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
  #281  
Old 08-05-2017, 8:45 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 press1280 View Post
UOC was never asked for by Nichols. CA9 will either give him some form of LOC or nothing at all. I don't see the court granting a remedy that simply isn't being even suggested by either Nichols or the state.

The easiest way out for the court is to strike the LOC ban but map out a blueprint for the state to simply make LOC permits available statewide, but that those can follow the may-issue scheme just like CCW. Just look to the concurrence in the en banc opinion of Peruta where they stated that even if CCW were protected under the 2A, that the may-issue scheme was still constitutional. This tells me those same judges will do the same under a may-issue OC scheme.
Um, yes he has....

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...1116531126.pdf

=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
  #282  
Old 08-05-2017, 11:30 AM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,415
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sorry to interrupt your discussion but I saw there was new content here and want to see where this case was . I went back 3 pages and found no actual updates .

Where does this case stand now ? Is it at the 9th now ? Has it been heard by the 9th ?

Thanks Metal
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 08-05-2017, 1:00 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Sorry to interrupt your discussion but I saw there was new content here and want to see where this case was . I went back 3 pages and found no actual updates .

Where does this case stand now ? Is it at the 9th now ? Has it been heard by the 9th ?

Thanks Metal
There is a post in there somewhere saying that the case is awaiting assignment of a hearing date in the Ninth. Briefing was complete months ago, with a recent update for the Wrenn v. D.C. decision. Mr. Nichols thinks it will be scheduled this fall, but I am a little fuzzy as to what month. October?
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 08-05-2017, 1:28 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hmm, lot's of good discussion and ideas going on here. I am persuaded that if any relief is granted, it will be worse than a loss. As I've said before, I cannot see the court allowing LOC, even with the existing restrictions as to sensitive places--i.e., all public buildings and all GFSZs. On the other hand, I cannot see it concluding that there is no right to carry outside the home--wiping out "bear", which would assure a grant of review. So instead it will simply strike down the UOC ban, leaving us with a right in name but not in function, since the exercise of that right is still subject to the same sensitive places law and the GFSZ Act that Nichols did not challenge. Moreover, this approach, i.e. unlicensed UOC, avoids the issue of any licensing scheme on a right to bear arms in which a governmental official decides who gets to bear and who doesn't is an infringement as to all who are denied, a direct affront to the "shall not be infringed" language in the amendment...To me, UOC is worse than a loss, but to the court, a delightful poke in the eye to any who wish to exercise their rights.

Last edited by TruOil; 08-05-2017 at 1:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 08-05-2017, 3:13 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
There is a post in there somewhere saying that the case is awaiting assignment of a hearing date in the Ninth. Briefing was complete months ago, with a recent update for the Wrenn v. D.C. decision. Mr. Nichols thinks it will be scheduled this fall, but I am a little fuzzy as to what month. October?
The Ninth Circuit Oral Arugments Calendar is here:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar/

Typically they list the cases 10 weeks before the hearing date. (The past week's updates were for cases scheduled for mid-October.) There is some reason to believe (too long to go in to) that Nichols will be scheduled for the week of November 6 in Pasadena, which means that if orals are held, that they would be listed in the calendar in the next TWO WEEKS. If it is not listed for that date, then... never mind. There is still the unanswered request to have the case heard initially by an en banc panel...

Usually that calendar is updated on Monday or Tuesday, but last week it was updated with the next week's schedule on Sunday.
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 08-06-2017, 9:08 AM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,415
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thank you for the update
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 08-06-2017, 12:41 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
I think he's asking for all of the above, not just UOC in isolation and I don't think the court can necessarily "split the baby" and give him just UOC.
There's no RTKBA precedent that I know of where firearms are allowed to be carried ONLY in a unloaded manner.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 08-06-2017, 5:50 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Nichols Vs. Brown update...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
They can strike down the ban on UNLOADED open carry - claiming that satisfies Heller....and ignore Nichol's request for action on Loaded Open Carry.
Technically speaking, they can only do that if the text of the law explicitly calls out unloaded carry as a separate thing. The courts cannot add language to the law. They can change the meaning of what's there, or can strike language, but that's it.

It does appear that section 26350 explicitly calls out unloaded open carry as prohibited, so it is possible for the court to strike that. Nichols does explicitly call for that in his prayer for relief, so it is a possibility on the table.


But that said, why would the 9th Circuit give us anything at all, even if it's just unloaded open carry, when it doesn't have to? It has plenty of options for completely eviscerating the right while claiming to not be doing so. Since it has such options, it's essentially guaranteed it'll use one of them.
__________________
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; 08-06-2017 at 6:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 08-06-2017, 8:36 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,842
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Technically speaking, they can only do that if the text of the law explicitly calls out unloaded carry as a separate thing. The courts cannot add language to the law. They can change the meaning of what's there, or can strike language, but that's it.

It does appear that section 26350 explicitly calls out unloaded open carry as prohibited, so it is possible for the court to strike that. Nichols does explicitly call for that in his prayer for relief, so it is a possibility on the table.


But that said, why would the 9th Circuit give us anything at all, even if it's just unloaded open carry, when it doesn't have to? It has plenty of options for completely eviscerating the right while claiming to not be doing so. Since it has such options, it's essentially guaranteed it'll use one of them.
Because if they don't - effectively a total ban - it increases the likelihood of SCOTUS taking up an appeal by Nichols.

And THAT - IF SCOTUS is consistent - increases the likelihood of both LOC and UOC getting struck.

They're not going to leave that to chance...they cherry picked and ran with the "cherry" in Peruta and got away with it - they'll do it again in Nichols - and in my opinion - get away with it again.

=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
  #290  
Old 08-06-2017, 8:45 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,415
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can they choose not to hear it ?
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 08-06-2017, 10:34 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Because if they don't - effectively a total ban - it increases the likelihood of SCOTUS taking up an appeal by Nichols.
With the primary argument being one about open carry and all of the history that comes with it.

That's different enough that it might catch SCOTUS' attention, but it's important to realize that SCOTUS was perfectly happy to let an essentially identical ban stand in Woollard.

Methinks you ascribe far too much fear of SCOTUS on the part of the 9th Circuit here. I guarantee they're not afraid of SCOTUS at all, since it has refused Every Single Firearms 2A Case since McDonald. And the political situation at SCOTUS has not changed since then either, nor will it until the composition changes.

A change in composition is the only thing the 9th reasonably has to fear. But if that changes, then ANY reasonable carry case will result in securing "bear". So the 9th has absolutely nothing to lose by eviscerating the right.




Quote:

They're not going to leave that to chance...they cherry picked and ran with the "cherry" in Peruta and got away with it - they'll do it again in Nichols - and in my opinion - get away with it again.
Oh, I agree. They'll get away with it, and do so by denying the right in exactly the same way so many other courts have. We will get absolutely nothing from the 9th Circuit




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
  #292  
Old 08-07-2017, 12:22 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 kcbrown View Post
With the primary argument being one about open carry and all of the history that comes with it.

That's different enough that it might catch SCOTUS' attention, but it's important to realize that SCOTUS was perfectly happy to let an essentially identical ban stand in Woollard.

Methinks you ascribe far too much fear of SCOTUS on the part of the 9th Circuit here. I guarantee they're not afraid of SCOTUS at all, since it has refused Every Single Firearms 2A Case since McDonald. And the political situation at SCOTUS has not changed since then either, nor will it until the composition changes.

A change in composition is the only thing the 9th reasonably has to fear. But if that changes, then ANY reasonable carry case will result in securing "bear". So the 9th has absolutely nothing to lose by eviscerating the right.






Oh, I agree. They'll get away with it, and do so by denying the right in exactly the same way so many other courts have. We will get absolutely nothing from the 9th Circuit




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those were primarily CCW cases, "not so clean cases" (baggage) and/or regulatory cases . . . not cases that were simply about bans on any kind of open carry.

Nichols = straight arrow to LOC ban.
Nichols = straight arrow to UOC ban.

=8-)

Here's another thought that crossed my mind...raised by a previous poster:

Can CA9 choose to bypass the hearing and just go ahead and release a decison?

Effectively pulling the limelight rug out from under Nichols's - ie., preventing him from having the podium and live camera in court?

With egos as big as theirs driving an agenda, I can see them wanting to keep Nichol's from being the "star" of the show...

__________________
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
  #293  
Old 08-07-2017, 12:38 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Those were primarily CCW cases, "not so clean cases" (baggage) and/or regulatory cases . . . not cases that were simply about bans on any kind of open carry.



Nichols = straight arrow to LOC ban.

Nichols = straight arrow to UOC ban.
This is true except for Woollard, which was not about any kind of mode at all, since the same law covered all forms of carry and a permit authorized all forms of carry. If "may issue" qualifies as an effective ban, then that case is proof that the Court has no problem with letting an effective ban stand.

In any case, the main point is that the 9th Circuit has no reason to fear anything from SCOTUS as regards Nichols. Their decision will eviscerate the right because they have no reason to fear reversal.







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
  #294  
Old 08-07-2017, 9:48 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
This is true except for Woollard, which was not about any kind of mode at all, since the same law covered all forms of carry and a permit authorized all forms of carry. If "may issue" qualifies as an effective ban, then that case is proof that the Court has no problem with letting an effective ban stand.

In any case, the main point is that the 9th Circuit has no reason to fear anything from SCOTUS as regards Nichols. Their decision will eviscerate the right because they have no reason to fear reversal.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With Peruta being decided the way it was, it does set the stage of a total ban, different than Woollard. The OC permit is unavailable to him based on where he lives and the 9th cannot turn around and say that CCW is available since they already said it's not part of the 2A at all.

So it would be a total ban, something Scotus would likely answer, although to what degree I don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 08-07-2017, 2:02 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
With Peruta being decided the way it was, it does set the stage of a total ban, different than Woollard. The OC permit is unavailable to him based on where he lives and the 9th cannot turn around and say that CCW is available since they already said it's not part of the 2A at all.
You're presuming honesty on the part of a court that has repeatedly proven its dishonesty.

The 9th Circuit can just as easily claim that even though CCW itself isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment, its "availability" is sufficient to "satisfy" the right to bear arms and, therefore, the ban on open carry does not foreclose the right to bear arms. It can also claim that open carry is available in some locations and, thus, that the prohibition is merely a "time, place, or manner" regulation.


Quote:
So it would be a total ban, something Scotus would likely answer, although to what degree I don't know.
With a construction such as the above, the dispute will be, in part, about whether or not there's a total ban in place.

Admittedly, it does have differences from Woollard. But even so, we're not talking about a Supreme Court that has refused to hear carry cases, we're talking about a Supreme Court that has refused to hear all firearms-related 2nd Amendment cases. This most certainly qualifies in that latter category, ban or no.

But finally, if the question is about whether or not a ban on that which is protected by the 2nd Amendment is allowable when something that may not be protected is available, then Norman presumably qualifies. As such, whether or not the Court grants cert to Norman should serve as an indicator as to whether or not they'd take Nichols with their present composition.
__________________
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
  #296  
Old 08-07-2017, 4:27 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Can they choose not to hear it ?
Do you mean can they refuse to entertain oral argument? I actually don't know; federal trial courts certainly have that discretion, and many exercise it. Moreover, parties can waive oral argument. However, I think the court may be required to hold orals if requested, but they have untrammeled discretion as to when that will be.

If you mean "hear" in the legal sense of "deciding" a matter (i.e., the court "hears" your case), no, review is as of right, while a grant of review (certiorari) in the Supreme Court is discretionary.
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 08-07-2017, 4:56 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure › TITLE VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS › Rule 34. Oral Argument
Rule 34. Oral Argument
(a) In General.

(1) Party's Statement. Any party may file, or a court may require by local rule, a statement explaining why oral argument should, or need not, be permitted.

(2) Standards. Oral argument must be allowed in every case unless a panel of three judges who have examined the briefs and record unanimously agrees that oral argument is unnecessary for any of the following reasons:

(A) the appeal is frivolous;

(B) the dispositive issue or issues have been authoritatively decided; or

(C) the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument.
...
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 10-05-2017, 10:54 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,331
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default



This thread has been sleeping for almost 2 months.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 10-05-2017, 2:28 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post


This thread has been sleeping for almost 2 months.
Really. Didn't old Charlie or one of his minions post months ago that this was to go to orals this month or next?
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 10-05-2017, 3:33 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,404
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The court is in NO hurry to decide this because there is only one way they can.
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 10-06-2017, 3:05 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
The court is in NO hurry to decide this because there is only one way they can.
Maybe. The Ninth is the busiest circuit, and the time that has gone by is pretty typical for most cases.
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 10-10-2017, 2:05 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 867
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

oral argument is in February
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 10-11-2017, 3:55 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
oral argument is in February
Mr. Nichols' opening brief was well-written, his reply horrible. I shudder to imagine what oral argument will be like.

Who is taking bets on the outcome? I'd bet that the Ninth:
1. will affirm that there is a right to bear outside the home (which the State admitted in Peruta),
2. but that it may be subject to "reasonable regulation" in the public interest (which Nichols concedes by agreeing that the GFSZA is a valid exercise of state power), and that
3. "intermediate scrutiny" (which in the Ninth is indistinguishable from rational basis review) will be applied (of course because the "core" of the right is inside the home, not outside)
4. and upon application of this standard of review, the court will uphold the open carry ban, which currently applies only in urban areas because the interest in public safety and the power of the State to regulate the carrying outweigh the personal interest in bearing arms in cities and towns.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 10-13-2017, 12:38 AM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Mr. Nichols' opening brief was well-written, his reply horrible. I shudder to imagine what oral argument will be like.

Who is taking bets on the outcome? I'd bet that the Ninth:
1. will affirm that there is a right to bear outside the home (which the State admitted in Peruta),
2. but that it may be subject to "reasonable regulation" in the public interest (which Nichols concedes by agreeing that the GFSZA is a valid exercise of state power), and that
3. "intermediate scrutiny" (which in the Ninth is indistinguishable from rational basis review) will be applied (of course because the "core" of the right is inside the home, not outside)
4. and upon application of this standard of review, the court will uphold the open carry ban, which currently applies only in urban areas because the interest in public safety and the power of the State to regulate the carrying outweigh the personal interest in bearing arms in cities and towns.
If the 3 judge panel doesn't rule that way, you can count on the en banc panel to find that there is no right to bear arms in urban areas.
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 10-13-2017, 2:13 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,081
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
If the 3 judge panel doesn't rule that way, you can count on the en banc panel to find that there is no right to bear arms in urban areas.
Oh so true, however, they won't be able to say it like that as it would be discriminatory.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 10-13-2017, 4:21 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,331
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
oral argument is in February
Where do you get that from?

I just went to his webpage re the current status of his case and right at top it says, "On October 10, 2017, I received notice from the court that my case is being considered for oral argument in Pasadena in February, March or April of 2018."
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=6922
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 10-13-2017, 5:20 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 442
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Where do you get that from?

I just went to his webpage re the current status of his case and right at top it says, "On October 10, 2017, I received notice from the court that my case is being considered for oral argument in Pasadena in February, March or April of 2018."
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=6922
http://newsblaze.com/business/legal/...in-2018_87600/

Also his newsletter: http://mailchi.mp/44764a9b437f/febru...n-carry-appeal

Basically February if no conflicts but also March and April backup dates.

I can post his case-related emails and articles if people want when they come around, if that's seen as helpful at all.
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 10-13-2017, 5:30 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 867
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Where do you get that from?

I just went to his webpage re the current status of his case and right at top it says, "On October 10, 2017, I received notice from the court that my case is being considered for oral argument in Pasadena in February, March or April of 2018."
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=6922
He'll get argument in February. The only reason he would not is if one side has a conflict and if they did they would have written the Court by now.

However that does not mean he gets oral argument. I suspect he will because the legal issue is novel but as a whole pro se's typically do not get oral argument.

This I can't wait to watch assuming he gets oral argument. I just hope he keep some of his openly misogynist comments down to a minimum. It does not win any votes to tell the Court I don't want to carry because I don't carry a purse etc.

Last edited by wolfwood; 10-13-2017 at 5:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 10-21-2017, 5:59 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
If the 3 judge panel doesn't rule that way, you can count on the en banc panel to find that there is no right to bear arms in urban areas.
The easy way out for CA9 is strike the OC ban but give a wink to the state that OC can be regulated in the same fashion as CCW, leaving it as may-issue as well. Nichols can't appeal that scenario because he'd technically "win".
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 10-23-2017, 1:53 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The easy way out for CA9 is strike the OC ban but give a wink to the state that OC can be regulated in the same fashion as CCW, leaving it as may-issue as well. Nichols can't appeal that scenario because he'd technically "win".
More likely if the ban falls, California goes back to "open unloaded." Oh joy. There is no way that the state will enact licensed open carry for anyone not wearing some kind of a uniform (LEO, security, armored car guards).
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 10-23-2017, 1:59 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 426
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
More likely if the ban falls, California goes back to "open unloaded." Oh joy. There is no way that the state will enact licensed open carry for anyone not wearing some kind of a uniform (LEO, security, armored car guards).
Which would probably result in another legal challenge. The bearing of arms for self defense cannot be predicated on limiting the ability of someone to actually use those arms in an emergency. Such a restriction would be an unreasonable infringement.

(Didn't Heller talk about how requiring a firearm to be unloaded actually prevented that arm from being used for defense?)
__________________
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
  #312  
Old 10-23-2017, 2:06 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,920
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Heller talked about the necessity of having immediate access to functional firearms.

An unloaded firearms is, by definition, not functional.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 10-24-2017, 1:47 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Heller talked about the necessity of having immediate access to functional firearms.

An unloaded firearms is, by definition, not functional.
Although I agree with you, the trial court in Peruta did not, finding that the open carry law adequately protected any right to bear arms. Thus, there can be no doubt that the State will go that way if it is required to allow open carry, leaving it to yet another law suit to challenge that law.
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 10-25-2017, 7:42 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 426
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Although I agree with you, the trial court in Peruta did not, finding that the open carry law adequately protected any right to bear arms. Thus, there can be no doubt that the State will go that way if it is required to allow open carry, leaving it to yet another law suit to challenge that law.
This is an interesting point. IF the Right can be limited to it's minimum point, and all other laws which infringe upon the Right are allowable, then no Right need more than the slimiest of protections or ability to be exercised.

For instance; were the 1A to be so limited, then allowing one to ONLY say:

Not-so-super-California-cuz-it's-fragile-and-atrocious (Go on - sing it!)

The the WHOLE of the 1A would be protected even though the Right is limited to ONLY those words.

What I mean by this, is that if the Gov is allowed to limit a Right until it can only be exercised in a specific way, in a specific location, at a specific time, then it is NOT a "Right".

True "Right's" should transcend Government's ability to take them away or limit them. It was the point behind the Bill of Rights and somehow our society and judicial system have forgotten that.
__________________
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
  #315  
Old 10-25-2017, 4:10 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
This is an interesting point. IF the Right can be limited to it's minimum point, and all other laws which infringe upon the Right are allowable, then no Right need more than the slimiest of protections or ability to be exercised.

For instance; were the 1A to be so limited, then allowing one to ONLY say:

Not-so-super-California-cuz-it's-fragile-and-atrocious (Go on - sing it!)

The the WHOLE of the 1A would be protected even though the Right is limited to ONLY those words.

What I mean by this, is that if the Gov is allowed to limit a Right until it can only be exercised in a specific way, in a specific location, at a specific time, then it is NOT a "Right".

True "Right's" should transcend Government's ability to take them away or limit them. It was the point behind the Bill of Rights and somehow our society and judicial system have forgotten that.
You exaggerate. The limitation, just as it is in 1A cases, is time, place and manner. The state does not regulate what you say (much), but it does regulate where, when, and how you may speak. Ever heard of "free speech zones," where the police cordon off protesters at any particular event (e.g. the national political conventions last year) at some distance from the forum where they do not interfere with the event? It happens ALL THE TIME.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 10-25-2017, 7:22 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 426
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
You exaggerate. The limitation, just as it is in 1A cases, is time, place and manner. The state does not regulate what you say (much), but it does regulate where, when, and how you may speak. Ever heard of "free speech zones," where the police cordon off protesters at any particular event (e.g. the national political conventions last year) at some distance from the forum where they do not interfere with the event? It happens ALL THE TIME.
My point is that a 'Right" is a Right. It is not a privilege or something the State may interdict in any manner absent a judicial determination affecting a specific person. IF it's a "Right" then it is something which is outside the scope of the State to enact legislation upon as to prohibit whether one can exercise the Right.

Your "Free Speech Zone" analogy fails because any individual may speak as loudly as they choose, whenever they choose, wherever they choose, so long as their speech does not affect the rights of others. A rally affects others and can thus be limited. So can city/county/state meetings open to public comment because time is limited. Thus the Right is regulated so that all may speak and be heard. It is not banned. To put it simply, one can still speak to one's neighbor outside the "free speech zones" or speak at public meetings so long as one does in an orderly manner.

A Right can't be banned via regulation, as is being done currently, because the State cannot require you to only speak outside incorporated municipalities and then only in areas where free speech is not prohibited. Nor do your Rights against self-incrimination or the Right to Legal Representation exist only in locations the State deems them "sufficient to exercise the Right." Those rights exist across the entire spectrum and sweep of the State. As do all the others.

As to the "unloaded" requirement, the State may not require that a person refrain, unless becoming subject to incarceration or other criminal penalty, from merely being ABLE TO speak. Unreasonable fear or possible public unrest over the potential content of the speech, without actual justification or provocation in a specific instance, is insufficient to make such a blanket restriction upon ALL of society.

Because if a right can be regulated out of existence in that manner; then where is the freedom which is guaranteed to us?
__________________
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.

Last edited by rplaw; 10-25-2017 at 7:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 11-27-2017, 3:06 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post


This thread has been sleeping for almost 2 months.

Something I am quite happy about. The why comes later.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Heller talked about the necessity of having immediate access to functional firearms.

An unloaded firearms is, by definition, not functional.

That would matter to a court that is concerned with the Constitution and the protection and implementation of same.

That doesn't apply to the 9th Circus.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
You exaggerate. The limitation, just as it is in 1A cases, is time, place and manner. The state does not regulate what you say (much), but it does regulate where, when, and how you may speak. Ever heard of "free speech zones," where the police cordon off protesters at any particular event (e.g. the national political conventions last year) at some distance from the forum where they do not interfere with the event? It happens ALL THE TIME.

Meaning that unconstitutional infringements of the 1A happen all the time, NOT that it is permissible to so infringe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
My point is that a 'Right" is a Right. It is not a privilege or something the State may interdict in any manner absent a judicial determination affecting a specific person. IF it's a "Right" then it is something which is outside the scope of the State to enact legislation upon as to prohibit whether one can exercise the Right.

Your "Free Speech Zone" analogy fails because any individual may speak as loudly as they choose, whenever they choose, wherever they choose, so long as their speech does not affect the rights of others. A rally affects others and can thus be limited. So can city/county/state meetings open to public comment because time is limited. Thus the Right is regulated so that all may speak and be heard. It is not banned. To put it simply, one can still speak to one's neighbor outside the "free speech zones" or speak at public meetings so long as one does in an orderly manner.

A Right can't be banned via regulation, as is being done currently, because the State cannot require you to only speak outside incorporated municipalities and then only in areas where free speech is not prohibited. Nor do your Rights against self-incrimination or the Right to Legal Representation exist only in locations the State deems them "sufficient to exercise the Right." Those rights exist across the entire spectrum and sweep of the State. As do all the others.

As to the "unloaded" requirement, the State may not require that a person refrain, unless becoming subject to incarceration or other criminal penalty, from merely being ABLE TO speak. Unreasonable fear or possible public unrest over the potential content of the speech, without actual justification or provocation in a specific instance, is insufficient to make such a blanket restriction upon ALL of society.

Because if a right can be regulated out of existence in that manner; then where is the freedom which is guaranteed to us?

I agree entirely (along with my comment above).


The Raisuli

P.S. P.S. I've been very busy lately. And don't have a lot of spare time now. So, I've no time to read all the way back to whatever I posted when I last was here (or at other posts). If anyone feels that there's something I should respond to, justlet me know where that something is, and I'll get to it ASAP.
Thanks.
__________________
"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
  #318  
Old 11-27-2017, 5:39 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The government can regulate WHAT you say, except when it constitutes political speech. You cannot "cry wolf" as it were, unless there is one. You cannot encourage rioting. You canno threaten others with bodily harm. You cannot conspire to commit a crime--the speech is as much a crime as the crime committed (or attempted). Restrictions on the free exercise of the right of free speech have been recognized by the highest courts of all states and SCOTUS. As have conditions on the where when and how of public speech, such as parades and marches. So don't pretend that this hasn't and cannot be done and recognized as constitutional, as your arguments have been repeatedly rejected. rplaw concedes the point as well, arguing that first amendment rights may be restricted "so long as their speech does not affect the rights of others."
Thus, if we apply the same analysis to second amendment rights as has been applied in first amendment cases (as numerous second amendment cases and scholars have sought), you end up with valid restrictions on the where when and how of "bearing arms." Using rplaw's formulation, the bearing of arms may be regulated whenever it "interferes with the rights of others." As we all know, the "open unloaded" demonstrations lead to wide-spread fear and overly aggressive police responses; they thus "affected the rights of others" not to "feel threatened." Y'all may recall that the Seventh Circuit held in Highland Park case that ARs may be banned because people "feel" afraid of them, whether that fear is reasonable or not.
When closely analyzed, Nichols seeks only to overturn the open carry ban; he specifically rejects any claim that he seeks to overturn time and place restrictions such as courthouses, government buildings or GFSZs. Anyone with any sense will recognize that a right to carry firearms within any urban area and outside of private property is effectively if not entirely banned by GFSZs--hence the right he seeks to express is meaningless in practical application. And at the same time, he reinforces the conclusion that second amendment rights may be validly limited.
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 11-27-2017, 5:52 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,484
iTrader: 154 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The government can regulate WHAT you say, except when it constitutes political speech. You cannot "cry wolf" as it were, unless there is one. You cannot encourage rioting. You canno threaten others with bodily harm. You cannot conspire to commit a crime--the speech is as much a crime as the crime committed (or attempted). Restrictions on the free exercise of the right of free speech have been recognized by the highest courts of all states and SCOTUS. As have conditions on the where when and how of public speech, such as parades and marches. So don't pretend that this hasn't and cannot be done and recognized as constitutional, as your arguments have been repeatedly rejected. rplaw concedes the point as well, arguing that first amendment rights may be restricted "so long as their speech does not affect the rights of others."
Thus, if we apply the same analysis to second amendment rights as has been applied in first amendment cases (as numerous second amendment cases and scholars have sought), you end up with valid restrictions on the where when and how of "bearing arms." Using rplaw's formulation, the bearing of arms may be regulated whenever it "interferes with the rights of others." As we all know, the "open unloaded" demonstrations lead to wide-spread fear and overly aggressive police responses; they thus "affected the rights of others" not to "feel threatened." Y'all may recall that the Seventh Circuit held in Highland Park case that ARs may be banned because people "feel" afraid of them, whether that fear is reasonable or not.
When closely analyzed, Nichols seeks only to overturn the open carry ban; he specifically rejects any claim that he seeks to overturn time and place restrictions such as courthouses, government buildings or GFSZs. Anyone with any sense will recognize that a right to carry firearms within any urban area and outside of private property is effectively if not entirely banned by GFSZs--hence the right he seeks to express is meaningless in practical application. And at the same time, he reinforces the conclusion that second amendment rights may be validly limited.
Or may be unconstitutionally limited. Government-created laws do get overturned on constitutional grounds. Passing the law doesn't make it constitutional.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other rifles here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=20061212
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 11-28-2017, 2:04 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Or may be unconstitutionally limited. Government-created laws do get overturned on constitutional grounds. Passing the law doesn't make it constitutional.
True enough, but court decisions validating the statute as constitutional do.
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 10:42 AM.




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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.