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
  #41  
Old 08-20-2018, 8:07 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The AG and sheriff have waived responses to the petition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
That is still my primary position, and I think your tin foil hat is a little too tight.
Do you still think so? Did the AG waive responses because they think this case isn't worth responding to, or because they're hoping it gets cert? The AG absolutely is aware of the active nature of this area of litigation and of the composition of the court.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-20-2018, 5:52 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Do you still think so? Did the AG waive responses because they think this case isn't worth responding to, or because they're hoping it gets cert? The AG absolutely is aware of the active nature of this area of litigation and of the composition of the court.
Do I still think your tin-foil hat is a little tight? Yes. Again, not saying you're crazy, wildly off base, nothing like that. Remember I agree that if the antis know a carry case is coming they will take this one. Just saying it's a bit tight on this one imo, remember your breathing exercises, don't get too excited yet, that kinda thing.

Mainly because nothing important has changed. The antis still don't know if the other Justices are going to grant cert to a carry case, or how Roberts will vote, and there's an excellent chance no carry case gets cert, so perhaps the entire issue can be avoided for years and years, and if Trump loses the next election, maybe Hitlery or Bernie or Ocasio-Whatever will put in a bunch of socialists to help them out if carry ever does come to SCOTUS.

Anyways, not opposing cert is the right play here.

First, it minimizes the appearance of the case -- the AG is not fighting it tooth and nail at every step, so how worried can he be? If he's not worried, maybe this case is weak, or is a waste of our time. That's minor, probably non-influential, but it's better than attracting more attention to the case. The AG wants this case to die, he doesn't know how Roberts will vote any more than RBG, and he doesn't want to risk losing, so if cert is denied, he wins. All the odds are on his side, why attract attention to this case by stirring up a fuss?

Even if he did oppose, does he really have anything important and specific about this case why SCOTUS shouldn't take this case, or would his opposition just be the generic, "This case isn't worthy of SCOTUS' busy schedule blah blah blah" ? So yeah, better to treat this case like a red-headed stepchild, ignore it, and hope it goes away.

Second, it costs him nothing. You're probably thinking, "He didn't oppose cert, he surrendered a chance at attacking his opponents!" but that's simply not the case. SCOTUS pretty much always asks the opposition to reply if they're thinking about granting cert, so he'll get his chance later, IF there's really a chance SCOTUS is seriously considering cert for this case.

Third, there's some science on how to enhance chances of getting cert, but I haven't seen any on how to help reduce chances SCOTUS will grant cert (other than by being a really stupid case, which gets to be a blurry line at some point and the AG can't effect that anyways), so AFAIK, there's no guidance, only "lore". Since there's no firm ground to stand on, it's not a good place to make a stand, right?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-20-2018, 8:02 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Doing my breathing exercises! In one. Hold one. Out two. In one. Hold one. Out two...

IANAL and really I don't know how these things go. I guess it's easy to get frightened, as an outsider, when I see a guy who is obviously incompetent and who is trying to get in a position where his actions might help determine the future of "bear" for the entire USA. Also when I see how outcome-oriented the other side is, it makes me worry about all the ways they might think of to get to that outcome. Our side, alas, is process oriented. I keep on wishing we would get some outcome-oriented "living document" conservatives in the courts.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-20-2018, 9:03 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,668
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

If it's a bad case I seriously doubt the conservatives will vote to hear the case. I can't see Thomas and Gorsuch wanting to hear this.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-21-2018, 9:13 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
If it's a bad case I seriously doubt the conservatives will vote to hear the case. I can't see Thomas and Gorsuch wanting to hear this.
Well, that was the point CCWFacts was making -- the antis will choose it precisely because it is not as well-presented a case as some other options, given that they believe a carry case is inevitable.

And since there are 4 antis, they can grant cert without cooperation from the "conservatives".

But there are a number of reasons why that's unlikely, including the fact that such an act would require a level of cooperation between the 4 antis that might never before have been seen on SCOTUS. I don't know of any modern Justices who have admitted to talking about cases together outside of conference, and this would require quite a bit of interaction / planning, hence the tin foil hat being a bit tight. Impossible? Of course not, but realistic? I dunno.

Keep in mind any of these Justices could have made a fortune in law. Roberts was making over a million a year and gave it up, took a huge pay cut to get a seat on SCOTUS. These people are there for the power / glory / prestige / whatever. So they'll do anything to stay on the court, and getting caught colluding to affect an outcome would get them impeached right off the Court, and Trump would then have seated 6 Justices, all young, with decades ahead of them, not needing a single vote from any outsider to decide any case before them. Heck, they don't even need each other, just 5 of the 6 Trump would have seated, so you can imagine how the political and legal landscape of this nation would change for the next century, given stare decisis.

That's their worst nightmare, so you tell me if you believe they'd risk it all just for a case where they don't even have 5 votes! Nobody knows how Roberts will vote, he signed on to Heller so you know he's not a total anti, and they're going to risk their careers and the political future of America just to have a slim chance at improving their odds of winning a carry case?

Don't pass the giggle test
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-22-2018, 4:11 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the post on that. Yup, tinfoil hat removed now. As I said, IANAL and I didn't have that understanding of it. Cool. Then I'm not worried, and Gorski's case is going to be denied cert.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-22-2018, 4:24 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Then I'm not worried, and Gorski's case is going to be denied cert.
Probably, but we don't know for sure. It's just extremely unlikely the antis are strategizing about it in secret meetings, so if it does get cert, it would be a normal, spontaneous, unlikely thing, as opposed to a calculated, manipulative thing.

Don't need to trash the tin foil hat, just make sure it fits properly
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-22-2018, 6:30 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 572
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Do you still think so? Did the AG waive responses because they think this case isn't worth responding to, or because they're hoping it gets cert? The AG absolutely is aware of the active nature of this area of litigation and of the composition of the court.
California has three options when it comes to responding to Gorski's petition:
1) Waive the right to respond
2) Agree that the issue merits review;
3) Oppose the petition.

http://www.scotusblog.com/reference/...urt-procedure/

If California was committed to the idea that Gorski's case was the best way for California to finally resolve whether the right to bear arms extends outside the home, it could have responded to the petition and advised the Court that California agrees that Gorski's case should be reviewed by the Court. California did not do this. That pretty much addresses your concern. If California - one of the largest states in the union - requested review of the right to bear arms, the likelihood the Court would grant cert would be significantly increased.

It is quite possible (likely even) the AG determined that it was not worth the resources to respond to Gorski's petition.

Moreover, in cases where the respondent does not file an opposition and where the Court is interested in granting cert, the Court can and sometimes does request a response from the respondent. As such, the AG probably has concluded: (1) California does not want SCOTUS taking any right to bear arms case from California; (2) opposing Gorski's petition will increase the profile of Gorski's petition and actually make it more likely the Court will grant cert; (3) the Court will ask for a response if it is interested in granting cert.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-01-2018, 4:40 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Rothery was distributed for the September 24th conference, but 2 days later a response was requested by SCOTUS, due October 1st. So this will NOT be at the Sept 24th conference, more likely late October at the earliest.

This does show *some* interest by the court, although it's a low bar. I don't recall SCOTUS NOT requesting a response in any non-pro se 2A petitions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-121.html
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-28-2018, 4:21 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,388
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Rothery was distributed for the September 24th conference, but 2 days later a response was requested by SCOTUS, due October 1st. So this will NOT be at the Sept 24th conference, more likely late October at the earliest.

This does show *some* interest by the court, although it's a low bar. I don't recall SCOTUS NOT requesting a response in any non-pro se 2A petitions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-121.html
Hopefully Kavanaugh will be on the Court by then.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-29-2018, 4:31 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Hopefully Kavanaugh will be on the Court by then.
I don't think that'll matter. If there's interest to take it, they can re-list until Kavanaugh is seated.
I actually hope they don't take it. Instead the NJ case would be better IMO, and it should be filing for cert very soon.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-10-2018, 2:32 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Briefings have been completed, just have to wait for a conference date. This case just has too many issues (Rothery already has a CCW, for one).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18-121.html
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-17-2018, 2:08 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/2/2018.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-17-2018, 2:53 PM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It means that the case is now being examined (or literally, the packet for the case is being passed out to the offices of the justices) by the SCOTUS so they can decide to take it or decline it or wait for the next conference to review it instead.

It means we will know pretty soon whether they will take the case or not.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-05-2018, 7:31 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,053
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

18-121 ROTHERY, JAMES, ET AL. V. BLANAS, LOU, ET AL. Denied

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...18zor_o759.pdf


This case is dead. The next one up is Rogers out of New Jersey

I really think they will take Rogers and or Gould.

Last edited by wolfwood; 11-05-2018 at 8:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-05-2018, 8:21 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,388
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A bullet dodged???

I'm not sure if I should or

Either way, "Next!"
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-05-2018, 8:22 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,388
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
The next one up is Rogers out of New Jersey

I really think they will take Rogers and or Gould.
Roughly when do you think that will be?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-05-2018, 8:33 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,053
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Roughly when do you think that will be?
3-4 months roughly. The cert petition has not been filed yet.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-05-2018, 9:33 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
18-121 ROTHERY, JAMES, ET AL. V. BLANAS, LOU, ET AL. Denied

This case is dead. The next one up is Rogers out of New Jersey
A victory for our side. The absolute last thing we want is a "hero" like Gorski to have any involvement in anything that touches our gun rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I really think they will take Rogers and or Gould.
Good!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
A bullet dodged???
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I'm not sure if I should or
Absolute it's:

Someone like Gorski will find a way to lose, no matter what.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-05-2018, 9:39 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,053
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
A victory for our side. The absolute last thing we want is a "hero" like Gorski to have any involvement in anything that touches our gun rights.



Good!



Yes.



Absolute it's:

Someone like Gorski will find a way to lose, no matter what.

You are in luck then. The next two cases are NRA backed cases litigated by Kirk Cooper which is one of the top law firms in the nation. I suspect but don't know that Paul Clement will take over if either case goes to SCOTUS.
I am behind those cases because I highly doubt the NRA will be seeking en banc review in either of those cases so the next step is a direct appeal to SCOTUS. Whereas my case needs to have at least a en banc vote.
Remember the Ninth Circuit takes much longer to do anything than the other Circuits.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-05-2018, 11:07 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,388
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
know that Paul Clement will take over if either case goes to SCOTUS.
I am behind those cases because I highly doubt the NRA will be seeking en banc review in either of those cases so the next step is a direct appeal to SCOTUS. Whereas my case needs to have at least a en banc vote.
Remember the Ninth Circuit takes much longer to do anything than the other Circuits.
Doesn't SCOTUS prefer cases having tried to go thru rehearing or en banc before taking them, to get the maximum number of AC judges' opinions on a case possible? (I'm no fed appeals ct practice expert.)
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 11-05-2018 at 11:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-05-2018, 12:02 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,053
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Doesn't SCOTUS prefer cases having tried to go thru rehearing or en banc before taking them, to get the maximum number of AC judges' opinions on a case possible? (I'm no fed appeals ct practice expert.)
It does not matter. It just seems like it matters because the type of cases SCOTUS takes are also the type of cases that are likely to go en banc.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-05-2018, 2:04 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 12,907
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Not much in the media yet, but I found this:

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news...n-restrictions
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-05-2018, 2:47 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Doesn't SCOTUS prefer cases having tried to go thru rehearing or en banc before taking them, to get the maximum number of AC judges' opinions on a case possible? (I'm no fed appeals ct practice expert.)
Not sure if there are any stats on that.

In this case it doesn't matter. Rogers is a do-over in the 3rd Circuit which already ruled and denied en banc in the original case (Drake). So nothing to be gained by asking for en banc.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-05-2018, 2:50 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Roughly when do you think that will be?
Rogers will need to file for cert or an extension by the end of December.

I'm a little disappointed they haven't filed early to maximize their chance of being heard and decided this term. The result was a foregone conclusion.

That said I almost NEVER see lawyers file anything early.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-05-2018, 3:07 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,108
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
That said I almost NEVER see lawyers file anything early.
Hire one and watch for invoices...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-05-2018, 4:23 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,839
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Hire one and watch for invoices...
It's both. Hire one and watch for invoices and yet the briefs to the court will be filed at the very last possible minute.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-05-2018, 7:19 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,664
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post
It's both. Hire one and watch for invoices and yet the briefs to the court will be filed at the very last possible minute.
I think that may be strategic; it gives the opposition the least amount of time to craft a reply.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-06-2018, 4:30 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
I think that may be strategic; it gives the opposition the least amount of time to craft a reply.
They just ask for more time anyway and always get it.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-07-2018, 11:56 AM
riderr riderr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,850
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Looks like Kennedy's replacement didn't change a bit...
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-07-2018, 1:02 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,951
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
Looks like Kennedy's replacement didn't change a bit...
No change was required or called for.

Heller v. DC, Peruta and 600+ years of case precendent, colonial precendent and English tradition:

Concealed is not the right and may be prohibited.

Kavanaugh acknowledged this as well during his Senate hearing questioning.

=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
  #72  
Old 11-07-2018, 2:41 PM
riderr riderr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,850
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
No change was required or called for.

Heller v. DC, Peruta and 600+ years of case precendent, colonial precendent and English tradition:

Concealed is not the right and may be prohibited.

Kavanaugh acknowledged this as well during his Senate hearing questioning.

=8-|
It's an old discussion, but concealed is not a right, only if open carry is not banned. Nevertheless, so far SCOTUS with Kavanaugh is no better than SCOTUS with Kennedy for 2A
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-07-2018, 2:56 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,664
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
It's an old discussion, but concealed is not a right, only if open carry is not banned. Nevertheless, so far SCOTUS with Kavanaugh is no better than SCOTUS with Kennedy for 2A
Kavanaugh was sworn in October 6. He began SCOTUS business October 9.

Exactly how much difference might one new justice have in less than a month?
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-07-2018, 3:13 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,951
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
It's an old discussion, but concealed is not a right, only if open carry is not banned. Nevertheless, so far SCOTUS with Kavanaugh is no better than SCOTUS with Kennedy for 2A
Stop listening to what various groups TELL you what Heller v. DC says...

Instead, read Heller v. DC YOURSELF:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

=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
  #75  
Old 11-07-2018, 3:15 PM
riderr riderr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,850
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Kavanaugh was sworn in October 6. He began SCOTUS business October 9.

Exactly how much difference might one new justice have in less than a month?
The rumors were saying Kennedy's stance was the reason SCOTUS didn't take any 2A cases lately. Kennedy has been replaced with pro-2A Kavanaugh, then the first 2A case goes the same route. Probably, rumors were not very accurate or full.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-07-2018, 3:19 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,690
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Exactly how much difference might one new justice have in less than a month?
A huge difference! Look at how many forum posts and tweets have happened during that time. Billions of tweets! If there's time for billions of tweets, there should be time for him to get the court to grant cert, hear arguments, and issue some rulings for us.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-07-2018, 6:36 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,951
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
The rumors were saying Kennedy's stance was the reason SCOTUS didn't take any 2A cases lately. Kennedy has been replaced with pro-2A Kavanaugh, then the first 2A case goes the same route. Probably, rumors were not very accurate or full.
Rumors from those with an agenda are simply agendas in action.

If the agenda is, "SCOTUS got it wrong in Heller v. DC that concealed carry can be prohibited" . . .

OR

"CA9 got it wrong in Peruta that concealed carry is not the right . . ."


and you take the agenda pushers word for it . . .

Then of course you are going to be misinformed, mislead, and upset.


Those who have actually read Heller v. DC, and the cited precedents in Heller AND who actually listened in on the Senate's question period for Kavanaugh knew exactly what we were getting.

A new justice who recognized that he was bound by Heller v. DC and long standing precedent that OC is protected and that CCW can be prohibited.

Kavanaugh said it himself during the hearings....


Don't try to blame "rumor". YOU are at fault for not informing yourself by reading the actual cases.

=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
  #78  
Old 11-08-2018, 12:08 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,379
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
The rumors were saying Kennedy's stance was the reason SCOTUS didn't take any 2A cases lately. Kennedy has been replaced with pro-2A Kavanaugh, then the first 2A case goes the same route. Probably, rumors were not very accurate or full.
As I've said, this case had issues. SCOTUS needs clean cases.
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 12:23 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.