Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [CERT *DENIED* 6/26/17] PART II

[John Browning]

The silver lining is that Gorsuch clearly is the successor to Scalia. We could have easily had Merrick Garland. Gorsuch is going to be a friend to the Constitution, hopefully for many decades, and I see nothing but good things ahead.

We lost this one. There is still national CCW legislation that might restore our rights here in CA. There are hopefully a few more SCOTUS seats to appoint and President Trump has shown extremely sound judgment on that front. We have a wonderful new (and young) SC justice on the bench who isn't a fake conservative like Roberts, but the real deal. There is nothing stopping appointment of a judge like Hardiman (mentioned in the dissent) as long as the GOP keeps the majority in the senate, which it is likely to do until at least 2020. There is very little to feel down about.

While I'm disappointed, I'm still optimistic. Thank God for President Trump (and I do).

[sfpcservice]

The dissent clearly indicates to Me they have their eye on a different, possibly cleaner case. This isn't a defeat, it's pulling your overconfident enemy further into the kill zone.

An open carry win will be far more devastating to gun control.

[Epaphroditus]

Congress, executive and justices won't support and defend the constitution so that leaves ... ?

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

Next stop: Nichols. We will win, and the CA legislate will give us shall issue just to get us to hide our guns.

Nichols will be the pawn no one cared about until he makes it to the other side and gets promoted to a queen. Checkmate.

Win where?

In the Ninth? You really see them getting to a majority on any decision (or en banc should Nichols get a lucky three judge panel) that would further the ability of ordinary citizens to bear arms in public? Whence the optimism? {I'd suspect something along the lines of "Yes, open carry is the protected right, but it can be "regulated" to the point of a de facto ban"... they won't word it that way, of course... or maybe they will.]

Likely next up for SCOTUS will be Norman. They might decide that before Nichols even makes it through the Ninth process. Norman will likely be very telling at SCOTUS... if they deny cert... game over for California and Hawaii (In my lifetime anyway... barring any amazing transformation of the populous and their voting predilections).

[naeco81]

Grace > Nichols > Norman
imo

[splithoof]

I wonder what the immediate, practical effect this will have here in California; I can easily envision sheriffs, such as in Ventura county, who have only recently come to embrace CCW issuance to the common citizen, returning to the old ways with regard to issuance. That might mean that a large number of CCW permits are simply allowed to expire over time, or outright revoked.
I'm also sure that the sheriff of Los Angeles county is breathing a sigh of relief, as it continues to be business as usual. Same for the city of Los Angeles.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

The dissent clearly indicates to Me they have their eye on a different, possibly cleaner case. This isn't a defeat, it's pulling your overconfident enemy further into the kill zone.

An open carry win will be far more devastating to gun control.

The current court will not give us carry. The current court has gone as far as it will with gun rights. It's been seven years since a gun case was taken by SCOTUS. SCOTUS is hostile to 2A rights, and if that doesn't make it clear, I don't know what will.

[CZ man in LA]

Justice Thomas and Gorsuch dissent are good reads. Hopefully this awakens the Never Trumpers that Trump nominating Gorsuch was the best thing that could've happened to have a friend of the 2A in the bench.

[MajorCaliber]

I am sad beyond words this morning.

At least +3 for Thomas for:

"bear from the bedroom to the kitchen" for that truly is the only right I currently have in this state.

Clarifying that 2A is being treated as a second (or worse) class right.

"marbled halls"

All are distilled gems of truth and wisdom.

[Laurence927]

Disappointed, yet still trying to be hopeful for the future. Like many have said above, the dissents from Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch are definitely worth reading.

[Flyron]

Originally Posted by The Tiger

4 and four are the same number

Hard to believe that the nine SCOTUS justices can't discuss or decide on any issue before them, since they are to sworn to judge based upon the facts applied by law and not personal opinions or political views being such.

[jbolton]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

Congress, executive and justices won't support and defend the constitution so that leaves ... ?

Exactly what ran through my mind when I read about this.

[CandG]

I'm disappointed too (and out $100, by the sound of it), and this is one of those instances where I really wish my prediction had been correct.

That said, Peruta was not all for naught. While it didn't gain us a statewide shall-issue law, it helped us in other ways. It sparked a conversation that caused many CA counties to re-think their policies. In the time since the 3-judge panel ruled in our favor until now, my own county went from may-issue to virtual-shall-issue, largely because of the publicity of this case. My county has started treating CCW's as something they WANT good people to have, and go out of their way to help us attain one. It used to just be this thing that occasionally someone would apply for and occasionally they would approve.

I know of a few other counties that are the same way.

Hopefully Paladin can help me out here since he is the keeper of the CCW maps, but if anyone can find it, take a look at the CCW policies in CA in 2009 versus today. Then try to tell me again how Peruta was a waste of time.

[CandG]

Here is the 2017 map. California hasn't been this friendly to CCW in perhaps over a century.

No matter where you live in CA, you could move less than an hour away and get a permit.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by Epaphroditus

Congress, executive and justices won't support and defend the constitution so that leaves ... ?

Originally Posted by jbolton

Exactly what ran through my mind when I read about this.

Soap box, ballot box...

I guess one is forced to confront the question as to which laws one views as unlawful tyrannical violations of natural rights (aka "unconstitutional", and can make sound logical arguments for being so) are worth taking the risk of violating in the name of liberty/freedom/personal safety.

It's an ugly choice. But there it is. (I'm sure many, if not most or all the readers of this forum have already made that decision long before the Peruta denial of cert today).

[CalNRA]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Here is the 2017 map. California hasn't been this friendly to CCW in perhaps over a century.

For the life of me I am trying to figure out why Yolo and Imperial are dark red. Any insight?

[CandG]

Originally Posted by CalNRA

For the life of me I am trying to figure out why Yolo and Imperial are dark red. Any insight?

Anti-2a sheriffs.

In Yolo, in particular, it's purely because of the city of Davis (which is, for those who don't know, a liberal UC college town like Berkeley). The rest of the county is rural and largely pro-2a.

Yolo's sheriff is the "Prieto" in "Richards v. Prieto"

I have no idea about Imperial county.

[rbetts]

Deuchebag Sheriffs!

[digger2]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ts-appeal.html blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal.

[Coolguy101]

This is not unexpected. The courts have followed what social issues tend to be popular in culture, and is hesitant to go against the current trend. Think LGBTQ rights as an example.

They know that eventually guns will be banned, and they are hesitant to do anything that will absolutely prevent that from happening in the future. They regret Heller, so they are doing everything they can to make that decision irrelevant.

Wake up people - times are a changing, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. When the millenials take over, that will be the end of freedom as we know it.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by Flyron

Hard to believe that the nine SCOTUS justices can't discuss or decide on any issue before them, since they are to sworn to judge based upon the facts applied by law and not personal opinions or political views being such.

Oh, they decided. There is just a virulent case of oath amnesia afflicting them.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by The Tiger

4 and four are the same number

Misunderstanding - I was referring to why it doesn't make sense to push for the granting of cert if there is no majority to support the decision.

Indeed it takes only 4 (sic) justices to grant the cert, but it would be counterproductive if they pushed for the cert only to get a negative decision because Kennedy, in retaliation, decides to side with the leftists.

[CommieforniaResident]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

The dissent clearly indicates to Me they have their eye on a different, possibly cleaner case.

From the dissent: "We should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case."

[CandG]

Originally Posted by digger2

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ts-appeal.html Justices Thomas, Gorsuch blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal

fixed broken link

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by IVC

Indeed it takes only 4 (sic) justices to grant the cert, but it would be counterproductive if they pushed for the cert only to get a negative decision because Kennedy, in retaliation, decides to side with the leftists.

I think there is more than Kennedy at work. Roberts is probably squishy as well.

Anyhows, parlor games to the contrary, Kennedy is not displaying signs of an impending retirement (he hired his full complement of clerks for next term).

Net takeaway: 2A is a states rights issue. As in those states that want to be shall issue are free to do so and those states that won't issue are likewise free to do so.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by CommieforniaResident

From the dissent: "We should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case."

What case will be sufficiently compelling for cert to be granted?

IMO, SCotUS is done with 2A until Kennedy retires.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by Coolguy101

This is not unexpected. The courts have followed what social issues tend to be popular in culture, and is hesitant to go against the current trend. Think LGBTQ rights as an example.

They know that eventually guns will be banned, and they are hesitant to do anything that will absolutely prevent that from happening in the future. They regret Heller, so they are doing everything they can to make that decision irrelevant.

Wake up people - times are a changing, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. When the millenials take over, that will be the end of freedom as we know it.

You couldn't be further off.

The gun rights have been expanding for the past 30 or so years and everywhere except in the few holdout states the gun rights have never been better.

It's a matter of time before gun rights are forced on CA. There is nothing that will reverse the trend in around 40 states. Not only are they expanding their rights, but they have *state* constitutions that affirm such rights.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

I think there is more than Kennedy at work. Roberts is probably squishy as well.

Anyhows, parlor games to the contrary, Kennedy is not displaying signs of an impending retirement (he hired his full complement of clerks for next term).

Net takeaway: 2A is a states rights issue. As in those states that want to be shall issue are free to do so and those states that won't issue are likewise free to do so.

I think that one part of Thomas's/Gorsuch's dissent is that the states are NOT free to violate an enumerated Constitutionally-protected right. See: same sex marriage, abortion, racial segregation, etc.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

I think there is more than Kennedy at work. Roberts is probably squishy as well.

Possibly, but as a Chief Justice he has to keep certain appearances too. He hasn't shown any hostility towards 2A and I don't blame him for not joining dissents.

We will know soon enough, when Kennedy and/or Bader-Ginsburg are replaced.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by CZ man in LA

Justice Thomas and Gorsuch dissent are good reads. Hopefully this awakens the Never Trumpers that Trump nominating Gorsuch was the best thing that could've happened to have a friend of the 2A in the bench.

+1.

The election was about replacing Scalia and it worked wonderfully, especially with the Reid's short-sighted killing of the filibuster. As we discussed earlier, the *next* justice is where the real K/O punch comes from.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

I think that one part of Thomas's/Gorsuch's dissent is that the states are NOT free to violate an enumerated Constitutionally-protected right. See: same sex marriage, abortion, racial segregation, etc.

Except they weren't able to convince enough of their fellow justices of the circumstance. Kind of like one-handed clapping.

[John Browning]

Originally Posted by IVC

You couldn't be further off.

The gun rights have been expanding for the past 30 or so years and everywhere except in the few holdout states the gun rights have never been better.

It's a matter of time before gun rights are forced on CA. There is nothing that will reverse the trend in around 40 states. Not only are they expanding their rights, but they have *state* constitutions that affirm such rights.

Thank you for setting him straight.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by IVC

It's a matter of time before gun rights are forced on CA. There is nothing that will reverse the trend in around 40 states. Not only are they expanding their rights, but they have *state* constitutions that affirm such rights.

How? Absent a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, no national CCW legislation is going to clear the Senate.

[John Browning]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

How? Absent a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, no national CCW legislation is going to clear the Senate.

It will come by way of the Supreme Court. They'll overturn good cause and AW bans. Heller pretty much spells this out. We just don't have the justices to enforce those provisions on California...yet.

Think gay marriage. It will fall the same way. National CCW reciprocity will be first via legislation.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

How? Absent a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, no national CCW legislation is going to clear the Senate.

It will if it has a rider that also funds planned parenthood.

No liberal congressman would dare be seen voting against a bill that funds PP.

Unfortunately, likewise no conservative congressman would dare be seen authoring a bill that funds PP.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

It will if it has a rider that also funds planned parenthood

That is an interesting dilemma. Although I suspect that PP would come out and say defund us.

[splithoof]

At this point, what timeframe are we realistically looking at before another case that could help us comes up before SCOTUS?......I hear about other various cases, but where are they in the process, and how many years away are they?

[John Browning]

Originally Posted by splithoof

At this point, what timeframe are we realistically looking at before another case that could help us comes up before SCOTUS?......I hear about other various cases, but where are they in the process, and how many years away are they?

It's more about who is on the court. RBG (and probably Kennedy) needs to disappear from the court for it to move forward.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by John Browning

It will come by way of the Supreme Court. They'll overturn good cause and AW bans. Heller pretty much spells this out. We just don't have the justices to enforce those provisions on California...yet.

Think gay marriage. It will fall the same way. National CCW reciprocity will be first via legislation.

I wish I were as optimistic as you are. Right now, I am sweating the impending ban on Hi-Cap magazines. After that, the ammunition restrictions that kick in Jan 1, 2018.

I now know how an orphan feels.

[John Browning]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

I wish I were as optimistic as you are. Right now, I am sweating the impending ban on Hi-Cap magazines. After that, the ammunition restrictions that kick in Jan 1, 2018.

I now know how an orphan feels.

There is no reason to be anything other than optimistic. We're two justices away from eliminating every gun control provision the left can dream up in California.

National CCW will happen. Not for the benefit of us in CA, but for the people of Free America who don't like being disarmed by a patchwork of laws when they go to other states. It's BS that if you live in Vancouver, WA, you can't carry five minutes from your house in Portland. Gay marriage, and forcing states to recognize licenses issued in another state, pretty much paved the way for this. It might take awhile, but I bet we're carrying in CA prior to 2020.