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
  #161  
Old 10-02-2017, 7:57 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,004
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Hey Javier - we all know your "motivation" - and it AINT public safety
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 10-05-2017, 12:59 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Now since D.C. is done (no appeal to SCOTUS)and now there is a circuit split..and the Flanagan case was made AFTER open carry was banned...unlike peruta...any comments on how the 9th circuit will decide this?...Fabio gets goosed...paladin..k c brown...wolfwood?
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 10-05-2017, 1:49 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 391
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wrenn, at least in terms of CCW, is not at issue in this case, since the trial court (correctly) concluded, at the time that he issued his ruling, that his hands on concealed carry were tied by the Peruta decision. Therefore, that question is not before the court on this msj. On top of that, he is not going to revisit his prior ruling now and go against an explicit ruling in his own circuit, although the split of authority technically (but not practically for political reasons) would allow him to do so.

The one and only proposition for which Wrenn is citeable here is that there is a Constitutional right to bear arms outside the home, an issue not encompassed by Peruta, or, as I vaguely recall, any other circuit court of appeal decision (all having merely assumed that such a right exists). I believe that this trial court is thus bound by that portion of the decision in the absence of contrary authority.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 10-08-2017, 10:38 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag6.8 View Post
Now since D.C. is done (no appeal to SCOTUS)and now there is a circuit split..and the Flanagan case was made AFTER open carry was banned...unlike peruta...any comments on how the 9th circuit will decide this?...Fabio gets goosed...paladin..k c brown...wolfwood?
I won't be watching this case until it gets to CA9.

FWIW, until Jan, I'll just be watching Norman (for cert) and national reciprocity.

From Jan to July, I'll just be watching Norman (if granted cert), Nichols, national reciprocity and a few CA sheriffs' races (Sac, Sonoma, OC and SD).

Haven't decided re. beyond July. ETA: Flanagan will probably be here.

I'll let someone else do a state ConCarry thread this year.

I may post "high fives" for Pena or Kolbe wins (hopefully). Dittos with a "swing" or Leftist SCOTUS justice "leaving" the Court.

I won't be posting much otherwise. Even on those topics I won't be posting much.

That's my current expectation.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 10-08-2017 at 2:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 01-29-2018, 5:09 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I won't be watching this case until it gets to CA9.

FWIW, until Jan, I'll just be watching Norman (for cert) and national reciprocity.

From Jan to July, I'll just be watching Norman (if granted cert), Nichols, national reciprocity and a few CA sheriffs' races (Sac, Sonoma, OC and SD).

Haven't decided re. beyond July. ETA: Flanagan will probably be here.
Since the date of the trial decision determines the deadline for appeal, and since the date of the trial is related to the date of the decision...

Is the Flanagan trial still set for Feb 6th at 9:00am, one week from now? Do they video and post them?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 02-05-2018, 7:52 AM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Since the date of the trial decision determines the deadline for appeal, and since the date of the trial is related to the date of the decision...

Is the Flanagan trial still set for Feb 6th at 9:00am, one week from now? Do they video and post them?
Since this is tommorrow, anybody has info. on this?
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 02-05-2018, 1:12 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 611
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

No, all trial deadlines were vacated pending ruling on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 02-05-2018, 5:15 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
No, all trial deadlines were vacated pending ruling on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment.
In layman's terms what does summary judgment means...and what follows afterwards?
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 02-05-2018, 7:10 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 30
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When a party to a lawsuit files a motion for summary judgment, they are saying that no trial is needed because:

1. There is no dispute as to any material fact at issue in the case - in other words - everyone essentially agrees to the facts or if there is a dispute, it is a meaningless dispute.

2. Based on the undisputed facts, the case can be decided by the judge without a jury by applying the law to the undisputed facts.

So - say you call your broker Monday and tell him to sell a stock. The broker waits until Wednesday to sell the stock. The stock drops in value by 50% on Tuesday. The call is recorded so there is really no dispute as what was said. You may file a motion for summary judgement saying his failure to sell the stock on Monday entitles you to damages. He may file a cross-motion for summary judgment saying that he was entitled to two days to execute the sale. The only real dispute is what does the law say in relation to these facts and under the law, is the broker liable.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 02-06-2018, 8:40 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,697
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunuser17 View Post
When a party to a lawsuit files a motion for summary judgment, they are saying that no trial is needed because:...
Thanks for the explanation. It seems like that would apply in most gun rights cases, right? It's all based on documents that are pretty clear. The only question is, are the statute and policy consistent with the meaning of the 2A, right?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 02-06-2018, 10:32 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,004
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Except of course, in the 9th Circuit the 2A is not recognized as the fundamental, enumerated individual right that Heller said it as and MacDonald applied against the States.

So yes - theoretically, CA's laws are such obvious infringements that they ought to be immediately struck down or enjoined. The mag ban is a good example (as well as the previous ammo ban that was also in Federal Court IIRC). Others like Peruta (discretionary CCW issuance) were overturned as errant by a 3-judge panel (we got the win) only to have the 9CA take the unprecedented to overturn them en banc.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 02-06-2018, 2:44 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

will this case be filed and heard before the 9th circuit...after...summary judgement issues, etc. has been resolved?...is it going forward?
Im sure im not the only person who would like more information.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 02-06-2018, 3:06 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,004
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This case was filed in the 9th Circuit. So yes, assuming the losing side at the District Court level chooses to appeal on summary judgement, and/or if the case goes to trial, and that the Appeals Court agrees to hear the appeal (if any).
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 02-09-2018, 2:48 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 611
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Wrong case. This (Flanagan) is about right to carry.

You are thinking about the Wiese case, I believe.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 02-10-2018, 1:59 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
BREAKING: CRPA FILES NRA SUPPORTED LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CALIFORNIA’S BAN ON PUBLICLY CARRYING FIREARMS

-- See also the Michel & Associates case page here. --
So it looks like the filings ended in mid Nov: 3 months ago, 3 months down. So give it another 6 months for a decision and that brings us to mid Aug 2018.

Assume looser appeals to CA9. The process to a 3-judge panel decision there we'll guess takes ~1.5 years (quick is my guess), bringing us to ~Feb 2020.

Whether that goes en banc or not is anyone's guess.

After that, SCOTUS!

Sound about right?

ETA: Or do you think the trial court judge will sit on Flanagan until CA9 decides Nichols so that the judge can then use it and Peruta to make their decision?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-10-2018 at 6:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 02-10-2018, 10:42 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yep

Your Grandkids will see some light
__________________
One life don't blow it!
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 05-01-2018, 4:39 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

anything new with this case?
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 05-08-2018, 1:09 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Court just ruled against Flanagan I am on my phone and can not link to order
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 05-08-2018, 1:32 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,384
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

The orders are on the Michel & Assoc page linked in the first post.
__________________
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
  #180  
Old 05-08-2018, 3:19 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 464
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Is it safe to presume the next stop is the 9th Circus?
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 05-08-2018, 7:38 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,697
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Court just ruled against Flanagan I am on my phone and can not link to order
This was fully expected right? This has to be won at the 9th circuit level or at SCOTUS. Trump and the Judiciary Committee need to hurry up and get us some judges in the 9th.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 05-08-2018, 11:06 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
This was fully expected right? This has to be won at the 9th circuit level or at SCOTUS. Trump and the Judiciary Committee need to hurry up and get us some judges in the 9th.

Yes but the Court did not even try to justify the outcome. It is a pretty outrageous opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 05-08-2018, 12:05 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 464
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Yes but the Court did not even try to justify the outcome.
I thought they did. They insisted you only have a right to defend yourself in your "hearth and home", citing Heller
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 05-08-2018, 12:45 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
I thought they did. They insisted you only have a right to defend yourself in your "hearth and home", citing Heller
Fair point but that statement conflicts with every other court that has ruled on this issue. Even NY and NJ issues on occasion. As a trial court it is pretty outlandish to say all the court of appeals are wrong. None of the trial court's cites to other court's really support his holding.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 05-08-2018, 1:44 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,697
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

When do we know who is on the panel? It's pretty obvious that the outcome at the 9th is a political question, not a legal question, and if we get lucky like with the Peruta panel we might have a good result.

I wish we could pressure our GOP to hurry up and confirm some judges.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 05-08-2018, 1:45 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
When do we know who is on the panel? It's pretty obvious that the outcome at the 9th is a political question, not a legal question, and if we get lucky like with the Peruta panel we might have a good result.

I wish we could pressure our GOP to hurry up and confirm some judges.
In a couple years unless the Young panel decides this issue in a way that is definitive for Falnegan's and then the case will be decided quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 05-08-2018, 2:01 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,697
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
In a couple years unless the Young panel decides this issue in a way that is definitive for Falnegan's and then the case will be decided quickly.
Ok got it. Young v. Hawaii deals with open carry and has already been heard by the 9th in February of this year and this case will be stuck behind it. That's ok for us, right? I guess we'll find out about Young v. Hawaii's outcome at the 9th sometime this year? And the Young panel is great for us, so we could get a good result from that. In fact, if Trump would hurry up with getting us some judges, we could get a balanced court and the other side won't risk an en banc, just like they didn't want to chance it in the DC case.

That means there's hope, this year!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 05-08-2018, 2:55 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,344
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Yes but the Court did not even try to justify the outcome. It is a pretty outrageous opinion.
The judge is talking out of both sides. He says the right is confined to the home but even if the right applies outside the home you can still defend yourself in your home

Fortunately this is a District judge, and I believe Young will take care of this, although it's noted that the Flanagan plaintiffs wanted CCW, not open carry.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 05-15-2018, 4:54 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,045
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

it will be interesting on how the 9th circuit will try to bring up open carry..since open carry has been banned...which hurt the peruta case..they cant use that anymore..
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 05-15-2018, 5:40 PM
FatCity67's Avatar
FatCity67 FatCity67 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,008
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Can we just move to over throwing the government and lining up all the judges now. I keed I keed. Sort of.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 05-16-2018, 4:30 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,609
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
I thought they did. They insisted you only have a right to defend yourself in your "hearth and home", citing Heller
And once again, Scalia’s ruling comes back to haunt us. He did far more for the antis than he did for the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 05-16-2018, 9:48 AM
adam6955 adam6955 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 542
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

You could not possibly be that stupid. First, it was not "Scalias ruling" it was the Supreme courts ruling, with Scalia writing the primary opinion.

Second, that single ruling cemented the civilians right to bear arms in the USA. Without that ruling, the definition of "a well trained militia" would have left us with a country where only the National Guard, Cops and Military had guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
And once again, Scalia’s ruling comes back to haunt us. He did far more for the antis than he did for the 2nd Amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 05-16-2018, 9:50 AM
desert dog's Avatar
desert dog desert dog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 756
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Trump and the Judiciary Committee need to hurry up and get us some judges in the 9th.
Trump is....but anti-2nd amendment!!!!!!! Don't get your hopes up.

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1440238
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 05-16-2018, 10:26 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,609
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adam6955 View Post
You could not possibly be that stupid. First, it was not "Scalias ruling" it was the Supreme courts ruling, with Scalia writing the primary opinion.

Second, that single ruling cemented the civilians right to bear arms in the USA. Without that ruling, the definition of "a well trained militia" would have left us with a country where only the National Guard, Cops and Military had guns.
Yes, I meant opinion, not ruling.

Either way, the only parts of his Heller opinion that have had any long term effect are the statements regarding the 2nd Amendment not being unlimited, and subject to reasonable regulations, and the part where he said the 2nd Amendment primarily applies to defending hearth and home.

Those two statements have given anti gun judges all the wiggle room they need to shut down lawsuits trying to overturn these laws.

Heller has done nothing to improve our 2A rights, in California or federally. We are losing ground, still.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:02 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 204
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thats actually not accurate, given the ownership bans that have been overturned in other states, Heller has done quite a bit. You cannot blame the ruling, which was clearly set up for future rulings to clarify things, when those future rulings do not materialize. You CAN blame the current court for that.

You are also acting like only Scalia's input was used for the opinion. You should be thinking the opposite... the opinion authored was the most allowed by the other, weak justices to get their vote; assuredly Kennedy / Roberts. Every opinion is a compromise between 5 justices.

You are also acting as if things would be the same or better if Heller had never happened, which is also not accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Yes, I meant opinion, not ruling.

Either way, the only parts of his Heller opinion that have had any long term effect are the statements regarding the 2nd Amendment not being unlimited, and subject to reasonable regulations, and the part where he said the 2nd Amendment primarily applies to defending hearth and home.

Those two statements have given anti gun judges all the wiggle room they need to shut down lawsuits trying to overturn these laws.

Heller has done nothing to improve our 2A rights, in California or federally. We are losing ground, still.

Last edited by mit31; 05-16-2018 at 11:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:13 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Yes, I meant opinion, not ruling.

Either way, the only parts of his Heller opinion that have had any long term effect are the statements regarding the 2nd Amendment not being unlimited, and subject to reasonable regulations, and the part where he said the 2nd Amendment primarily applies to defending hearth and home.

Those two statements have given anti gun judges all the wiggle room they need to shut down lawsuits trying to overturn these laws.

Heller has done nothing to improve our 2A rights, in California or federally. We are losing ground, still.
Off the top of my head here are some 2a wins post Heller COurts have overturned
Wisconsin overturned its switchblade ban on 2a grounds
Connecticut overturned its restrictions on dirk and baton transport
Baton Rouge overturned its law banning transport of firearms to any place or parking lot that sells alcohol.
Chicago had its ban on firearms overturned
Chicago later had its ban on firing ranges overturned
Federal government has had its ban on felons in possession overturned as applied to persons in Pennsylvania and one fellow in Illinois
D.C. has had 4 registration laws overturned.
D.C. has had its may issue law overturned.
Illinois has had its carry ban overturned.
Saipan has had its bans on carry, handguns and AW overturned
Chicago had its complete ban on gun stores overturned
Hawaii has had its ban on resident aliens owning firearms overturned
Mass has had its ban on resident aliens owning firearms overturned
Illinois had its ban on carrying firearms within 1000 feet of a park overturned
National Corps of Engineers has had its ban on carrying in its parkland overturned
Nevada had its ban on keeping firearms in tents overturned
New Jersey has had its ban on stun guns overturned
Same with New Orleans, several cities in Maryland and D.C.

Is that everything we want? Of course not. But its better than nothing
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 05-16-2018, 1:22 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,779
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Yes, I meant opinion, not ruling.

Either way, the only parts of his Heller opinion that have had any long term effect are the statements regarding the 2nd Amendment not being unlimited, and subject to reasonable regulations, and the part where he said the 2nd Amendment primarily applies to defending hearth and home.

Those two statements have given anti gun judges all the wiggle room they need to shut down lawsuits trying to overturn these laws.

Heller has done nothing to improve our 2A rights, in California or federally. We are losing ground, still.

Uh no. I don't even know where to begin but it seems like the other posters are making the point I'd like to make. Heller hasn't done us a *ton* of good but it has set the bare minimum at an individual right to own firearms. Prior to that states could interpret the 2a to mean a "collective right".

Where do you think CA would be right now without Heller? My guess is you wouldn't be able to own handguns. Best case scenario you'd be passing psyche tests and special training just to buy a gun.


Also someone correct me if I am wrong, but the lower courts blatant disregard for Heller and current judicial activism is unprecedented. I don't know of any time where the courts have behaved the way they are now. Scalia's words in SCOTUS's decision are very clear if they are read honestly, and none of it justifies assault weapon bans or complete bans on carry. Some of the best legal minds in the country took a few sentences out of a 64 page opinion to push a political agenda.

Quote:
Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a
case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting
upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future
judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional
guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with
the scope they were understood to have when the people
adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes)
even future judges think that scope too broad. We would
not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition
of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
See
National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43
(1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the
freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified,
which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure
of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely
unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second
Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very
product of an interest-balancing by the people—which
JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And
whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely
elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding,
responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and
home.

The lower courts have decided to follow the dissenting opinion rather than the majority opinion. I don't know how much clearer SCOTUS could have been with the question that was posed to them.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 05-16-2018, 2:27 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Off the top of my head here are some 2a wins post Heller COurts have overturned
<snip>

Is that everything we want? Of course not. But its better than nothing
Unfortunately, almost 10 years after winning a RKA (Heller) that was incorporated against the state govts as well as the federal 8 years ago (McDonald), SCOTUS still hasn't declared a RBA or strict scrutiny as the standard of review for 2nd A cases. IOW, our constitutional legal foundation hasn't been laid.

How long ago was the 2nd A ratified?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 05-24-2018, 3:17 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Flanagan is officially over in the lower court. The court entered judgement for the state and awarded the State costs.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 99-Final-Judgment-Flanagan-v.-Harris.pdf (99.0 KB, 30 views)
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 05-24-2018, 4:37 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,344
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I really didn't get the gist of this case. It was supposedly open carry but they were asking for CCW permits as relief?
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 2:51 AM.




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.