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
  #1  
Old 01-12-2015, 7:35 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up "For California gun-rights advocates, hope rests in U.S. Supreme Court"

Twenty-two groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the latest round of the Peruta case, and the Ninth Circuit set up a website for the press and public “due to the level of interest in this case.”

If the Supreme Court eventually rules that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a weapon for lawful self-defense outside the home, every state or local policy that regulates the exercise of that right will face tough legal scrutiny. It’s the job of the federal courts to enforce constitutional rights.

That’s the difference between rights and policies: Policies can be changed by elected officials under public pressure, but rights are a protection from elected officials and from public pressure.

Expect a firefight in the Senate confirmation hearings for the next Supreme Court nominee, and for all federal judges. That’s where the future of Second Amendment rights will be decided.


From:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opin...-susan-shelley
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-12-2015, 8:20 AM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: equestria
Posts: 6,882
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

am i the only one here who thinks the SCOTUS does not give a cr@p about gun rights? when was the last gun rights case they took? how many have the turned down...................
the courts are not going to restore our rights. and if by some miracle the courts actually go our way. 20 more laws will be past before the courts make ruling.

3 guaranteed ways for CA citizens to restore their 2A rights
1-move
2-get a job that exempts you
3-ignore unconstitutional laws
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739



burn the circus down cuz the world is full of clowns
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-12-2015, 8:28 AM
spamsucker spamsucker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 701
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

they're not going to take a case that isn't going to answer some fundamental question but they've got pressure as well to not answer any fundamental questions. Welcome to a locked up SCOTUS. Soon they'll be as effective and independent as congress.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-12-2015, 8:51 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
am i the only one here who thinks the SCOTUS does not give a cr@p about gun rights? when was the last gun rights case they took? how many have the turned down...................
the courts are not going to restore our rights. and if by some miracle the courts actually go our way. 20 more laws will be past before the courts make ruling.

3 guaranteed ways for CA citizens to restore their 2A rights
1-move
2-get a job that exempts you
3-ignore unconstitutional laws
No, you're not the only one. I've been on record in various threads as being skeptical of reliance on the judicial approach. I got briefly excited when Judge Legg ruled against Maryland in Woollard, but came back to earth quickly as the case went up the judicial food chain to denial of cert aka tacitly upheld by SCOTUS.

If I had to guess the future will look like the present ie that the judiciary will essentially defer to the states when it comes to regulating things like carry as long as there is a system in place to allow some form of carry irrespective of how high the bar is. That's why no issue in Illinois was overturned, while may issue in Maryland, New Jersey and New York was upheld.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-12-2015, 9:40 AM
rd2play rd2play is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 255
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Expect a firefight in the Senate confirmation hearings for the next Supreme Court nominee, and for all federal judges. That’s where the future of Second Amendment rights will be decided.
Many here ask "why vote, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats". Think again! Who do you think will be better for defending Second Amendment rights? Not perfect, but better? An R, or a D?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-12-2015, 9:50 AM
Hoshnasi's Avatar
Hoshnasi Hoshnasi is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,515
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
am i the only one here who thinks the SCOTUS does not give a cr@p about gun rights? when was the last gun rights case they took? how many have the turned down...................
the courts are not going to restore our rights. and if by some miracle the courts actually go our way. 20 more laws will be past before the courts make ruling.
Cmon, don't make me Google things!

Looks like 2010, McDonald V.Chicago...

On June 28, 2010, the Court in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) held that the Second Amendment was incorporated. This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[14] It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition. Four of the five Justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the fifth Justice, Clarence Thomas, voted to do so through the amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause.[207]
__________________
Come to Flavor Country...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kappy View Post
You don't like homosexuality, don't let some dude stick his tab A into your slot B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gecko45
But then again I think of the mayors nephew, his face distored with tears and terror, the GAP employees who asked for my autograph, and had to settle for a cover identity’s signature, the flashbangs, and their acrid scent, the small of napalm in the evening breeze, as I crouch behind a shopping cart in the parking lot,
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-12-2015, 2:07 PM
stag1500's Avatar
stag1500 stag1500 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 669
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
am i the only one here who thinks the SCOTUS does not give a cr@p about gun rights? when was the last gun rights case they took?
The Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, reassigned DC v. Palmer to Judge Frederick Scullin in order to finally get a decision in that case. And that ruling came out in our favor.
__________________
Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. -Ayn Rand
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-12-2015, 8:46 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamsucker View Post
they're not going to take a case that isn't going to answer some fundamental question but they've got pressure as well to not answer any fundamental questions. Welcome to a locked up SCOTUS. Soon they'll be as effective and independent as congress.
Aren't they already?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-12-2015, 8:55 PM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,938
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I cannot say I'm optimistic.
__________________
__________________________________________________ _____________

“When you're taking flak you know you're over the target”



Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-13-2015, 8:11 AM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,619
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

It is a mystery why the SCOTUS has not accepted another Second Amendment case for review since McDonald. A lot of interesting theories on why. There were a few cases which I thought would have been granted, but it was not meant to be. To be frank, at this juncture, I think hope is misplaced in the high court.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-13-2015, 9:43 AM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 312
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
It is a mystery why the SCOTUS has not accepted another Second Amendment case for review since McDonald. A lot of interesting theories on why. There were a few cases which I thought would have been granted, but it was not meant to be. To be frank, at this juncture, I think hope is misplaced in the high court.
Respectfully disagree. SCOTUS doesn't often run in front of the parade, desperately trying to lead public sentiment. I like to think of the Court not as the drum major but more like the fellow that sweeps up after the horses. That is where we now are with Richards and Palmer. It is now time to be hopeful.

But you've been right in these things more often than I.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-13-2015, 1:09 PM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,619
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
Respectfully disagree. SCOTUS doesn't often run in front of the parade, desperately trying to lead public sentiment. I like to think of the Court not as the drum major but more like the fellow that sweeps up after the horses. That is where we now are with Richards and Palmer. It is now time to be hopeful.

But you've been right in these things more often than I.
I'll give you that there should be more optimism about taking a carry case now, given the larger split among the circuits (more on that below). However based on the legal scholars I followed many believed SCOTUS should have reviewed Drake, or Woollard. We will never know why they did not.

Best theory as to why not, in a nutshell, I believe there may not be enough votes to win. If that was the case, and a case taken, a decision against carry would be a disaster.

As far as personal predictions go, I was only right once that I remember, and that was back in 2012.

I think we should take a look at the current circuit split with respect to carry, From Peruta:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144, 1173 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2014

Our opinion is not the first to address the question of whether the Second Amendment protects a responsible, law-abiding citizen's right to bear arms outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Indeed, we are the fifth circuit court to opine expressly on the issue, joining an existent circuit split.

Compare:
  • Moore, 702 F.3d at 936-42 (holding that "[a] right to bear arms ... implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home" and striking down the open-and-concealed-carry regulatory regime in Illinois because the state failed to justify "so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense"),
  • with Drake, 724 F.3d at 431-35 (recognizing that the right to bear arms may have some application outside the home, but concluding that New Jersey's "justifiable need" permitting requirement was a presumptively lawful longstanding regulation or, alternatively, that the New Jersey regulatory scheme survived intermediate scrutiny);
  • Woollard, 712 F.3d at 876, 879-82 (presuming that Second Amendment protections exist outside the home and upholding Maryland's regulatory scheme because it could not "substitute [a different] view[] for the considered judgment of the General Assembly," which "appropriate[ly] balance[d]" the interests involved), and
  • Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 89, 97-99 (proceeding on the "assumption" that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, but affording "substantial deference to the predictive judgments of [the legislature]" and thus upholding the gun regulations under intermediate scrutiny).

Our reading of the Second Amendment is akin to the Seventh Circuit's interpretation in Moore, 702 F.3d at 936-42,[20] and at odds with the approach of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits in Drake, 724 F.3d at 431-35, Woollard, 712 F.3d at 876, and Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 89, 97-99.
__________________


Last edited by Crom; 01-13-2015 at 1:14 PM.. Reason: updated Peruta cite
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-15-2015, 9:39 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 887
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
I'll give you that there should be more optimism about taking a carry case now, given the larger split among the circuits (more on that below). However based on the legal scholars I followed many believed SCOTUS should have reviewed Drake, or Woollard. We will never know why they did not.

Best theory as to why not, in a nutshell, I believe there may not be enough votes to win. If that was the case, and a case taken, a decision against carry would be a disaster.

As far as personal predictions go, I was only right once that I remember, and that was back in 2012.

I think we should take a look at the current circuit split with respect to carry, From Peruta:


Im not sure if it’s not enough votes to win after listening to a Ca superior court judge over cocktails recently. his opinion about what SCOTUS is doing or the courts are doing is they are looking at something or a case we aren’t watching closely a vehicle or case that is much more cut and dry and avoids the carry issue while addressing the irregularities in analysis..... be it jackson or a case of as applied by a sheriff vs challenging the statute... he made some interesting points about how it seemed the 7th was shifting the course of the courts then things reverted then the 9th came about with peruta all along he kept pointing out how many cases have been decided with courts stating they assume. the 6th recently chimed in and gave their take on how they would process a 2nd amend challenge but the 9th and 7th are the two to acknowledge without assumption and follow the historical analysis process laid out by SCOTUS everyone else rules on assumption that it might exist but they don’t want to examine that fact. he made clear that when courts avoid an issue instead of ruling on the issues SCOTUS might not take it up immediately but it is percolating and is also a hot topic amongst many black robes. his take was something will give soon but he suggested we are looking in the wrong direction. what that meant i was still a little baffled by.
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Last edited by ddestruel; 01-15-2015 at 9:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-16-2015, 8:58 AM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,117
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
His take was something will give soon but he suggested we are looking in the wrong direction.What that meant i was still a little baffled by.
He could be entirely right. The SCOTUS may not want to rule on any case that calls out a very narrow portion of 2A rights. They may be looking for a case that they can make a ruling that says, "Hey Circuit Judges, you are not doing what we said in Heller and McDonald, get with the program." Something like Jackson would be an excellent case for such a proclamation, as the case ignores something that the SCOTUS already ruled on.

I think we would all like to see Peruta be affirmed in its latest form by SCOTUS as well though, as it could be a very broad ruling that just affirms the right to self-defense outside the home. But maybe if Jackson is ruled correctly, the lower courts will stop blatantly ignoring the constitution and keep the SCOTUS out of it from now on.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-16-2015, 10:33 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,896
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
He could be entirely right. The SCOTUS may not want to rule on any case that calls out a very narrow portion of 2A rights. They may be looking for a case that they can make a ruling that says, "Hey Circuit Judges, you are not doing what we said in Heller and McDonald, get with the program." Something like Jackson would be an excellent case for such a proclamation, as the case ignores something that the SCOTUS already ruled on.

I think we would all like to see Peruta be affirmed in its latest form by SCOTUS as well though, as it could be a very broad ruling that just affirms the right to self-defense outside the home. But maybe if Jackson is ruled correctly, the lower courts will stop blatantly ignoring the constitution and keep the SCOTUS out of it from now on.
Jackson is very narrow and wouldn't, IMO, change the course of a recalcitrant judiciary one bit. Jackson is a softball, as KC puts it, that functions as a test to see if SCOTUS is going to stand firm or shrink from Heller and McDonald.

If SCOTUS ducks a blatant trigger lock infringement contra the clear holding in Heller, then it's going to be harder to imagine that they're going to stand firm on carrying in the clothing or in a pocket.

It may be in our favor to wait, however, as Tuesday, November 8, 2016 (actually January 20th, 2017) will be here before we know it. If only the non-Heller-four can hold on until then, we might avoid an undesirable presidential SCOTUS appointment.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 01-16-2015 at 5:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-02-2015, 6:30 PM
rlc2's Avatar
rlc2 rlc2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 462
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Is Richards that more clear cut case without the confusion of improper intervention

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Jackson is very narrow and wouldn't, IMO, change the course of a recalcitrant judiciary one bit. Jackson is a softball, as KC puts it, that functions as a test to see if SCOTUS is going to stand firm or shrink from Heller and McDonald.

If SCOTUS ducks a blatant trigger lock infringement contra the clear holding in Heller, then it's going to be harder to imagine that they're going to stand firm on carrying in the clothing or in a pocket.

It may be in our favor to wait, however, as Tuesday, November 8, 2016 (actually January 20th, 2017) will be here before we know it. If only the non-Heller-four can hold on until then, we might avoid an undesirable presidential SCOTUS appointment.
Let me see if I am following, in laymans terms the thinking your judge friend might have been inferring about SCOTUS thinking- and IANAL a lawyer, and I can barely follow the twists and turns of FRAP, and internal court process, but since IANAL that means no judge or justice is going to be offended by some newb anon forum poster, questioning politics, even committing the sin of mind reading the Supremes...

which is exactly the kind of speculating in the public forum that is just not done by lawyers, not if they are arguing in front of the bench appellate and above, right?

So, see if I am making sense here of the judge at the cocktail party - mind reading Scalia, and Kennedy -
given that Judge Kennedy 'manages' the 9th, administratively, at least- correct?

And per discussion on Calguns on a 2A case, just one back, there was a theory that SCOTUS didnt take it up, because the majority vote was not there.
And I believe it was Kennedy that was thought to be soft at that point, due to post Newtown concerns some suggested- correct?
But maybe it was because that case didnt speak to the strict-intermediate definitions that the cocktail party intel suggested, above,
and I believe it was Judge Kennedy was one of the proponents and adherents of that method, correct?

Now, given that SCOTUS sits back and waits for things to percolate, and that the 9th DC is the largest in the land, it seems entirely rational hat they would want to have a clear answer from the 9th, that is:

a. argued on the originalist school, that build on Heller and McDonald decision,
b. to speak to the missing link- carry outside the home.
c. AND speaks to strict-intermediate definitions, once and for all.
d. AND politely avoids the complete hash of procedure that Gore/Harris made of Peruta.

What SCOTUS wants is a clear decision with clear arguments, that they can rule on for carry outside the home...concealed or open is not an issue, nor should it be.
Judge Thomas or other judges might be sympathetic to the whine that Peruta plaintiffs challenge was a 'sneaky backdoor" end-around of the State's authority,
and even if not, Judge Thomas was also the fair executor of the en banc process, that thankless detailed job he did for many years, that Judge Kosinki had said he did fairly.

Then perhaps that would make Judge Thomas and Judge Kennedy the kind of legal minds who put great importance upon details and rules,
and it wouldn't surprise me if some judge of 27 in the 9th whispered to Prietos counsel, in a cocktail party, that they maybe they should get ready...

Then the 9th and SCOTUS move forward on the "intermediate scrutiny" standard precedent, along the "public safety" line, AND 2A rights outside the home, with no more politics or confusion factor in the 9th.

Then SCOTUS has its clear case, with originalist and historical scholarship building on the same Heller and McDonald thinking,
and
avoid the Gore counsel/CA AG mess they made in Peruta, while addressing the clear arguments that matter, as precedent.

Thomas and the liberal judges on the Richards en banc panel get to reverse if thats what they want, and it goes to SCOTUS, to get what they want, to put this 2A outside the home to bed one way or another for a few years...
__________________
Where there is unity there is always victory.
~ Publius Syrus

NRA Lifetime Member, SAF Lifetime Member

Last edited by rlc2; 02-02-2015 at 7:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-02-2015, 7:04 PM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 312
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thoughtful comments, ric2.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-03-2015, 10:58 AM
Lifeon2whls's Avatar
Lifeon2whls Lifeon2whls is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,751
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2play View Post
Many here ask "why vote, there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats". Think again! Who do you think will be better for defending Second Amendment rights? Not perfect, but better? An R, or a D?
You seem to be confused here. The politicians in office are all part of a mafia, the D and R simply represent which family you're voting for. Your vote doesn't matter because elections are bought and paid for. Would anything have changed if you didn't vote in the last election, no - hence your vote doesn't matter, unless there was some politician you voted for and it came down to a difference of a couple votes.

Also, these politicians are only interested in furthering THEIR agenda's, not ours. Plenty of R's have helped pass gun legislation and there are D's who have voted against it. If you'll recall, Reagan was influential in passing the Assault Weapons Ban and helping change the mind of one R in the process. http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczyn...ban#.siYN6J0Ax

Hence why my wife and I are planning on leaving this silly state and going somewhere they respect our civil rights.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-04-2015, 7:36 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,953
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag1500 View Post
The Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, reassigned DC v. Palmer to Judge Frederick Scullin in order to finally get a decision in that case. And that ruling came out in our favor.
If I was on the Supreme Court, I would want to double-slap DC and pick on the most obnoxious violator of 2nd Amendment rights ... but I repeat myself.

Second would be to B-slap the 9th Circuit simply because it feels so good.

Best!
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-04-2015, 7:57 AM
steadyrock's Avatar
steadyrock steadyrock is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 10,235
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Ok I'll admit, reading this kind of gave me a stiffy:

Quote:
I think we should take a look at the current circuit split with respect to carry, From Peruta:



[quote name=""Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144, 1173 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2014"]



Our opinion is not the first to address the question of whether the Second Amendment protects a responsible, law-abiding citizen's right to bear arms outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Indeed, we are the fifth circuit court to opine expressly on the issue, joining an existent circuit split.



Compare:



* [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10665754353092136977&hl=en&as_sd t=2006"]Moore, 702 F.3d at 936-42 (holding that " right to bear arms ... implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home" and striking down the open-and-concealed-carry regulatory regime in Illinois because the state failed to justify "so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense"),

* with [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15778041435731592301&hl=en&as_sd t=2006"]Drake, 724 F.3d at 431-35 (recognizing that the right to bear arms may have some application outside the home, but concluding that New Jersey's "justifiable need" permitting requirement was a presumptively lawful longstanding regulation or, alternatively, that the New Jersey regulatory scheme survived intermediate scrutiny)" post=

* [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15240532380408939329&hl=en&as_sd t=2006"]Woollard, 712 F.3d at 876, 879-82 (presuming that Second Amendment protections exist outside the home and upholding Maryland's regulatory scheme because it could not "substitute view for the considered judgment of the General Assembly," which "appropriate balance" the interests involved), and



* [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6595725860193302445&hl=en&as_sdt =2006"]Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 89, 97-99 (proceeding on the "assumption" that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, but affording "substantial deference to the predictive judgments of " and thus upholding the gun regulations under intermediate scrutiny).





Our reading of the Second Amendment is akin to the Seventh Circuit's interpretation in [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10665754353092136977&hl=en&as_sd t=2006"]Moore, 702 F.3d at 936-42, and at odds with the approach of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits in [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15778041435731592301&hl=en&as_sd t=2006"]Drake, 724 F.3d at 431-35, [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15240532380408939329&hl=en&as_sd t=2006"]Woollard, 712 F.3d at 876, and [URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6595725860193302445&hl=en&as_sdt =2006"]Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 89, 97-99.
__________________
Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-21-2015, 10:51 AM
Shanghai guy's Avatar
Shanghai guy Shanghai guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 弄堂
Posts: 562
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post

3 guaranteed ways for CA citizens to restore their 2A rights
1-move
2-get a job that exempts you
3-ignore unconstitutional laws
Summarized very concisely, can't add a thing.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-24-2015, 7:27 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Twenty-two groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the latest round of the Peruta case, and the Ninth Circuit set up a website for the press and public “due to the level of interest in this case.”

If the Supreme Court eventually rules that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a weapon for lawful self-defense outside the home, every state or local policy that regulates the exercise of that right will face tough legal scrutiny. It’s the job of the federal courts to enforce constitutional rights.

That’s the difference between rights and policies: Policies can be changed by elected officials under public pressure, but rights are a protection from elected officials and from public pressure.

Expect a firefight in the Senate confirmation hearings for the next Supreme Court nominee, and for all federal judges. That’s where the future of Second Amendment rights will be decided.


From:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opin...-susan-shelley

She's right. Our hope, our ONLY hope is in the Federal Courts. Given the way things are going, it is not a great hope. But they're all we got.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-25-2015, 5:37 AM
edfardos edfardos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
She's right. Our hope, our ONLY hope is in the Federal Courts. Given the way things are going, it is not a great hope. But they're all we got.


The Raisuli
I reject that notion. We have each other. When tyranny becomes law resistance becomes duty.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-25-2015, 7:13 AM
zonzin's Avatar
zonzin zonzin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free state of Idaho!!
Posts: 860
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
am i the only one here who thinks the SCOTUS does not give a cr@p about gun rights? when was the last gun rights case they took? how many have the turned down...................
the courts are not going to restore our rights. and if by some miracle the courts actually go our way. 20 more laws will be past before the courts make ruling.

3 guaranteed ways for CA citizens to restore their 2A rights
1-move
2-get a job that exempts you
3-ignore unconstitutional laws
I chose 1-move.



.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ - Go Greek. Lifetime member Kappa Kappa Bang (KKB) Fraternity
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-25-2015, 7:13 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 16,462
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I have little faith in a court that cannot understand the constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-25-2015, 9:42 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edfardos View Post
I reject that notion. We have each other. When tyranny becomes law resistance becomes duty.

I should have been more clear.

Our only LEGAL hope is in the Federal Courts.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-25-2015, 10:15 AM
SWalt's Avatar
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,332
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
am i the only one here who thinks the SCOTUS does not give a cr@p about gun rights? when was the last gun rights case they took? how many have the turned down...................
the courts are not going to restore our rights. and if by some miracle the courts actually go our way. 20 more laws will be past before the courts make ruling.

3 guaranteed ways for CA citizens to restore their 2A rights
1-move
2-get a job that exempts you
3-ignore unconstitutional laws
You missed........

4-Press Congress to write landmark Civil Rights legislation enshrining 2A as the law of the land.


Take a page from the left and do not stop pushing until its accomplished. We should be doing this despite the current POTUS or Congress. Unless it gives the SCOTUS a reason to think "the people are exercising their right and remedy and we should keep our hands off for now".
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-25-2015, 12:36 PM
PaperPuncher PaperPuncher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 999
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Hope rests in the hands of a citizenry motivated to do what it takes to protect their rights, not a tiny group of people selected for their willingness to toe the line for whoever nominated them. But by all means, lets run it by the Supreme Court first and/or last.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-25-2015, 12:44 PM
The War Wagon's Avatar
The War Wagon The War Wagon is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: da' 'BURGH
Posts: 10,294
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Exclamation

Quote:
"For California gun-rights advocates, hope rests in U.S. Supreme Court"
... and a 5 - 4 vote!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-27-2015, 11:00 PM
woods's Avatar
woods woods is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 477
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

For California gun-rights advocates, hope rests in the liberals getting busted for their wild corruption and racketeering.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-07-2015, 8:08 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reno,NV
Posts: 2,027
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

time takes time, we are winning
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-17-2015, 9:23 AM
Dr.Lou's Avatar
Dr.Lou Dr.Lou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 775
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zonzin View Post
I chose 1-move.

Me too! was just waiting for retirement...
__________________

NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-18-2015, 1:33 AM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 305
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Jackson is very narrow and wouldn't, IMO, change the course of a recalcitrant judiciary one bit. Jackson is a softball, as KC puts it, that functions as a test to see if SCOTUS is going to stand firm or shrink from Heller and McDonald.
At this point I think all the 2nd Amendment cases that are working their way through the system are less about the particular right that is being infringed, and more about the "two-prong test" (AKA the Post-Heller Two-Step), that anti-2nd Amendment judges are currently using across the US to find all gun related restrictions, except those explicitly called out in Heller/McDonald, constitutional. Here is an example of how it works from the recent Sunnyvale ruling.

First, the judge explains the "test".

Quote:
To evaluate post-Heller Second Amendment claims, the Ninth Circuit, consistent with the majority of our sister circuits, employs a two-prong test: (1) the court “asks whether the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment”; and (2) if so, what level of scrutiny should be applied.
Then the judge finds that the trigger lock requirement/magazine ban/safe handgun list/whatever "burdens conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment".

Quote:
The district court applied the appropriate legal principles and did not clearly err in finding, based on the record before it, that a regulation restricting possession of certain types of magazines burdens conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment.
Then the judge pretends to consider the level of scrutiny required when reviewing the law. To do this, they will classify the conduct being burdened as either part of "the core Second Amendment right", or outside the "core" right.

Quote:
The district court correctly recognized that to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny, the court must consider (1) how closely the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right; and (2) how severely, if at all, the law burdens that right. Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1138. Intermediate scrutiny is appropriate if the regulation at issue does not implicate the core Second Amendment right or does not place a substantial burden on that right.
If you think you are going to win, just because the law you are challenging burdens the "core" right, guess again.

Quote:
Here, the district court similarly concluded that Measure C likely reaches the core Second Amendment right, but its resulting impact on that right is not severe.
It turns out that a home handgun ban is the only type of law capable of creating a "severe burden" on the core Second Amendment right. Every other type of restriction will immediately get reviewed using intermediate scrutiny and upheld.

Quote:
Measure C is simply not as sweeping as the complete handgun ban at issue in Heller and does not warrant a finding that it cannot survive constitutional scrutiny of any level. Indeed, Measure C does not affect the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess the “quintessential self-defense weapon”—the handgun...For these reasons, there was no abuse of discretion in finding that the impact Measure C may have on the core Second Amendment right is not severe and that intermediate scrutiny is warranted.
Jackson has the ability to "change the course of a recalcitrant judiciary", but only if the SCOTUS issues a strong rebuke of the Post-Heller Two-Step in its ruling. If they were just to reaffirm that you don't have to keep your gun locked up while you are at home, it would be a nice victory, but the lower courts would gleefully continue giving the SCOTUS the middle finger. In fact, they would probably see it as a reaffirmation that their two-pronged test is the correct one.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-18-2015, 4:09 AM
wjackcooper wjackcooper is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

pistol3,

Post #116:

Excellent job, thanks for posting!

Regards
Jack
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-18-2015, 11:48 AM
bountyhunter bountyhunter is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,423
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
If the Supreme Court eventually rules that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a weapon for lawful self-defense outside the home, every state or local policy that regulates the exercise of that right will face tough legal scrutiny. It’s the job of the federal courts to enforce constitutional rights.
The justice department decides what they want to enforce. In some cases, the states simply ignore federal law (like the marijuana law) and the feds do nothing. Under Clinton, Reno and her thugs kicked in some doors to "make a point" that marijuana was illegal, but now nobody cares anymore.

A carry ruling by the SCOTUS would be nice, but california will just ignore it.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-18-2015, 12:42 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,151
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bountyhunter View Post
The justice department decides what they want to enforce. In some cases, the states simply ignore federal law (like the marijuana law) and the feds do nothing. Under Clinton, Reno and her thugs kicked in some doors to "make a point" that marijuana was illegal, but now nobody cares anymore.

A carry ruling by the SCOTUS would be nice, but california will just ignore it.
You're talking about the wrong branch of government.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-18-2015, 1:51 PM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,117
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
You're talking about the wrong branch of government.

-Brandon
Unfortunately I believe he's right, if you are thinking that the US Marshal service will arrest individuals the court deems are in contempt for their actions.

Quote:
The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is a U.S. federal law enforcement agency within the U.S. Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 561). The office of U.S. Marshals is the oldest American federal law enforcement agency.[4] The U.S. Marshals office was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Marshals Service is part of the executive branch of government, and is the enforcement arm of the U.S. federal courts. The U.S. Marshals are the primary agency for fugitive operations, responsible for prisoner transport, the protection of officers of the court, and for the effective operation of the judiciary. The Marshals service runs the Witness Protection Program, and serves federal arrest warrants.[5]
This is a hard one to decide. They are specifically tasked with enforcing the federal courts, but they are part of the DOJ.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.
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 10:00 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy