Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 04-02-2017, 2:52 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
I've said it here before but I'll say it again: I Predict the anti's will RUSH to give us shall issue. This will be the result of a Peruta loss (no cert) and a Nichols win at SCOTUS.

The idea of open carry will scare the antis so bad they will immediately pass legislation to allow us to carry hidden instead of openly, thereby saving countless children's lives....

The next move will be to restrict carry as much as possible.
It would depend on "how" Nichols would win at SCOTUS. A narrow win simply holding OC can't be banned with no mention of licensing? Not sure about that, we've already seen the rogue courts uphold licensing schemes where the government acts as a gatekeeper to constitutional rights. Also, they may try to ban carry in every single building, public park, exc thus making OC illusory in practice (not to mention excessive fees for licensing,exc.)

A strong opinion may make your above scenario a reality though. I agree if they had a gun pointed to their head (figuratively), they choose CC over OC.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 04-02-2017, 9:14 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
A strong opinion may make your above scenario a reality though. I agree if they had a gun pointed to their head (figuratively), they choose CC over OC.
A strong opinion (and requisite will to back it up by striking down cases that blatantly violate) isn't a gun to the head though. I still don't understand how we could get a strong court decision on OC that would lead to banned OC but shall issue CCW.

And a further point beyond legalities:

If we DID earn CC by way of California hating OC and trying to make us CC, why the HELL would anyone choose to CC wherever they can get by with OC?

Some people STILL don't understand this is a war.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 04-02-2017, 11:17 AM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 28,864
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And the operational difference is ... ?

What's the difference between a right being taken away and a privilege not being granted?

What makes a right different from a privilege when the circumstances under which each can be exercised or prevented from being exercised are identical?


If there is no observable difference between two things, then on what basis would you conclude that they are, nevertheless, different?
There is effectively no operation difference, but from a legal challenge perspective, it *should* be an easier case to fight the denied right.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 04-02-2017, 11:23 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,144
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

'Why do X when Y is available' is not really on topic for this thread.

Granting CC vs OC is a very large part of the legal theory of this case, let us not turn this discussion to the practical matter of that choice.

It never goes anywhere useful.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 04-02-2017, 4:30 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
There is effectively no operation difference, but from a legal challenge perspective, it *should* be an easier case to fight the denied right.
It should be, yes.

But it isn't. It isn't because the judiciary is populated by political hacks who are of the belief that they and nobody else, not even the authors of the Constitution, get to say what is truly a right and what isn't.

A real right is something that the people can exercise even when the majority is against it. A garden variety liberty is something that people can exercise when the majority agrees with it, and not when the majority disagrees with it. A privilege is something that people can exercise only when the government allows it. A right's only distinguishing characteristic is that it can be exercised when other two cannot be.

In our current system as it is, a right exists as a real right only when the judiciary treats it as a right despite the most fervent wishes of the legislative and executive branches. That's a tall order even on the best of days, seeing how the members of the judiciary are there because the legislative and executive branches put them there in the first place.

All of this is exactly why , if you really want rights, you have to define the system in such a way as to give those who value them an overriding veto on legislation/regulation that would otherwise impose upon those rights. In the absence of that, rights exist at the pleasure of the judiciary.
__________________
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
  #166  
Old 04-02-2017, 6:48 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I know of one. Norman has created a split, which as we know is a huge factor in SCOTUS granting cert.
Not for 2A cases, it isn't. Caetano had no splits, while Drake most certainly did.
__________________
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
  #167  
Old 04-03-2017, 6:31 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

IIRC, Nichols said his case was fully briefed as of March 1st. (~1 month ago)

Q: How long is it, usually, in CA9 between when a case is fully briefed and when oral arguments take place?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 04-04-2017, 4:50 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Not for 2A cases, it isn't. Caetano had no splits, while Drake most certainly did.
Caetano had a small state court split (People v. YANNA Michigan), although it seems that opinion was due to flagrant disregard by the Mass supreme Court.

What split did Drake have?
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 04-04-2017, 7:26 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Caetano had a small state court split (People v. YANNA Michigan), although it seems that opinion was due to flagrant disregard by the Mass supreme Court.

What split did Drake have?
Moore, particularly with respect to applicability of the 2nd Amendment outside the home. Moore said that it applies, while Drake refused to even answer that, despite the fact that such was the primary basis of the suit in the first place (from https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...9720.1.0.pdf):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muller v Maenza complaint
105. The invalidities of the aforesaid statute and regulations, and Defendants’ application of same, infringe Plaintiffs’ Second and Fourteenth Amendments right and damage Plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
.
.
.
110. Plaintiffs’ injuries are irreparable because Plaintiffs are entitled to enjoy their constitutional rights in fact.

In any case, it's most certainly true that Peruta does not split with any case that Drake did not. There is no case that holds that concealed carry is a right. As such, there is no basis for granting cert to Peruta that would not have equally applied to Drake.

Also, you're incorrect about Woollard not having a split with Moore at the point SCOTUS was considering Woollard. Moore was decided on December 11, 2012. Woollard was decided on March 21, 2013.


The bottom line is that the legal situation with respect to Peruta is so close to that of at least two other carry cases that there's no reason at all to believe that Peruta will be granted cert on the basis of the legal situation. Even the "all courts have weighed in" situation isn't present for Peruta due to the fact that Grace is still pending.

If Peruta is granted cert, it will be despite its legal situation, not because of it.
__________________
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.

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-04-2017 at 7:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 04-05-2017, 2:56 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Moore, particularly with respect to applicability of the 2nd Amendment outside the home. Moore said that it applies, while Drake refused to even answer that, despite the fact that such was the primary basis of the suit in the first place (from https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...9720.1.0.pdf):




In any case, it's most certainly true that Peruta does not split with any case that Drake did not. There is no case that holds that concealed carry is a right. As such, there is no basis for granting cert to Peruta that would not have equally applied to Drake.

Also, you're incorrect about Woollard not having a split with Moore at the point SCOTUS was considering Woollard. Moore was decided on December 11, 2012. Woollard was decided on March 21, 2013.


The bottom line is that the legal situation with respect to Peruta is so close to that of at least two other carry cases that there's no reason at all to believe that Peruta will be granted cert on the basis of the legal situation. Even the "all courts have weighed in" situation isn't present for Peruta due to the fact that Grace is still pending.

If Peruta is granted cert, it will be despite its legal situation, not because of it.
That's just it, the courts in the CA 2-4 cases all used the same bogus "we assume without deciding", obviously to shield themselves from SCOTUS review.
With Norman & Peruta, you have a clear split with CA9 saying concealed isn't protected no matter what, and Fl Supremes saying OC can be banned in favor of concealed, with many mentions of shall-issue specifically.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 04-05-2017, 4:34 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

press1280:
Exactly, every Circuit has now had a bite at the apple (don't forget Hightower for the First, even though it was a disaster of a case and fell apart), for better or worse. Now the SC can decide the issue while considering all the positions while Drake was missing the 9th.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 04-05-2017, 4:42 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
press1280:
Exactly, every Circuit has now had a bite at the apple (don't forget Hightower for the First, even though it was a disaster of a case and fell apart), for better or worse. Now the SC can decide the issue while considering all the positions while Drake was missing the 9th.
Why not wait for D.C. then?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 04-05-2017, 5:52 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
That's just it, the courts in the CA 2-4 cases all used the same bogus "we assume without deciding", obviously to shield themselves from SCOTUS review.
With Norman & Peruta, you have a clear split with CA9 saying concealed isn't protected no matter what, and Fl Supremes saying OC can be banned in favor of concealed, with many mentions of shall-issue specifically.
Ah. I wasn't considering splits against state court decisions.

That's a split, certainly, but the problem there is that it's against a state court, and the state's RKBA provision complicates the equation. But even if that weren't true, I'm skeptical that splits against state court decisions do much to shift the cert probability equation.

Peruta does not split against any federal court decisions in any way that differs from any of the preceding carry cases.

Seeing how Norman splits against two federal circuit decisions (Bonidy in the 10th Circuit and Peruta in the 9th), it seems more likely that Norman would be granted cert than that Peruta would.
__________________
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
  #174  
Old 04-05-2017, 6:11 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Norman has every chance for cert because the Fl supremes have played fast and loose with the 2a in favor of their particular biased view on bear. Bear has always meant OC. Fl only wants to preserve it's State shall issue CC carry scheme and not scare the tourists.

The meaning of the 2a shouldn't be decided on the basis of whether tourists get scared if they see someone lawfully bearing arms.

I think the only reason Peruta would get cert is because it's been used for precedent in just about every watershed case since it was decided the first time by the 9th. The SCOTUS needs to sort out if it's good law or not and put to rest the Heller two-step slide and shuffle.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 04-05-2017, 8:04 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Norman has every chance for cert because the Fl supremes have played fast and loose with the 2a in favor of their particular biased view on bear. Bear has always meant OC. Fl only wants to preserve it's State shall issue CC carry scheme and not scare the tourists.

The meaning of the 2a shouldn't be decided on the basis of whether tourists get scared if they see someone lawfully bearing arms.

I think the only reason Peruta would get cert is because it's been used for precedent in just about every watershed case since it was decided the first time by the 9th. The SCOTUS needs to sort out if it's good law or not and put to rest the Heller two-step slide and shuffle.
I agree, that's what SCOTUS needs to do. But it won't. Not until Kennedy is replaced by someone who will actually support the 2nd Amendment and all of the things it implies, and Roberts grows a spine or is replaced. Not gonna happen while Peruta is still viable. Why? Because for us to get a pro-carry decision out of SCOTUS, the dynamics of the Court will need to change in a substantial way. That can't happen merely with a replacement for Scalia.
__________________
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.

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-05-2017 at 8:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 04-05-2017, 8:39 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Make RBG sick again!
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 04-06-2017, 4:23 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Ah. I wasn't considering splits against state court decisions.

That's a split, certainly, but the problem there is that it's against a state court, and the state's RKBA provision complicates the equation. But even if that weren't true, I'm skeptical that splits against state court decisions do much to shift the cert probability equation.

Peruta does not split against any federal court decisions in any way that differs from any of the preceding carry cases.

Seeing how Norman splits against two federal circuit decisions (Bonidy in the 10th Circuit and Peruta in the 9th), it seems more likely that Norman would be granted cert than that Peruta would.
It still meets the SCOTUS rule that a Federal appeals court and state court of last resort are in conflict. The state's RKBA provision has no bearing here, they would only review the 2A portion of the Norman opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 04-06-2017, 5:05 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I agree, that's what SCOTUS needs to do. But it won't. Not until Kennedy is replaced by someone who will actually support the 2nd Amendment and all of the things it implies, and Roberts grows a spine or is replaced. Not gonna happen while Peruta is still viable. Why? Because for us to get a pro-carry decision out of SCOTUS, the dynamics of the Court will need to change in a substantial way. That can't happen merely with a replacement for Scalia.
I think this is likely true BUT, Gorsuch could be enough to help Roberts temporarily grow a pair. RBG's replacement will be enough to tip the court back to rationality. This is why the liberals are fighting so hard against Gorsuch.

I laugh whenever I hear some dirtbag mention that Garland should be voted on before Gorsuch. What they're REALLY saying is that they should've replaced RGB and Breyer a decade ago.

I would love to see Roberts replaced as well. His appointment was a mistake that needs rectified. From the interim style appointment to his lack of character to his inability to lead he should recognize that he has achieved the Peter Principle and step aside for the good of everyone. Unfortunately he probably won't.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 04-06-2017, 6:17 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
It still meets the SCOTUS rule that a Federal appeals court and state court of last resort are in conflict. The state's RKBA provision has no bearing here, they would only review the 2A portion of the Norman opinion.
Oh, I don't disagree with you that the "rules" give SCOTUS a reason to grant cert here. But what we're talking about is the likelihood of cert being granted, and that's a very different thing altogether.

Even so, this does add to the reasons for granting cert. It's just that the dynamics of how the Court has refused to deal with 2A cases is such that I don't see how it affects the real probability of cert being granted here, which looks to me to be dependent almost solely upon the composition of the Court and little else, seeing how the only things that really distinguished Caetano from the other 2A cases that have come before it were the plight of the plaintiff and the "nonlethal" nature of the weapon in question.
__________________
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
  #180  
Old 04-07-2017, 12:31 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,580
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Oh, I don't disagree with you that the "rules" give SCOTUS a reason to grant cert here. But what we're talking about is the likelihood of cert being granted, and that's a very different thing altogether.

Even so, this does add to the reasons for granting cert. It's just that the dynamics of how the Court has refused to deal with 2A cases is such that I don't see how it affects the real probability of cert being granted here, which looks to me to be dependent almost solely upon the composition of the Court and little else, seeing how the only things that really distinguished Caetano from the other 2A cases that have come before it were the plight of the plaintiff and the "nonlethal" nature of the weapon in question.
Peruta is a different case all together that needs to be heard. Besides being a carry case, Peruta challenges the ability of one elected official to decide who gets a right and who doesn't. California's overall scheme for CC is not being challenged. Only San Diego's Sheriffs ability to arbitrarily approve and deny based on his/her personal feelings. Scotus will want this not just based on the 2A but for other precedence regarding rights too. Liberals on the court may even want this looked at. They may not like that its a gun case but could still intrigue them.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 04-07-2017, 12:51 PM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Eastern Ventura County
Posts: 2,685
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I laugh whenever I hear some dirtbag mention that Garland should be voted on before Gorsuch. What they're REALLY saying is that they should've replaced RGB and Breyer a decade ago..
I firmly believe that RBG and Breyer are still around because they believed that the left would have another 8 years of rule in DC and they could safely step down and not see their seats filled with an objectionable (in their opinion) replacement.
__________________
"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
  #182  
Old 04-07-2017, 5:50 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Peruta is a different case all together that needs to be heard. Besides being a carry case, Peruta challenges the ability of one elected official to decide who gets a right and who doesn't.
All of the 3 prior carry cases that were sent up to the Supreme Court had that as a major argument. The Court passed on all three. This isn't something that causes Peruta to stand out from the rest.


Quote:
California's overall scheme for CC is not being challenged. Only San Diego's Sheriffs ability to arbitrarily approve and deny based on his/her personal feelings. Scotus will want this not just based on the 2A but for other precedence regarding rights too. Liberals on the court may even want this looked at. They may not like that its a gun case but could still intrigue them.
Maybe, but that kind of argument has been put forth for pretty much every case we've brought to the Court. Past history shows that it's not the way to bet. We've brought all manner of 2A cases before the Court. It has remained silent on every single one, save for one: Caetano. There is but one thing that really causes Caetano to stand out from all of the rest: it had a plaintiff that liberals could sympathize with. None of the rest did, and Peruta certainly doesn't (apologies to Ed Peruta, but especially to a liberal, he's not nearly as sympathetic a plaintiff as a homeless woman with a restraint order against the ex-boyfriend who had previously put her in the hospital and who wanted to use a nonlethal weapon to protect herself from that same ex-boyfriend).
__________________
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
  #183  
Old 04-08-2017, 8:28 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From my viewpoint, Caetano was so egregiously wrong that the Court was compelled into action rather than waiting for all the circuits to opine as may/shall issue. The next month should be very enlightening.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 04-08-2017, 10:27 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
From my viewpoint, Caetano was so egregiously wrong that the Court was compelled into action rather than waiting for all the circuits to opine as may/shall issue. The next month should be very enlightening.
The same thing (being egregiously wrong) is also true of Friedman v Highland Park. The Court passed on that nonetheless. The egregiousness of the errors may be a contributing factor, but the evidence shows that it's insufficient in and of itself.

I do think it'll be quite interesting to see what transpires in the coming month, but I don't have much in the way of expectations for it. You never really know, though, when it comes to the machinations of the Supreme Court ...
__________________
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
  #185  
Old 04-09-2017, 4:10 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The same thing (being egregiously wrong) is also true of Friedman v Highland Park. The Court passed on that nonetheless. The egregiousness of the errors may be a contributing factor, but the evidence shows that it's insufficient in and of itself.

I do think it'll be quite interesting to see what transpires in the coming month, but I don't have much in the way of expectations for it. You never really know, though, when it comes to the machinations of the Supreme Court ...
I suppose the court didn't explicitly say that "feelings" weren't valid as a reason for a ban, unlike Caetano in which the Mass court said tasers can be banned because they weren't around in 1791
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 04-09-2017, 6:59 AM
Socratic Socratic is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 173
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
There is no way to read the en banc peruta ruling and have any expectation that an honest ruling will happen here.
They will say "CC is available" you lose. History, constitution, BOR all have nothing to do with it.
You're right. Justice has nothing to do with justice. It has everything to do with political.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 05-23-2017, 7:45 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,583
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
A strong opinion (and requisite will to back it up by striking down cases that blatantly violate) isn't a gun to the head though. I still don't understand how we could get a strong court decision on OC that would lead to banned OC but shall issue CCW.

I'm confused by your question. If we get a strong (favorable) decision on OC, then OC cannot be banned.


Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I know of one. Norman has created a split, which as we know is a huge factor in SCOTUS granting cert.
At the time Woollard went to conference I think only Kachalsky had been decided.

And of course, Wollard was not "mode-agnostic" by any means.


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

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 05-23-2017, 8:01 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
I'm confused by your question. If we get a strong (favorable) decision on OC, then OC cannot be banned.
My question was exactly what you state- how can they ban OC after a strongly favorable decision? We're on the same page.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
And of course, Wollard was not "mode-agnostic" by any means.


The Raisuli
School me on that.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 05-24-2017, 7:57 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,360
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
My question was exactly what you state- how can they ban OC after a strongly favorable decision?
They can't. What would likely happen is they would RUSH shall issue through to keep the illusion that people aren't carrying guns. Then they would pass all kinds of restrictions trying to make the privilege of concealed carry next to impossible while banking on no one actually exercising the right to open carry unrestricted....
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

New NRA Campaign to Liberals: "Afraid of a tryannical Trump Administration? Buy a gun..."
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 07-06-2017, 4:53 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

On July 4th Nichols posted an article re. our 2nd A right to bear arms and the Peruta denial with dissent, but now it is gone....

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=739

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/

Anyone know why?

Anyone make a copy of it?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-06-2017 at 5:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 07-06-2017, 6:29 PM
Snoop Doggy Dawg Snoop Doggy Dawg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/...nt-case_81960/
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 07-06-2017, 7:27 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snoop Doggy Dawg View Post
That one is dated June 27th, but I could have sworn it was dated July 4th a couple days ago when I looked at his case's webpage (where his articles are listed in a column on the left).

Whatever.

Thanks.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-06-2017 at 7:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 07-06-2017, 9:01 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 84
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My opinion, which is worth pretty much nothing:
1. If Judge Thomas can find a way to approve the ban of open carry in urban areas for the purpose of self defense, he will do so, and if he is not on the 3 judge panel deciding this appeal, he will most certainly be on the en banc panel should it go sideways.
2. Despite Heller, the opinion will argue that self defense is most acute in the home, and less so outside the home, so intermediate scrutiny applies.
3. Because of the way the Ninth applies intermediate scrutiny (which is virtually not at all as demonstrated by the recent TRO opinion and order on the mag turn in law), the court will find that the state's interest in public peace and safety is of such a high degree that "reasonable restrictions" can be placed on the carriage of firearms in cities. It will find that a restriction banning open carry is constitutional (See Tombstone) because there is a sufficient outlet for the carrying of arms by the may issue CCW law. thus, it will essentially hold that all cities and towns are "sensitive areas."
4. Unless and until the Ninth Circuit (or the Supreme Court as the case may be)finds a right to open carry in public, the California Legislature will neither consider nor pass a "shall issue" CCW bill. It will not cave simply because there is a risk of a bad result, since any carry, as far as it is concerned, is a bad thing that must be limited to the greatest extent possible.
5. IMO, and contrary to Mr. Nichols firmly held belief, the U.S. Supreme Court has implied but never held that there is a right to open carry of firearms. citing opinions with implied approval is not a holding not binding on any other court.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 07-07-2017, 6:11 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,842
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
My opinion, which is worth pretty much nothing:
1. If Judge Thomas can find a way to approve the ban of open carry in urban areas for the purpose of self defense, he will do so, and if he is not on the 3 judge panel deciding this appeal, he will most certainly be on the en banc panel should it go sideways.
2. Despite Heller, the opinion will argue that self defense is most acute in the home, and less so outside the home, so intermediate scrutiny applies.
3. Because of the way the Ninth applies intermediate scrutiny (which is virtually not at all as demonstrated by the recent TRO opinion and order on the mag turn in law), the court will find that the state's interest in public peace and safety is of such a high degree that "reasonable restrictions" can be placed on the carriage of firearms in cities. It will find that a restriction banning open carry is constitutional (See Tombstone) because there is a sufficient outlet for the carrying of arms by the may issue CCW law. thus, it will essentially hold that all cities and towns are "sensitive areas."
4. Unless and until the Ninth Circuit (or the Supreme Court as the case may be)finds a right to open carry in public, the California Legislature will neither consider nor pass a "shall issue" CCW bill. It will not cave simply because there is a risk of a bad result, since any carry, as far as it is concerned, is a bad thing that must be limited to the greatest extent possible.
5. IMO, and contrary to Mr. Nichols firmly held belief, the U.S. Supreme Court has implied but never held that there is a right to open carry of firearms. citing opinions with implied approval is not a holding not binding on any other court.
^^^ Another person who clearly either HAS NOT read Heller or is PURPOSELY misrepresenting Heller.

Scalia clearly said with direct cites of earlier cases and longstanding tradtion that bans on Open Carry do not pass Constitutional muster.

The problem is not "implied" or fuzzines by SCOTUS - the problem is elites running states thumbing their noses at SCOTUS daring SCOTUS to assert their authority and status AS the superior court for the United States.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 07-07-2017, 7:22 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
On July 4th Nichols posted an article re. our 2nd A right to bear arms and the Peruta denial with dissent, but now it is gone....

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=739

http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/

Anyone know why?

Anyone make a copy of it?
No on each of those, but I'll point this out. He had mentioned in the past with quotes from Thomas and Scalia that they don't buy into the theory that the SAF and NRA were pushing (that OC can be banned IF shall issue CCW is available).
That Thomas and Scalia's successor wrote the dissent the way they did now cuts against him (maybe). So now this leaves an odd situation, where do the 5 votes for a win come from?
Norman will test this, with the FL attorneys likely arguing FOR the exact dissent's position!
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 07-07-2017, 1:19 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Scalia clearly said with direct cites of earlier cases and longstanding tradtion that bans on Open Carry do not pass Constitutional muster.

The problem is not "implied" or fuzzines by SCOTUS - the problem is elites running states thumbing their noses at SCOTUS daring SCOTUS to assert their authority and status AS the superior court for the United States.

=8-|
Can you direct the rest of us to where Scalia said that?

Can you use the Heller opinion found at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf Why? (1) Since that is from SCOTUS' own website, there is no question as to its authenticity & accuracy. (2) It is available to all the public (in the entire world!) for FREE. Last, (3) that way, we're all literally "on the same page" when citing the case, just state who you're citing and giving the page number of their opinion.

Syllabus: pp. 1 - 3
Scalia for the Court: pp. 1 - 61
Stevens' dissent: pp. 1 - 46
Breyer's dissent: pp. 1 - 44



Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
He had mentioned in the past with quotes from Thomas and Scalia that they don't buy into the theory that the SAF and NRA were pushing (that OC can be banned IF shall issue CCW is available).
That Thomas and Scalia's successor wrote the dissent the way they did now cuts against him (maybe). So now this leaves an odd situation, where do the 5 votes for a win come from?
Norman will test this, with the FL attorneys likely arguing FOR the exact dissent's position!
Again, if you remember the citation/s Nichols used and can post them here (using the page numbering of the linked SCOTUS .pdf of the Heller opinion), that would be most helpful and appreciated.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-07-2017 at 1:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 07-07-2017, 2:33 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Can you direct the rest of us to where Scalia said that?

Can you use the Heller opinion found at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf Why? (1) Since that is from SCOTUS' own website, there is no question as to its authenticity & accuracy. (2) It is available to all the public (in the entire world!) for FREE. Last, (3) that way, we're all literally "on the same page" when citing the case, just state who you're citing and giving the page number of their opinion.

Syllabus: pp. 1 - 3
Scalia for the Court: pp. 1 - 61
Stevens' dissent: pp. 1 - 46
Breyer's dissent: pp. 1 - 44



Again, if you remember the citation/s Nichols used and can post them here (using the page numbering of the linked SCOTUS .pdf of the Heller opinion), that would be most helpful and appreciated.
Here's an article he wrote (he admits Gorsuch is an unknown), but thought no way Thomas would vote for Peruta: http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/...ifornia_78072/
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 07-07-2017, 2:37 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
^^^ Another person who clearly either HAS NOT read Heller or is PURPOSELY misrepresenting Heller.

Scalia clearly said with direct cites of earlier cases and longstanding tradtion that bans on Open Carry do not pass Constitutional muster.

The problem is not "implied" or fuzzines by SCOTUS - the problem is elites running states thumbing their noses at SCOTUS daring SCOTUS to assert their authority and status AS the superior court for the United States.

=8-|
Not 100 percent clear, he mentioned Nunn, which held that an OC ban violated the RKBA. One may be able to assume that but it wasn't directly on the table.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 07-07-2017, 2:55 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 84
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
^^^ Another person who clearly either HAS NOT read Heller or is PURPOSELY misrepresenting Heller.

Scalia clearly said with direct cites of earlier cases and longstanding tradtion that bans on Open Carry do not pass Constitutional muster.

The problem is not "implied" or fuzzines by SCOTUS - the problem is elites running states thumbing their noses at SCOTUS daring SCOTUS to assert their authority and status AS the superior court for the United States.

=8-|
Really? Show me. Cite the page. Yes, I've read Heller--more than once--and I don't see anywhere that this was a HOLDING in the case, as opposed to a recitation of the history of the right in the United States. The only HOLDING was that the District of Columbia could not ban the possession of a loaded firearm in the home. Everything else is dicta, which may be persuasive but is not binding on any other court.
Certainly, decisions of state supreme courts are not binding on any federal court (except as to matters of state law), and all that those decisions say, afaik, is that concealed carry bans are permissible when open carry is permitted. But those are not decisions by a federal court under the Second Amendment.
McDonald changes nothing, as it too was a case concerning the right to keep a firearm in one's home for the "core" Second Amendment right of self-defense. NEITHER McDonald NOR Heller case was a carry case, so to suggest that either "holds" that there is a right to open carry outside the home is simply incorrect. And without a holding as to carry outside the home, the Ninth Circuit will do whatever its liberal justices damn well please.

Last edited by TruOil; 07-07-2017 at 2:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 07-07-2017, 5:27 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Really? Show me. Cite the page. Yes, I've read Heller--more than once--and I don't see anywhere that this was a HOLDING in the case, as opposed to a recitation of the history of the right in the United States. The only HOLDING was that the District of Columbia could not ban the possession of a loaded firearm in the home. Everything else is dicta, which may be persuasive but is not binding on any other court.
Certainly, decisions of state supreme courts are not binding on any federal court (except as to matters of state law), and all that those decisions say, afaik, is that concealed carry bans are permissible when open carry is permitted. But those are not decisions by a federal court under the Second Amendment.
McDonald changes nothing, as it too was a case concerning the right to keep a firearm in one's home for the "core" Second Amendment right of self-defense. NEITHER McDonald NOR Heller case was a carry case, so to suggest that either "holds" that there is a right to open carry outside the home is simply incorrect. And without a holding as to carry outside the home, the Ninth Circuit will do whatever its liberal justices damn well please.
Do you think it's possible that the Ninth would "damn well please" to issue an opinion stating that there is also no right to bear arms outside the home, in public, openly? That is, in essence declare that the "right to bear" means to have a firearm on one's person within the home (or business (in Hawaii)) only? And that any carry outside the home is thus merely a privilege that may be regulated, just like concealed carry (also) is in Hawaii, to the point of no one being allowed to lawfully carry outside the home/business in any manner?
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 4:04 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.