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
  #401  
Old 06-29-2017, 12:35 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,118
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You're right, we should all just bravely give up like you did.

We'll NEVER stop fighting for our RKBA in CA...

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 06-29-2017, 2:00 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,683
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Good article from CRPA echoing some of what's discussed in this thread:
http://crpa.org/supreme-court-refuse...ght-carry-far/
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch View Post
The architects of the assault weapon bans ... are simply trying to fight the Culture War. And we can't win, not in California anyway because you guys, the ones with the most to lose, refuse to do what you need to do to win the Culture Wars, which is to make Calguns and the gun rights community a truly big tent and stop driving people away simply because they are different from you.
Crime rate per 100k people
General population: 3,817
Police officers: 108
Legal CCW: 18
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 06-29-2017, 3:14 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Eastern Ventura County
Posts: 2,643
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

He's right.

Like the idea of OC? Willing to comply or go featureless on your AR build?

HERESY says CalGuns loudly! You're a fool! Turn in your guns you anti-2A POS! You are the problem!
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015


Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 06-29-2017, 3:34 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,118
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by desert dog View Post
My worst fear:

* Grace will get denied like Peruta did (very likely outcome).

* Norman is years away from reaching SCOTUS. (likely)
Could you be confusing Norman (an Open Carry case from the FL Supreme Court that is ready to ask cert right now), with Nichols (an Open Carry case that is ready for oral arguments before a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit)?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 07-01-2017, 9:16 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,495
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Birdt filed an OC case? I don't think so .
You are correct, I edited my post - I was thinking about Nichols' cases when responding, not Birdt's.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 07-17-2017, 11:15 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wonder if there will be any "off the record" discussion of Gorsuch's signing on to (SCOTUS's Clarence) Thomas' blistering dissent in the Peruta denial of cert? Or if Gorsuch might ask "So, now that you've disposed of concealed carry, what are you guys going to do about open carry in Nichols and Young?"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/go...rticle/2628827

Gorsuch to take Kennedy's seat at 9th Circuit Judicial Conference

"We want to thank Justice Gorsuch for so graciously agreeing to participate in our conference, particularly on such short notice," said 9th Circuit Chief Judge Sidney Thomas in a statement. "Justice Kennedy and his wife, Mary, will be missed, and all of us send them our best wishes."
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 07-17-2017, 1:14 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,161
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
I wonder if there will be any "off the record" discussion of Gorsuch's signing on to (SCOTUS's Clarence) Thomas' blistering dissent in the Peruta denial of cert? Or if Gorsuch might ask "So, now that you've disposed of concealed carry, what are you guys going to do about open carry in Nichols and Young?"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/go...rticle/2628827

Gorsuch to take Kennedy's seat at 9th Circuit Judicial Conference

"We want to thank Justice Gorsuch for so graciously agreeing to participate in our conference, particularly on such short notice," said 9th Circuit Chief Judge Sidney Thomas in a statement. "Justice Kennedy and his wife, Mary, will be missed, and all of us send them our best wishes."
I doubt we'll ever know about that conversation, and if we do it'll likely be years from now. SCOTUS doesn't leak, unlike the rest of the government.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 07-25-2017, 9:11 AM
Big Ben's Avatar
Big Ben Big Ben is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 711
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Grace vs DC and Wrenn vs DC just came out with a huge win against "good cause" requirements. See the discussion here.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1237372

The decision explicitly calls out Peruta:


Quote:
We do not agree with the Ninth Circuit that a ban on concealed carry can be assessed in isolation from the rest of a jurisdiction’s gun regulations. As we’ve noted, text and history and precedent urge that the Second Amendment requires governments to leave responsible citizens ample means for self-defense at home and outside. So a regulation’s validity may turn partly on whether surrounding laws leave ample options for keeping and carrying.
We'll see what the En Banc process yields ...
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 07-25-2017, 10:29 AM
spike90049's Avatar
spike90049 spike90049 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 118
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ben View Post
Grace vs DC and Wrenn vs DC just came out with a huge win against "good cause" requirements. See the discussion here.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1237372

The decision explicitly calls out Peruta:




We'll see what the En Banc process yields ...
So I guess out here in the land of the 9th Circus what we hope for here is Wrenn reaches the SCOTUS and is upheld?
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 07-25-2017, 12:02 PM
Big Ben's Avatar
Big Ben Big Ben is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 711
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spike90049 View Post
So I guess out here in the land of the 9th Circus what we hope for here is Wrenn reaches the SCOTUS and is upheld?
There's still a ways to go, and various implications.

Option 1: DC requests En Banc, and the decision gets overturned, ala Peruta. Like we did in Peruta, DC get screwed, and nothing changes.

Option 2: En Banc is denied or the decision is upheld En Banc and DC opts not to appeal to SCOTUS, or decision makes it through En Banc and SCOTUS doesn't take the case. All result in the end of "may issue" in DC only. However, it would also create a direct Circuit split between Wrenn and Peruta, which increase the chances of SCOTUS taking this case, or another similar case in the future.

Option 3: SCOTUS takes the case and affirms the ruling. "May Issue" CCW issuance is dead across the country, and California and other "May Issue" jurisdictions scramble to modify their policies to limit CCW in other ways.

Option 4: SCOTUS takes the case and overturns the ruling. "May Issue" CCW is essentially declared constitutional, and everyone within an anti-gun jurisdiction is out of luck with regard to CCW. Worst case scenario, and results in the "open carry" cases that are currently working through the system becoming the last ditch option for "bear."

Other potential outcomes, and nuances within each, but that's the big picture as I see it. While I love the logic and reasoning of this decision, I fear that Wrenn is just Peruta 2.0 - a great circuit court decision that gets killed en banc. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 07-25-2017, 12:44 PM
spike90049's Avatar
spike90049 spike90049 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 118
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ben View Post
There's still a ways to go, and various implications.

Option 1: DC requests En Banc, and the decision gets overturned, ala Peruta. Like we did in Peruta, DC get screwed, and nothing changes.

Option 2: En Banc is denied or the decision is upheld En Banc and DC opts not to appeal to SCOTUS, or decision makes it through En Banc and SCOTUS doesn't take the case. All result in the end of "may issue" in DC only. However, it would also create a direct Circuit split between Wrenn and Peruta, which increase the chances of SCOTUS taking this case, or another similar case in the future.

Option 3: SCOTUS takes the case and affirms the ruling. "May Issue" CCW issuance is dead across the country, and California and other "May Issue" jurisdictions scramble to modify their policies to limit CCW in other ways.

Option 4: SCOTUS takes the case and overturns the ruling. "May Issue" CCW is essentially declared constitutional, and everyone within an anti-gun jurisdiction is out of luck with regard to CCW. Worst case scenario, and results in the "open carry" cases that are currently working through the system becoming the last ditch option for "bear."

Other potential outcomes, and nuances within each, but that's the big picture as I see it. While I love the logic and reasoning of this decision, I fear that Wrenn is just Peruta 2.0 - a great circuit court decision that gets killed en banc. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.
Sadly that's how I feel.

So, two more weeks then!
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 07-25-2017, 12:56 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

except for one small thing...

[very possble DC will keep up its tradition of gamesmanship and may quickly enact new regs that "supposedly" satisfy the injunction but as we've seen before, they won't be legal]

In the interim, it is possible that some brave souls will successfully navigate their new licensing scheme and carry will become easier. This would be a great test tube for the argument that law abiding people CAN responsibly carry in urban areas without blood running in the streets.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 07-25-2017, 1:31 PM
Big Ben's Avatar
Big Ben Big Ben is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 711
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
except for one small thing...

[very possble DC will keep up its tradition of gamesmanship and may quickly enact new regs that "supposedly" satisfy the injunction but as we've seen before, they won't be legal]

In the interim, it is possible that some brave souls will successfully navigate their new licensing scheme and carry will become easier. This would be a great test tube for the argument that law abiding people CAN responsibly carry in urban areas without blood running in the streets.
A likely possibility, probably in conjunction with the various options discussed above.

Regarding CCW in urban areas, I hate the anti argument that things are "different" in urban areas. 6 of the 9 largest metro areas in the country are in "shall issue" states, and blood isn't running in the streets in any of them (Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philly, Miami, & Atlanta -- OK, blood is running in the streets in Chicago, but not because of CCW holders).

If it can work in these areas, no reason it can't work in NY, LA, and DC.
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 07-26-2017, 10:06 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

You are correct - and the notion that rights are "different" based on population density runs directly counter the foundational principle that the Constitution being the supreme law of the land - the whole land
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 07-26-2017, 10:51 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
You are correct - and the notion that rights are "different" based on population density runs directly counter the foundational principle that the Constitution being the supreme law of the land - the whole land
Yeah, too bad Scalia included the "presumptively lawful" "longstanding regulations" language.
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 07-26-2017, 12:33 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Yes - he need not have gone to the lengths he did. Though he made those comments in the context of a decision that established a fundamental enumerated right (which in McDonald was fortified as not being a "second class" right) it is those phrases describing how the right is not unlimited that have been used to cause so much mischief over the years.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 07-26-2017, 1:21 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Yes - he need not have gone to the lengths he did. Though he made those comments in the context of a decision that established a fundamental enumerated right (which in McDonald was fortified as not being a "second class" right) it is those phrases describing how the right is not unlimited that have been used to cause so much mischief over the years.
Of course there's interminable speculation as to why some of the language Scalia used is there in Heller, including the widely posited "He had to do that ("compromise") to get the fifth (and maybe even the fourth) vote in favor".

I strongly suspect the "mischief" is not over... not by a long shot.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 07-26-2017, 5:09 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Eastern Ventura County
Posts: 2,643
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ben View Post
Option 1: DC requests En Banc, and the decision gets overturned, ala Peruta. Like we did in Peruta, DC get screwed, and nothing changes.

Option 2: En Banc is denied or the decision is upheld En Banc and DC opts not to appeal to SCOTUS, or decision makes it through En Banc and SCOTUS doesn't take the case. All result in the end of "may issue" in DC only. However, it would also create a direct Circuit split between Wrenn and Peruta, which increase the chances of SCOTUS taking this case, or another similar case in the future.

Option 3: SCOTUS takes the case and affirms the ruling. "May Issue" CCW issuance is dead across the country, and California and other "May Issue" jurisdictions scramble to modify their policies to limit CCW in other ways.

Option 4: SCOTUS takes the case and overturns the ruling. "May Issue" CCW is essentially declared constitutional, and everyone within an anti-gun jurisdiction is out of luck with regard to CCW. Worst case scenario, and results in the "open carry" cases that are currently working through the system becoming the last ditch option for "bear.".
Option 1 is unlikely. If you read the ruling it drew heavily on Heller to reach it's conclusion. An Enbanc panel is going to have to explain to us all how Heller was misapplied by the 3 judge panel.

Option 2 seems, to me, to be more realistic.

Option 3 can't happen unless Option 1 happens differently than you describe.

Option 4 can only happen if Option 1 happens differently than you describe OR if Option 2 happens differently than you describe.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015


Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 07-26-2017, 6:41 PM
Big Ben's Avatar
Big Ben Big Ben is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 711
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [CERT *DENIED* 6/26/17] PART II

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
Option 1 is unlikely. If you read the ruling it drew heavily on Heller to reach it's conclusion. An Enbanc panel is going to have to explain to us all how Heller was misapplied by the 3 judge panel.



Option 2 seems, to me, to be more realistic.



Option 3 can't happen unless Option 1 happens differently than you describe.



Option 4 can only happen if Option 1 happens differently than you describe OR if Option 2 happens differently than you describe.


In re-reading my comment, I realize I took a few shortcuts and didn't fully explain myself. Option 1 and 2 were intended as a discussion assuming the case ends at the Circuit Court and doesn't make it to SCOTUS. Options 3 and 4 assume it makes it to SCOTUS, and shortcuts the assumption that it makes it to SCOTUS as it stands. As you point out, not necessarily the most likely scenario of reaching SCOTUS as the current decision stands (i.e. I think D.C. may not appeal to SCOTUS if en banc is denied or the decision stands), but the result of SCOTUS either affirming or denying a right to carry in this case are as I described.

I disagree with your comment that Option 1 is unlikely. I completely agree that the En Banc panel SHOULD explain how Heller was misapplied, but I have very little faith in the politicians that wear robes. I fear the En Banc panel will come in with their decision made based on their personal politics/worldview, and will twist the facts, precedent, and logic to support their desired outcome. If this requires them to completely ignoring the 3 judge panel's analysis and ruling, so be it (their view, not mine).





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by Big Ben; 07-26-2017 at 6:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 09-15-2017, 10:27 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have always wondered if cert was denied simply because Peruta did not present a clear case in which SCOTUS should decide if concealed carry was protected by the 2A, when it wasn't clear that the state even had the right to intervene at the 9th. Notice I said "should" and not "could" decide, as I am thinking about doctrines of ripeness and judicial restraint.
Reply With Quote
  #421  
Old 09-15-2017, 10:31 AM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 3,193
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I have always wondered if cert was denied simply because Peruta did not present a clear case in which SCOTUS should decide if concealed carry was protected by the 2A, when it wasn't clear that the state even had the right to intervene at the 9th. Notice I said "should" and not "could" decide, as I am thinking about doctrines of ripeness and judicial restraint.
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"

Last edited by ColdDeadHands1; 09-15-2017 at 10:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 09-15-2017, 11:54 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,341
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

With all the complicating factors and irregularities Peruta became kind of a "messy" case and it could be they knew a clearer, simpler case was in the pipeline that would result in a clearer and simpler decision. That in turn would result in less wiggle room and fewer challenges down the road.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 09-15-2017, 12:11 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,141
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
With all the complicating factors and irregularities Peruta became kind of a "messy" case and it could be they knew a clearer, simpler case was in the pipeline that would result in a clearer and simpler decision. That in turn would result in less wiggle room and fewer challenges down the road.


That's a nice thought and all, but such cases have already been presented to them on multiple occasions, with the result always being the same: denial of cert.

At this point, there is nothing that distinguishes these cases from ones they've already denied cert to. Norman is possibly the only exception to that, but the Peruta dissent to denial of cert, combined with the fact that Woollard was about pure carry such that the Court could have struck the open carry prohibition if it wanted to, gives sufficient reason to believe that the Court will deny cert to Norman as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 09-15-2017, 4:50 PM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,341
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That's a nice thought and all, but such cases have already been presented to them on multiple occasions, with the result always being the same: denial of cert.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Weren't those all pre-Gorsuch though? Some think that may be the tipping point and if Peruta hadn't been such a mess it would have been taken... as it was maybe they knew something cleaner was on it's way up and decided to wait.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 09-15-2017, 7:00 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,141
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
Weren't those all pre-Gorsuch though? Some think that may be the tipping point and if Peruta hadn't been such a mess it would have been taken... as it was maybe they knew something cleaner was on it's way up and decided to wait.
Gorsuch didn't change the balance. He replaced Scalia, thus maintaining the balance that was already there.

An actual change to the Court composition is what is required here. Until that happens, the Court simply isn't going to grant cert to a 2A firearms case.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 09-16-2017, 12:49 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
With all the complicating factors and irregularities Peruta became kind of a "messy" case and it could be they knew a clearer, simpler case was in the pipeline that would result in a clearer and simpler decision. That in turn would result in less wiggle room and fewer challenges down the road.
I meant what you call a "messy case". Could SCOTUS have been waiting for the DC Circuit to rule on Wrenn.
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 09-16-2017, 9:07 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,719
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Gorsuch didn't change the balance. He replaced Scalia, thus maintaining the balance that was already there.

An actual change to the Court composition is what is required here. Until that happens, the Court simply isn't going to grant cert to a 2A firearms case.
It's a race against time. Either mid terms or 2020 could tip the balance back to the Progs. Ginsberg is half dead and Kennedy has mentioned retirement. If these seats open, Trump could fill those vacancies and end up with a 2A court.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 09-17-2017, 6:40 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,161
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I have always wondered if cert was denied simply because Peruta did not present a clear case in which SCOTUS should decide if concealed carry was protected by the 2A, when it wasn't clear that the state even had the right to intervene at the 9th. Notice I said "should" and not "could" decide, as I am thinking about doctrines of ripeness and judicial restraint.
I think they presented their case just fine, leaving room for the court to opt for CC where OC is not available. They didn't budge. We'll see if they budge with Norman, a case WITH a clear split.
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 09-19-2017, 2:52 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
It's a race against time. Either mid terms or 2020 could tip the balance back to the Progs. Ginsberg is half dead and Kennedy has mentioned retirement. If these seats open, Trump could fill those vacancies and end up with a 2A court.
Kennedy won't leave - Trump pissed him off
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 09-19-2017, 3:05 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 509
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Kennedy won't leave - Trump pissed him off
And neither will Ginsberg - she is having too much fun.
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 09-19-2017, 4:19 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,719
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [CERT *DENIED* 6/26/17] PART II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Kennedy won't leave - Trump pissed him off


Trump has pissed everyone off at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #432  
Old 09-19-2017, 4:20 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,719
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
And neither will Ginsberg - she is having too much fun.


Ginsberg won't walk out. She'll be carried out in a box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 09-19-2017, 5:51 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,014
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
Ginsberg won't walk out. She'll be carried out in a box.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's probably already weekend at Bernie's for that one.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
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 6:48 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.