical precedent you likely saw gryffinwings is in the Heller decision; keep and bear are both individually defined on pages 8-18.
The sarcasm/ribbing is because you're preaching to the choir, but you're correct in your interpretation of the Second Amendment.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
The architects of the assault weapon bans ... are simply trying to fight the Culture War. And we can't win, not in California anyway because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you.
Crime rate per 100k people
General population: 3,817
Police officers: 108
Legal CCW: 18

Last edited by naeco81; 09-28-2017 at 4:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 09-28-2017, 6:57 PM
gryffinwings gryffinwings is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 274
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by naeco81 View Post
Cortelli is correct.
The historical precedent you likely saw gryffinwings is in the Heller decision; keep and bear are both individually defined on pages 8-18.
The sarcasm/ribbing is because you're preaching to the choir, but you're correct in your interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Obviously I was preaching, but I was also making sure I wasn't going clinically insane due hearing and seeing so much insanity in this state since being stationed here.
__________________
I Hate Glocks, don't even bother recommending them to me...

Sig Sauer P226
CZ 75 SP-01
Yugoslavian M24/47

Active Duty US Navy Since 2003.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gryffinwings View Post
Fortunately I do not clean my firearms with pee
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 10-05-2017, 10:57 AM
rplusplus's Avatar
rplusplus rplusplus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baghdad West
Posts: 2,206
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gryffinwings View Post
Obviously I was preaching, but I was also making sure I wasn't going clinically insane due hearing and seeing so much insanity in this state since being stationed here.
If you are like the rest of us sane individuals it could well be easy to feel in bizarro world to think after 200+ years that people could misinterpret the shortest Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
__________________
US Navy Retired 1987-2007

Happy Days
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 10-05-2017, 10:41 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,798
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

So now that DC is eating the loss do we have any indication if Peruta is going to petition rehearing of certiorari denial? I think Nichols is the cleaner case, so I'd understand focus on that but curious if anyone from the legal team can comment on this.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
The architects of the assault weapon bans ... are simply trying to fight the Culture War. And we can't win, not in California anyway because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you.
Crime rate per 100k people
General population: 3,817
Police officers: 108
Legal CCW: 18
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 10-06-2017, 7:31 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,038
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

We can pretty much put a fork into this case, it's done.
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 10-06-2017, 8:53 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,674
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This case is done and there is nothing that can bring it back to life. The cycle ends at the Supreme Court with just one attempt. No second bite of the apple.

There are other cases coming up. Also, we can easily refile a case identical to Peruta. We can even use the same plaintiffs and exactly the same copy-paste language. It will get denied quickly due to Peruta and we'll have a fresh new loss at CA-9 to appeal to the Supreme Court.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 10-06-2017, 10:22 AM
numpty's Avatar
numpty numpty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,054
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
...we can easily refile a case identical to Peruta. We can even use the same plaintiffs and exactly the same copy-paste language. It will get denied quickly due to Peruta and we'll have a fresh new loss at CA-9 to appeal to the Supreme Court.
I didn't know this. It would be nice if RBG does what she promised and moves to New Zealand since Trump got elected, then replace her and do exactly this.
__________________
error 500

I owe FP something.
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 10-06-2017, 1:07 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,798
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
This case is done and there is nothing that can bring it back to life. The cycle ends at the Supreme Court with just one attempt. No second bite of the apple.
Peruta is most likely over, and Nichols v Brown is probably the case to watch for 9th circuit. I agree other cases are far more likely but your statement above is factually incorrect. Denial of certiorari normally means a case is completely dead, but in some rare cases a petition for rehearing on certiorari denial has been accepted; second bites at SCOTUS do exist.
From Bruhl, Aaron-Andrew P., "When Is Finality... Final? Rehearing and Resurrection in the Supreme Court" (2011):
Quote:
A second interesting feature of finality in the Supreme Court -and another point of entry for judicial discretion- is that a denial of certiorari might itself turn out not to be truly final. That is because the Court's rules allow a disappointed litigant to file a petition for rehearing of the denial of certiorari. Many litigants file petitions for rehearing, and it is usually a futile gesture. But it sometimes bears fruit. Perhaps the most notable recent grant of rehearing was the Court's decision, in June 2007, to grant certiorari on rehearing in two Guantanamo detainee cases after the Court had denied certiorari a few months before. — (Bruhl 3)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
The architects of the assault weapon bans ... are simply trying to fight the Culture War. And we can't win, not in California anyway because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you.
Crime rate per 100k people
General population: 3,817
Police officers: 108
Legal CCW: 18
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 8:56 PM.




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.