Calguns.net  

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-05-2017, 11:31 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,156
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [CERT *DENIED* 6/26/17] PART II

Continuation of thread http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=20192707
__________________
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
  #2  
Old 06-05-2017, 12:35 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 107
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is there any explanation why the Peruta docket is deleted?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-05-2017, 12:51 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 515
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Is there any explanation why the Peruta docket is deleted?
Indication that cert was denied?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-05-2017, 1:30 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,360
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....les/16-894.htm

Looks like it's just relisted to the 8th.
__________________
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
  #5  
Old 06-05-2017, 1:56 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Is there any explanation why the Peruta docket is deleted?
I had the same issue this morning. It originally showed up as usual, then became a blank page (using Opera with VPN).

I opened Epic (with built in VPN) and the page loaded properly.

Still doesn't work in Opera.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-05-2017, 2:01 PM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,762
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Any bets on which case will be decided first, roster or peruta?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
__________________
CZ 75 SP-01 ROCKS!
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-05-2017, 7:32 PM
ziegenbock ziegenbock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Press....Thanks for the answer in the last thread !!!!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-05-2017, 8:30 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,748
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawk556 View Post
Any bets on which case will be decided first, roster or peruta?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Roster because it's facing an uncertain court, whereas Peruta is facing what appears to be an insufficient court to give us freedom.

That's not to say roster WILL be decided, but that Peruta is almost certainly going to be denied now, whereas there's still a chance for the roster, as it hasn't made it that far yet.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-05-2017, 9:37 PM
Markinsac Markinsac is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 674
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was looking for a list of cases distributed for the conference meetings, but was unable to find it.

My guess is that they are working through the cases they have before the in terms of deciding if they are going to take them. We won't really know if they will put it on the calendar this year until a decision is posted, or the end of the term, whichever is first.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-06-2017, 5:06 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,174
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markinsac View Post
I was looking for a list of cases distributed for the conference meetings, but was unable to find it.

My guess is that they are working through the cases they have before the in terms of deciding if they are going to take them. We won't really know if they will put it on the calendar this year until a decision is posted, or the end of the term, whichever is first.
Scotusblog might tell you the high profile cases for the next conference, certainly not all, as most cases are denied cert outright.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-06-2017, 5:16 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 679
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Chuck Michel on Facebook, yesterday (6/5):

Today there is STILL no SCOTUS decision on whether to take the Peruta case for review.
Can't say for sure, but the odds are now that the Court will not take the case because there are not enough votes to take it (4) or to win it (5).
The delay at this the point likely indicates that there is a dissent being written by the Justices who DO want to take the case.
Even if this happens, we will keep trying, and have multiple cases already filed and lined up that will make their way to SCOTUS eventually.
We need more Trump Justices on SCOTUS to make the difference and set things right. We hoped for the best, but planned for the worst.
The good news: Trump will appoint them. Hillary would have rigged the deck.
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-06-2017, 6:21 AM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,009
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
Chuck Michel on Facebook, yesterday (6/5):

Today there is STILL no SCOTUS decision on whether to take the Peruta case for review.
Can't say for sure, but the odds are now that the Court will not take the case because there are not enough votes to take it (4) or to win it (5).
The delay at this the point likely indicates that there is a dissent being written by the Justices who DO want to take the case.
Even if this happens, we will keep trying, and have multiple cases already filed and lined up that will make their way to SCOTUS eventually.
We need more Trump Justices on SCOTUS to make the difference and set things right. We hoped for the best, but planned for the worst.
The good news: Trump will appoint them. Hillary would have rigged the deck.
But nobody knows until the decision has been made... hes speculating the outcome ...so we wait!

Last edited by stag6.8; 06-06-2017 at 6:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-06-2017, 8:35 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,360
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well I'm thinking My Nichols theory is going to be correct. In the words of Jack Ryan: "How do you make them want to give you concealed carry?" "How do you make them want you to carry concealed instead of openly...!!!" "Admiral, I know how were going to get concealed carry".

If we win an open carry case, it will likely be pretty unrestricted. The CA Legislature will then rush through a very restrictive shall issue system in hopes that people choose that method of carry Vs open carry. In my opinion, we want Nichols, not Norman because Nichols deals with a "de facto" ban based on semantic word games. If SCOTUS takes Norman and we win, CA would just say Norman dealt with an all out ban. Here in CA we don't have an all out ban.
__________________
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
  #14  
Old 06-06-2017, 8:44 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
Chuck Michel on Facebook, yesterday (6/5):

Today there is STILL no SCOTUS decision on whether to take the Peruta case for review.
Can't say for sure, but the odds are now that the Court will not take the case because there are not enough votes to take it (4) or to win it (5).
The delay at this the point likely indicates that there is a dissent being written by the Justices who DO want to take the case.
Even if this happens, we will keep trying, and have multiple cases already filed and lined up that will make their way to SCOTUS eventually.
We need more Trump Justices on SCOTUS to make the difference and set things right. We hoped for the best, but planned for the worst.
The good news: Trump will appoint them. Hillary would have rigged the deck.
May I take that as verification of the "win by losing" strategy?

And they want people to send them more money so they can continue the streak?

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-06-2017, 9:05 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
If we win an open carry case, it will likely be pretty unrestricted. The CA Legislature will then rush through a very restrictive shall issue system in hopes that people choose that method of carry Vs open carry.
That's pretty optimistic thinking... CA will be required to loosen gun restrictions, so they'll react by further relaxing even more gun restrictions?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-06-2017, 9:31 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 cockedandglocked View Post
That's pretty optimistic thinking... CA will be required to loosen gun restrictions, so they'll react by further relaxing even more gun restrictions?
Under the pressure of scrutiny by SCOTUS, IF that happens...

...California politicians of the suit variety and robe variety will ensure the following:

1. May Issue CCW
2. Neutering of an already neutered form of Open Carry know as Unloaded Open Carry.

The progressives, and that iincludes the NRA, SAF, GOA, CRPA, etc...do not want YOU under any circumstances

- Loaded Open Carrying
- Unmolested Unloaded Open Carrying

The progressive "lite" will continue to fight for Shall Issue CCW against an entrenched progressive "hardcore" otherwise know as elitist commies for whom "only the right people" should be able to bear arms.

LEO, Feinstein, DeLeon, Hollywood actors and actresses and Sheriff Laurie Smith's CEO campaign donors.

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-06-2017, 9:48 AM
butchy_boy's Avatar
butchy_boy butchy_boy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If Norman or Nichols include in their argument loaded open carry, would CA have a hard time only allowing unloaded OC.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-06-2017, 9:50 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Under the pressure of scrutiny by SCOTUS, IF that happens...

...California politicians of the suit variety and robe variety will ensure the following:

1. May Issue CCW
2. Neutering of an already neutered form of Open Carry know as Unloaded Open Carry.

The progressives, and that iincludes the NRA, SAF, GOA, CRPA, etc...do not want YOU under any circumstances

- Loaded Open Carrying
- Unmolested Unloaded Open Carrying

The progressive "lite" will continue to fight for Shall Issue CCW against an entrenched progressive "hardcore" otherwise know as elitist commies for whom "only the right people" should be able to bear arms.

LEO, Feinstein, DeLeon, Hollywood actors and actresses and Sheriff Laurie Smith's CEO campaign donors.

=8-|
That's pretty much my expectation, as well.

It seems unrealistic to expect that CA will try to discourage one form of legal carry by loosening restrictions on a different (and more useful, for most people) form of legal carry.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-06-2017, 1:04 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,174
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by butchy_boy View Post
If Norman or Nichols include in their argument loaded open carry, would CA have a hard time only allowing unloaded OC.
Pretty sure both of them have that covered. A win will not allow UOC as a satisfactory solution.
I do worry about may issue OC though, hopefully, a strongly worded opinion makes that disappear. We didn't get may issue on keeping arms after Heller, so maybe the same will hold on Norman or Nichols.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-06-2017, 7:46 PM
bkvonkriegelstein bkvonkriegelstein is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I refuse to believe they won't take the case... mostly because i'm a moron and believe that justice will prevail.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-06-2017, 10:24 PM
MarCat MarCat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Since we are officially on to Part II, I will double down with my original prediction

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarCat
...I will take the wildly ill-advised and irrational position that cert is granted. Time to play ball and feel a little of that "tired of winning" for a change.

Last edited by MarCat; 06-06-2017 at 10:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-07-2017, 7:45 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 679
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag6.8 View Post
But nobody knows until the decision has been made... hes speculating the outcome ...so we wait!
Yes and 90% of the 1000s of posts long Peruta thread is speculation, opining, editorializing, whining, etc.

Speculation from the head of NRAs CA legal team, arguably the foremost expert in CA firearms laws/litigation, carries more weight than "some guy on the interwebz" (no offense to Librarian), so I thought I'd pass it along as a public service
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-07-2017, 8:55 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
Yes and 90% of the 1000s of posts long Peruta thread is speculation, opining, editorializing, whining, etc.

Speculation from the head of NRAs CA legal team, arguably the foremost expert in CA firearms laws/litigation, carries more weight than "some guy on the interwebz" (no offense to Librarian), so I thought I'd pass it along as a public service
Maybe. Maybe not.

His "speculation" as to how to construct a lawsuit that would be successful appears to likely/quite possibly have been wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-07-2017, 8:56 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarCat View Post
Since we are officially on to Part II, I will double down with my original prediction
You going in on Lorax's $100 bet, too? So far I'm the only taker I think.

The bet, in case you missed it, was $100 (donated to a charity of the winner's choice) that cert is granted and oral arguments are heard. Lorax is betting it won't happen, I'm betting that it will. Last I heard, he was still open to other people taking the bet.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-07-2017, 10:04 AM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,385
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

tag
__________________
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
  #26  
Old 06-07-2017, 4:29 PM
clunkmess clunkmess is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 282
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

the Supremes must feel pressure to accept the case due to the national reciprocity bills pending in congress? Tomorrow, they will announce that the case will be heard.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-07-2017, 5:13 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,748
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clunkmess View Post
the Supremes must feel pressure to accept the case due to the national reciprocity bills pending in congress? Tomorrow, they will announce that the case will be heard.
To be denied cert.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-07-2017, 10:50 PM
MarCat MarCat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You going in on Lorax's $100 bet, too? So far I'm the only taker I think.

The bet, in case you missed it, was $100 (donated to a charity of the winner's choice) that cert is granted and oral arguments are heard. Lorax is betting it won't happen, I'm betting that it will. Last I heard, he was still open to other people taking the bet.
It gives me pause simply because I am uncertain of Lorax's universe of preferred charities. It would be painful to lose $100 knowing that it went to the Hillary Clinton Defense Fund, on top of being denied cert. If I had assurances that the choices were alligned with the NRA-ILA, CRPA, or similar then I would be inclined to jump in and match your unfounded and overly optimistic prognostication.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-08-2017, 7:17 AM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,738
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Today we will see what is true, correct?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbie1234 View Post
DO NOT RESPONSE TO THIS POST NO MORE.
"ssagsdgr" is A SPAM(mer).
GO TO EDIT AND DELETE YOUR REPLIES, WE DO NOT TOLERANCE SPAMMER ON OUR FORUM. THOSE SPAMMER IS LIKED "FORUM TERRORIST"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Forum terrorist is in my sights, request permission to engage...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-08-2017, 7:45 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 Lonestargrizzly View Post
Today we will see what is true, correct?
Monday.
__________________
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
  #31  
Old 06-08-2017, 8:39 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Today we will see what is true, correct?
I don't really think the term "what is true" can properly be applied to lawyers, litigation and the legal/court system.

But, yeah, next Monday we will find out what the lawyers/justices decided today about Peruta.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-08-2017, 9:15 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 clunkmess View Post
the Supremes must feel pressure to accept the case due to the national reciprocity bills pending in congress? Tomorrow, they will announce that the case will be heard.
Or they could deny cert and in doing so reminding Congress that they meant what they said in Heller - prohibitions on CCW by States can pass Constitutional muster - affirming CA9 in the process.

However, let's be honest . . . they are several reasons for why they could deny cert - and several reasons they could take up the case.

It's pure speculation as to what reasons they will go with either way.

=8-|

Possible Reasons to Deny:

- Heller was right - CA9 got it right
- Plaintiff failied to exericse certain avenues/options
- "We're just tired of this ****!"

Possible Reasons to Accept:

- CA9 didn't address the plaintiff's claim
- CA9 didn't address equal proctection issues

- Reaffirm SCOTUS meant what it meant in Heller - (preempt Norman and Nichols) - and hit CA and FL hard.

or do a complete 180 and...

- Toss Heller (change mind) and toss 600 years of tradition, Colonial law, and precendent thereby allowing banning of Open Carry, declaring CCW to be the mode for exercising the right - AND still allowing States to regulate via permit as an exericse in privilege.

^ The progressive "elites" who believe they run the country want exactly that last one...including the NRA.


Of course, they could give us something no one here has thought of...

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:31 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,748
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I appreciate your more balanced post Mrrabbit, which includes the possibility of the courts screwing us out of nowhere and ignoring case law and history.

Much more complete post than what many others post here.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 06-08-2017 at 4:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-08-2017, 12:43 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarCat View Post
It gives me pause simply because I am uncertain of Lorax's universe of preferred charities. It would be painful to lose $100 knowing that it went to the Hillary Clinton Defense Fund, on top of being denied cert.
similar thoughts crossed my mind, but I doubt he'd pick an "enemy" charity... more likely, if it isn't 2a, it'll be something off the wall like Helping Hands Monkey Helpers or maybe the Critter Connection guinnea pig rescue
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-08-2017, 1:26 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,174
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Or they could deny cert and in doing so reminding Congress that they meant what they said in Heller - prohibitions on CCW by States can pass Constitutional muster - affirming CA9 in the process.

However, let's be honest . . . they are several reasons for why they could deny cert - and several reasons they could take up the case.

It's pure speculation as to what reasons they will go with either way.

=8-|

Possible Reasons to Deny:

- Heller was right - CA9 got it right
- Plaintiff failied to exericse certain avenues/options
- "We're just tired of this ****!"

Possible Reasons to Accept:

- CA9 didn't address the plaintiff's claim
- CA9 didn't address equal proctection issues

- Reaffirm SCOTUS meant what it meant in Heller - (preempt Norman and Nichols) - and hit CA and FL hard.

or do a complete 180 and...

- Toss Heller (change mind) and toss 600 years of tradition, Colonial law, and precendent thereby allowing banning of Open Carry, declaring CCW to be the mode for exercising the right - AND still allowing States to regulate via permit as an exericse in privilege.

^ The progressive "elites" who believe they run the country want exactly that last one...including the NRA.


Of course, they could give us something no one here has thought of...

=8-|
Looks like they dropped the equal protection argument from their petition.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-08-2017, 3:19 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 press1280 View Post
Looks like they dropped the equal protection argument from their petition.
And why would they do that...

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-09-2017, 7:15 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,174
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
And why would they do that...

Guess they don't think it's a winner, and want to use the allotted word limits towards the 2A argument.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-09-2017, 11:48 AM
BlackReef's Avatar
BlackReef BlackReef is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,612
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Hopefully, as a San Diego resident, we are closer to legal CCW carry in SD county
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-09-2017, 2:02 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,950
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm really tired of the waiting game, however I am cautiously optimistic, we do have the smarter lawyers and even more importantly, honesty and integrity.
The elite Progressives/socialist know that they are wrong, know they are prevaricating - poor working people have absolutely the same rights as the wealthy, they know this yet stall and deny.
I believe honesty and integrity will prevail.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-09-2017, 2:06 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,951
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackReef View Post
Hopefully, as a San Diego resident, we are closer to legal CCW carry in SD county
Watch it there bub.


"Hoping" could draw an Obstruction of Justice Charge if you're not careful.

Just saying ......
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
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 11:00 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.