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

[numpty]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Norman isn't a clean case because Florida has a shall-issue system, so the state can always use a flip of the Peruta logic: hey, you want to "bear" in Florida? No problem, get a permit! Norman isn't asking for the right to "bear" in some manner, it's asking for the right to bear in one particular manner.

As for Nichols case, that's actually the biggest danger to permanently losing our "bear" right. He's like someone with no medical training attempting to do a heart transplant. He knows he's going to kill the patient and he's doing it anyway. He may give final victory to Team Feinstein.

Well, this is concerning.

[mrrobot]

"The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf

[CASEC]

Originally Posted by jbolton

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

Men can neither bestow or rescind rights. Let your conscience be your guide.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Norman isn't a clean case because Florida has a shall-issue system, so the state can always use a flip of the Peruta logic: hey, you want to "bear" in Florida? No problem, get a permit! Norman isn't asking for the right to "bear" in some manner, it's asking for the right to bear in one particular manner.

Well, as I recall, the Norman plaintiffs have argued that the Florida courts have explicitly called out concealed carry in Florida as a privilege, not a right. So if concealed carry is a privilege according to the Florida courts, then what exactly is a right there?

That said, the FL legislature changed possession of the permit from an affirmative defense to a direct element of the crime (i.e., that lack of a permit is part of the crime, rather than possession of the permit being a mere "affirmative defense"), so that may have mooted the "privilege" argument insofar as the FL courts go. And, indeed, the appellate court there ruled, and the FL supreme court affirmed, that the FL concealed carry permit "shall issue" scheme is sufficient to satisfy the right to bear, and since it's the FL supreme court that affirmed such, that pretty much eliminates the "privilege" argument.

It'll be interesting to see what the petition for cert looks like. But with the current composition of the Supreme Court, it's a near certainty that the Court will deny cert to Norman, and really to all other 2A cases involving firearms.

It will take at least two Supreme Court nominations, with at least one of them being a replacement of a Democrat appointee and the other either being a replacement of a Democrat appointee or a replacement of Kennedy, before we see any real positive movement on the right to arms in the Supreme Court. Replacing Kennedy alone might be sufficient, but I think it's more likely than not, given decisions such as the ObamaCare case, that Roberts is also refusing to side with the right to arms.

[Citizen One]

Originally Posted by Steve1968LS2

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.”

God freaking damn it. This. Needs. To. Be. Repeated. Have they forgotten Scalise already? Or Animal Farm?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ly-congressmen

When it comes to gun control, no one is more hypocritical than liberal celebrities and politicians. While these people promote the end of gun rights for ordinary Americans, it’s often the case that they are protected in public and in their homes, by cadres of highly trained and armed bodyguards. They reap the benefits of the Second Amendment, while treating the rest of us like children who can’t be trusted with a gun.

[CandG]

I know it would be a huge stretch, and virtually unprecedented, but just for argument's sake, is this case permanently DEAD dead, or can SCOTUS theoretically still decide to hear the case later in the future?

Or was this a death-blow that ensures it can't possibly ever be heard, even in the extremely unlikely event that SCOTUS wanted to change their mind someday?

[Lex Talionis]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

It's worth mentioning that it IS legal (in CA at least, I'm not sure about elsewhere) to concealed carry without a permit if you feel (and can prove) your life is in immediate danger. ("immediate", as in, running away from someone who is trying to kill you.. not just a generalized feeling that someone is out to get you [in the eyes of the court, that's what restraining orders are for])

And the sad part of that of course is that the founding fathers understood that the rights in the 2nd Amendment did not require a specific articulable threat but rather the knowledge that an immediate means should be permitted to deal with both generalized threats as well as specific threats.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

I don't wish ill upon her, but I do wish she'd just freakin' retire already.

She never should have been appointed in the first place, she's the very definition of an activist judge.

I realize no judge is fully without bias, but justice appointments should ALWAYS be able to think rationally and put themselves in other people's shoes. Gorsuch, for example, is capable of rational thought. As is Thomas. She, however, is not. She will always rule one way and one way only, which is in favor of her personal feminist liberal beliefs.

Why don't you though? She's put my life in danger in circumstances that would have been alieviated by carrying a gun. That b!tch can suffer muscle wasting disease and loss of her bowel movements; she's nearly gotten me killed, I heartily wish her death if she will not retire (and given her vocal opposition to trump she won't) so death is the only way.

I wouldn't be opposed to "living constitution Breyer" having a "dead letter" condition crop up either.

These bastards are trying to get us killed. My sympathy is gone. Pursuant to Brandenburg v. Ohio, I'm not inciting imminent violence, so I'm good. I will heartily cheer the death of the tyrants in black robes that have led to my victimization. May they die soon and their legacy in this area rot faster than a beached whale in summer heat.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by Lex Talionis

And the sad part of that of course is that the founding fathers understood that the rights in the 2nd Amendment did not require a specific articulable threat but rather the knowledge that an immediate means should be permitted to deal with both generalized threats as well as specific threats.

And for the overall security of a free state (not just ourselves), we can't forget that part.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Norman isn't a clean case because Florida has a shall-issue system, so the state can always use a flip of the Peruta logic: hey, you want to "bear" in Florida? No problem, get a permit! Norman isn't asking for the right to "bear" in some manner, it's asking for the right to bear in one particular manner.

As for Nichols case, that's actually the biggest danger to permanently losing our "bear" right. He's like someone with no medical training attempting to do a heart transplant. He knows he's going to kill the patient and he's doing it anyway. He may give final victory to Team Feinstein.

Those three opinions are quite... strong.

I'd be curious to see a timeline over the past 8 years of your prescient assessments of the Peruta and (later) Richards legal teams and their strategies. Both of which today result in a TOTAL FAIL. Perhaps you can fill us in on your prior assessments. Were you saying all along that they were obviously destined to fail, and not only fail, but have a Circuit Court of Appeals clarify that there is no right to concealed carry? Or is that a "win by losing" strategy in your view?

I understand that you are predicting not just an F as the Peruta and Richards teams/strategies earned, but an F- for Nichols. Exactly what form(s) will the "victory to Team Feiinstein" take? Ban on ownership/possession of any firearm ("Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in."), or what, exactly?

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

I'd be curious to see a timeline over the past 8 years of your prescient assessments of the Peruta and (later) Richards legal teams and their strategies.

I don't try to assess the legal strategies of those groups. They are top legal teams. I can cheer them on and that's about all. Everyone here knew their chance of success wasn't high, due to the highly political nature of the question and the composition of the court.

Nichols isn't an attorney. He's a clown. He really is like a tree trimmer attempting to perform brain surgery. I don't need to know much about his legal arguments to know that he's going to find some way to fail. The courts look for any mistake, and a lone guy working part time who isn't even an attorney and is relying on GoFundMe is going to make many mistakes. Even if he were a brilliant attorney (which he is not), he would make fatal mistakes by working alone and part time and without institutional funding and support.

I'm not evaluating anyone's legal arguments. I'm evaluating the people who make the arguments.

[Discogodfather]

Bright side of this is that the much more important issue than protecting your life is access to wedding cakes. They agreed to hear that case, so finally we will know if it's legal for a Muslim baker to refuse to make me a bacon flavored 5 layer when I marry my dog.

Priorities gentlemen, if you thought protecting your life was more important in the highest crime areas in the State where carry is the only protection then you're being fools.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

Those three opinions are quite... strong.

I'd be curious to see a timeline over the past 8 years of your prescient assessments of the Peruta and (later) Richards legal teams and their strategies. Both of which today result in a TOTAL FAIL. Perhaps you can fill us in on your prior assessments. Were you saying all along that they were obviously destined to fail, and not only fail, but have a Circuit Court of Appeals clarify that there is no right to concealed carry? Or is that a "win by losing" strategy in your view?

I understand that you are predicting not just an F as the Peruta and Richards teams/strategies earned, but an F- for Nichols. Exactly what form(s) will the "victory to Team Feiinstein" take? Ban on ownership/possession of any firearm ("Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in."), or what, exactly?

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I don't try to assess the legal strategies of those groups. They are top legal teams. I can cheer them on and that's about all. Everyone here knew their chance of success wasn't high, due to the highly political nature of the question and the composition of the court.

So you never gave any thought at all the the actual legal arguments they were making, but only that somehow you assessed them as "top legal teams". That's very interesting.

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Everyone here knew their chance of success wasn't high, due to the highly political nature of the question and the composition of the court.

So doesn't that same caveat apply to Nichols? Or do you want to say that the TOTAL FAILURE of the "top legal teams" "due to the highly political nature of the question and the composition of the court" is qualitatively somehow different from your predicted failure of Nichols? They failed because of the question/court, but Nichols will fail because Nichols?

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Nichols isn't an attorney.

You've made one factual statement.

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

He's a clown. He really is like a tree trimmer attempting to perform brain surgery. I don't need to know much about his legal arguments to know that he's going to find some way to fail. The courts look for any mistake, and a lone guy working part time who isn't even an attorney and is relying on GoFundMe is going to make many mistakes. Even if he were a brilliant attorney (which he is not), he would make fatal mistakes by working alone and part time and without institutional funding and support.

That brings up back to the fact that the TOTAL FAIL of the teams that meet all your criteria for excellence, or whatever, failed for a reason, but you want to attribute that fail to something other than that which is identical to the conditions facing Nichols. Why the double standard?

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I'm not evaluating anyone's legal arguments. I'm evaluating the people who make the arguments.

And how did that evaluation of the people making the arguments in Peruta and Richards, by your very own standards, work out?

You fail to answer the question regarding your claim about Nichols resulting in a big win ("final victory") for Team Feinstein as some kind of apocalyptic event. Please give us your answer.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

So you never gave any thought at all the the actual legal arguments they were making, but only that somehow you assessed them as "top legal teams". That's very interesting.

I gave them as much thought as I could. I'm not an attorney. But it's not just the logic of the arguments that's important. It's all the procedural things that go into winning. Getting every detail right takes a team of excellent attorneys and staff. Nichols isn't a team, he isn't an attorney, and he isn't excellent.

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

Or do you want to say that the TOTAL FAILURE of the "top legal teams" "due to the highly political nature of the question and the composition of the court" is qualitatively somehow different from your predicted failure of Nichols? They failed because of the question/court, but Nichols will fail because Nichols?

Peruta wasn't a total failure in my opinion. A total failure would be cert accepted, and then the court finds that there is no right to bear arms, or that right is subject to rational basis scrutiny, or some other outcome like that that renders "bear" meaningless. That's total failure and that's the risk with Nichols. That would be the big win for Team Feinstein.

Loss in Peruta is disappointing but it doesn't destroy any upcoming court cases. We did gain some information from it, namely that there isn't a majority for us on the court and we need to change the composition to win.

[gumby]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I

Loss in Peruta is disappointing but it doesn't destroy any upcoming court cases. We did gain some information from it, namely that there isn't a majority for us on the court and we need to change the composition to win.

This ^^^^^^^^

[marcusrn]

Even though expecting this decision, it was like being punched in the stomach upon hearing it officially and reading Thomas decent.

I'm game rooster proud to have been co plaintive with Michelle Laxson, Dr. Leslie Buncher, Edward Peruta, James Dodd and also grateful to Adam Richards and Brett Steward of Prieto vs Richards.

Heartfelt thanks to all at NRA and to Chuck Michel @ Michel and Associates, Sean Brady, Paul Clement at Kirkland Ellis LLP. Thank you all CRPA, SAF, and Calguns supporters especially those who support with $.

In 2009 I went on Ed Perutas web site and listened to him try to get an application for CCW from the blue haired ladies at SD Sheriffs licensing division. Not only did he have the gall to question their illegal methods but he recorded the freaking encounter. They had never dealt with anyone like Ed Peruta, when this happens they usually bring out the sworn "investagators". It was laughable, but I knew the story too well and called Ed on the phone staight away. He told me there was only so much he could put up with and that he hired a local attorney to represent him. I thank this patriot from Connecticut for getting involved and encourge all to stay involved. I talked with him today and he feels reciprocity is strategically the next important step. He's on KOGO AM Radio SD at 1730 hours. Continue the movement and godspeed.
Mark S Cleary

[101st Airborne]

Originally Posted by Urban Achiever

Disappointing, but not unexpected. It is a good omen though that Gorsuch signed on to the dissent. Trump chose wisely with him. We've got three more potential vacancies coming up. I'm optimistic that it will work out for us in the long run.

Agreed.

Why bother to review this if the 50 state concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017 passes?

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by 101st Airborne

Agreed.

Why bother to review this if the 50 state concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017 passes?

Because it's not going to, and certainly not the Hudson/out of state license for residents.

So we're screwed for the foreseeable future minus a meteor hitting SCOTUS while they're in session.

Or the donor class announcing instead of tax cuts or Israel, their litmus test will be reciprocity for any candidates, right or left.

I think the odds of a meteor are better.

[mexicangunlover]

Charles Nichols called it a long time ago that this would be denied and now pray that his lawsuit prevails which is looking pretty good so far. Should have joined him instead of fighting him. My money is on Nichols now.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by mexicangunlover

Charles Nichols called it a long time ago that this would be denied and now pray that his lawsuit prevails which is looking pretty good so far. Should have joined him instead of fighting him. My money is on Nichols now.

Is there anywhere else to put money?

I guess baker or young?

[naeco81]

Grace & Wrenn are the most significant cases to watch in my opinion. I say this because they are explicitly mentioned in the California brief in opposition. Grace is similar to Peruta, perhaps cleaner.

Many of you are reading too much into the denial of cert IMO. The process of granting cert does not deal with the substance of the case itself. It deals more in subtle legal intricacy than anything else. The Supreme Court is not a court of error; it does not intervene simply to correct injustices and misapplications of the law. If you want to understand this better, read FindLaw's article on opposing certiorari.

From the article:

Another method of avoiding certiorari is to suggest that the Court's intervention would be untimely.

From the State of California brief in opposition of certiorari:

If the D.C. Circuit upholds the laws at issue in Grace and Wrenn, there will still be no conflict warranting this Court’s intervention. If that court addresses the overall public-carry issue and strikes down the laws, in conflict with the decisions of other courts, then its decision will provide a better vehicle for review than this one. In any event, until the D.C. Circuit has had a chance to reach a final result in Grace and Wrenn, further review of the present case would be at best premature.

Post Heller/McDonald the dance of anti-2A is restricted to technicalities. Though Peruta showed significant promise due to the 9th reversal by en banc, it is possible cert was denied because SCOTUS wants the lower courts to actually take up the larger question and issue a judgement on it first.

TLDR: I think Grace is the case to watch now.

[champu]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

I'm confused... Tribal gaming? I don't see anything in that bill that relates to concealed carry. Also that billed was signed into law by the governor already, so I don't understand why it would be introduced again.

Edit: Ok I did a little research and see what you meant now. It was formerly a bill to increase the standards for "good cause". The bill was basically defeated and then gutted and amended into something unrelated to guns, which was passed.

Yeah sorry, I was referring to the 29 June 2016 version of the bill that was trying to force restrictive good cause on all counties. There must have been a session variable or something defined because I closed the window and checked my link to make sure it linked directly to that version and it did at the time but does not any more for me either.

Edit: I went back and updated my link to hopefully point directly to the version of the bill I was talking about, I had to reverse-engineer a url. It was gutted and amended a couple times so the version compares aren't very useful.

[hossfol]

So basically my take on this is NO one may carry anything OPENLY, and only those who live in a gun-friendly jurisdiction may get a CCW. Otherwise the sheriff in an unfriendly jurisdiction (who's palm you haven't greased politically) can deny your Second Amendment right. So that basically that leaves you with two choices, move to a county who's sheriff respects the Second Amendment or vote out the sheriff who doesn't and we all know that probably won't happen! Guess we need to change the Pledge of Allegiance to read, "with liberty and justice for some, not ALL"...

[760practicalshooter]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ts-appeal.html

[Flyron]

We to find and support a 2nd amendment friendly candidate to defeat SD Sheriff Gore in 2018

[CandG]

Originally Posted by hossfol

So basically my take on this is NO one may carry anything OPENLY, and only those who live in a gun-friendly jurisdiction may get a CCW. Otherwise the sheriff in an unfriendly jurisdiction (who's palm you haven't greased politically) can deny your Second Amendment right. So that basically that leaves you with two choices, move to a county who's sheriff respects the Second Amendment or vote out the sheriff who doesn't and we all know that probably won't happen! Guess we need to change the Pledge of Allegiance to read, "with liberty and justice for some, not ALL"...

Don't be silly, you can still open carry in unincorporated areas where shooting isn't prohibited - that's almost not an infringed right at all

[naeco81]

Well, as long as there's no fences around...

[Aegis]

Can we just get on with a reciprocity law already?

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by Aegis

Can we just get on with a reciprocity law already?

No $$$ in it for sociopathic billionaires and their lackeys.

Unless we get OUR billionaire to bully pulpit over this, or a massive grassroots revolt, no dice.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by 101st Airborne

Agreed.

Why bother to review this if the 50 state concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017 passes?

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

Because it's not going to, and certainly not the Hudson/out of state license for residents.

So we're screwed for the foreseeable future minus a meteor hitting SCOTUS while they're in session.

Or the donor class announcing instead of tax cuts or Israel, their litmus test will be reciprocity for any candidates, right or left.

I think the odds of a meteor are better.

HR 38, Hudson's Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 currently is given a prognosis of 2% of passing into law. (House: no problem, or small problem; Senate: BIG problem). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr38#

Also even IF (a GIANT IF) the Hudson version with non-resident permits/licenses allowing for residents to carry in their home states were to somehow overcome the long odds and pass, it would very likely be litigated for many more years (even if "successful" at every level, which it wouldn't be) before anyone in Hawaii (currently 0 (zero) licenses statewide, 4 (four) in 17 (seventeen) years) would be allowed to carry a firearm in public, even if they lost at every level (assuming they were granted stays/injunctions, and being Hawaii and the Ninth, they would be). I'd guess likely the same for California.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think I'm right.

Hawaii has already argued in one of its amicus briefs that EVERYWHERE outside the home where the public may be is a "sensitive location" (as per schools and public buildings in Heller) and therefore public carry may be banned from those areas. EVERYWHERE. "Public safety" and all, you know.

[cire raeb]

We need Ginsburg and her fat girls to get abducted by aliens.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[marcusrn]

I was initially upset this morning to find my 8 yr old carry case kaput.
I asked my wife and girlfriend (same girl) to go out to breakfast to kind of drink coffee and vent my loss.

Before we left home I had a critical decision to make. Would I carry the age old classic S+W Airwieght Centenial or the S+W Shield 9mm? It probably took 2.5 seconds before I pocketed both.

I learned the hard way over 30 yrs ago that no Sheriff, deputy, cop, or politician is going to be there to protect me or mine. It's not their job. It is my job.

[robertkjjj]

It's simply infuriating that the SC simply refused to hear this case, considering how critical the case is, and how obviously it was a Constitutional case where their input and wisdom was clearly needed.

With the exception of pure laziness, I can think of no reason why they refused to hear it.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by robertkjjj

It's simply infuriating that the SC simply refused to hear this case, considering how critical the case is, and how obviously it was a Constitutional case where their input and wisdom was clearly needed.

With the exception of pure laziness, I can think of no reason why they refused to hear it.

That's why I was so confident they'd take the case, despite most others saying it was a lost cause. Nobody likes being wrong, but it hurts just a little more in this case when everyone's rights were lost. There were no winners here today.

[tophatjones]

I'm sardonically laughing at my naive, idealistic self from many years ago when Peruta won; who thought that just maybe, we were freemen living in the best damn country in the world. That ship has sailed. We are looking at two collective polictical ideologues locked in a desperate, no holds barred fist fight to claim the battered remains of what was once the greatest country in the world; the main victim being liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[IVC]

Originally Posted by robertkjjj

With the exception of pure laziness, I can think of no reason why they refused to hear it.

It's anything BUT laziness.

It's the core of the ideological battle at the Supreme Court. The "living constitution" types are all far left, so they would find an interpretation that would deny the right to carry no matter what the Constitution actually says.

It would be quite fun if Republicans started appointing "living constitution" types, but who are far right (the mirror image of RBG). Imagine the type of rulings we'd get if they invented protections for us that are not even in the Constitution.

[CASEC]

Originally Posted by marcusrn

I was initially upset this morning to find my 8 yr old carry case kaput.
I asked my wife and girlfriend (same girl) to go out to breakfast to kind of drink coffee and vent my loss.

Before we left home I had a critical decision to make. Would I carry the age old classic S+W Airwieght Centenial or the S+W Shield 9mm? It probably took 2.5 seconds before I pocketed both.

I learned the hard way over 30 yrs ago that no Sheriff, deputy, cop, or politician is going to be there to protect me or mine. It's not their job. It is my job.

This! Lived today just like yesterday. I may have my rights taken but I won't surrender them to a mostly toothless threat.

[Phiremin]

Originally Posted by robertkjjj

With the exception of pure laziness, I can think of no reason why they refused to hear :

As I said earlier, my best guess is that you have the 4 liberal judges who actually want to restrict gun rights and will only vote for cert if they have a majority.
You have 3 judges who want to expand gun rights and want to take a case (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch).
And you have 2 judges that don't want to expand gun rights, but probably would if they were forced to hear a case (Roberts, Kennedy). These two are probably why you have seen such frustration in the dissent from denials in recent cases.
So, that's 3 votes for cert. not enough.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by IVC

It's anything BUT laziness.

It's the core of the ideological battle at the Supreme Court. The "living constitution" types are all far left, so they would find an interpretation that would deny the right to carry no matter what the Constitution actually says.

It would be quite fun if Republicans started appointing "living constitution" types, but who are far right (the mirror image of RBG). Imagine the type of rulings we'd get if they invented protections for us that are not even in the Constitution.

Not fun. It's necessary. Fight fire with fire.
Lets get Ted Nugent appointed to the next opening-

No, Cody Wilson.
I'm past the point of caring. Now it's personal, and we need to hit back. Hard.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by IVC

It's the core of the ideological battle at the Supreme Court.

It's deeper than an ideological battle.

Originally Posted by IVC

It would be quite fun if Republicans started appointing "living constitution" types, but who are far right (the mirror image of RBG). Imagine the type of rulings we'd get if they invented protections for us that are not even in the Constitution.

I fully support this idea. There are no "originalists" on the left. They all believe it means whatever gives them what they want, which ultimately has to do with ending the white majority in the US, even more than it's about any real ideological beliefs. This same thing shows up in the immigration court fights, where they are now finding that immigration is a universal right and the 1A applies to non-resident aliens (but the 2A doesn't apply to resident citizens).

Let's get some "living document" extreme right conservatives on the court! Conservatives need to stop being so obsessed with process, and join the left at their level and start caring about outcome.