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
  #41  
Old 06-09-2017, 2:54 PM
norcalgunguy's Avatar
norcalgunguy norcalgunguy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 178
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Watch it there bub.


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

Just saying ......
I've put that in a memo and promise not to leak it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-09-2017, 3:20 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmith View Post
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.
Do you mean in a planetary hypothetical sense if humans continue to exist for another million years, or do mean next Monday morning?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-09-2017, 5:12 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,778
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The wait game sucks......
__________________
One life don't blow it!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-09-2017, 10:29 PM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,970
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Tagging da new threaddddddddd
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-10-2017, 6:20 AM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmith View Post
I believe honesty and integrity will prevail.
Hasn't yet.
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-10-2017, 7:05 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

TWO DAYS!!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-10-2017, 8:19 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,027
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Two decades?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-10-2017, 9:58 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
Two decades?
An optimist I see!
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-11-2017, 8:29 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,027
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

A realist, I live in San Diego County.

"A man's got to know his limitations" ~ Dirty Harry
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-11-2017, 10:32 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
A realist, I live in San Diego County.

"A man's got to know his limitations" ~ Dirty Harry
You're saying you're unwilling or unable to make the appropriately-sized donation to the re-election campaign? Yes, I'd consider that very realistic.

At least you have an option that could work. Here in Hawaii there is no one that one can bribe pay-off make a contribution to that would result in lawful exercise of the right to bear arms outside the home. Aloha!!

NINETEEN HOURS!!
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-11-2017, 7:04 PM
O'sider O'sider is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Cheers........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
A realist, I live in San Diego County.

"A man's got to know his limitations" ~ Dirty Harry
.......from a fellow supporter of the RKBA living in the frozen tundra of Oceanside!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-12-2017, 5:33 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Relisted...again.
Thomas must need more time for his dissent.
I think there are only 2 conferences left. What happens after that?
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-12-2017, 5:43 AM
krucam krucam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Today's orders

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...17zor_o7kq.pdf
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-12-2017, 5:51 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
Relisted...again.
Thomas must need more time for his dissent.
I think there are only 2 conferences left. What happens after that?
It goes to the next conference presumably, which is October.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-12-2017, 6:09 AM
Crazydave's Avatar
Crazydave Crazydave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 291
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Are we literally two weeks out?

Remaining Conference Dates this session:
May 25
June 1
June 8
June 15
June 22

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-12-2017, 7:09 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazydave View Post
Are we literally two weeks out?

Remaining Conference Dates this session:
May 25
June 1
June 8
June 15
June 22

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Most likely but no guarantee.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-12-2017, 7:31 AM
Chatterbox Chatterbox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

From SCOTUSblog:
Do you expect that the Court will announce any additional opinion days? Or do you think they'll hand everything down today and over the next two Mondays?
Amy Howe

Perhaps Andrew or Edith will chime in with the exact number of cases outstanding, but my recollection is that they will likely add at least one or two decision days. If you divided the number of opinions left by three, it would make for a couple of very heavy loads.

Can the term expire without action on the relisted cases? What happens if the term expires for those cases?

Amy Howe

It could in theory, but I think that they will almost certainly act on them by the end of the term.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-12-2017, 7:51 AM
ziegenbock ziegenbock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They are waiting for NORMAN and then will combine the cases....NRA is going to lose ccw case in cali and norman is going to win the OC case in Florida.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-12-2017, 8:33 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenbock View Post
They are waiting for NORMAN and then will combine the cases....NRA is going to lose ccw case in cali and norman is going to win the OC case in Florida.
Ruth... is that you?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-12-2017, 8:51 AM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 778
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

An awful lot of fortune tellers. Just the facts mam. Just the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-12-2017, 9:37 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenbock View Post
They are waiting for NORMAN and then will combine the cases....NRA is going to lose ccw case in cali and norman is going to win the OC case in Florida.
How would that work? Outside of agreeing on a right to carry, the plaintiffs disagree on the manner.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-12-2017, 9:48 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,583
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
How would that work? Outside of agreeing on a right to carry, the plaintiffs disagree on the manner.
Any of these cases boil down to 2 or 3 basic questions:

1) Does the 2A guarantee a right to carry a loaded firearm in public for immediate personal defense?

2) Can the Gov't (at any level) determine the manner of legal carry?

3) Is permitting/licensing constitutional when it comes to the free exercise of a fundamental right?

At a minimum we absolutely need to get an answer to #1, because right now the lower courts have been refusing to answer that simple question and dancing around the issue to pass the buck off onto SCOTUS.

By combining the cases then you could in theory answer all 3 of those questions in one decision. All of the old state cases regarding concealed carry found that banning concealed was legal because unrestricted open carry was available and protected by the 2A. But the reasons for dislike of concealed at the time were largely for "social manners" kinda reasons. So the question could become as "social manners" change with time, can the state opt for one form of carry over the other, so long as at least ONE form of unrestricted carry is available? Seems to me that is only one means of carry is available it should not also be subject to a license/permit.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

Last edited by Untamed1972; 06-12-2017 at 9:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-12-2017, 11:32 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
It goes to the next conference presumably, which is October.
Or, cert in Peruta is denied.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-12-2017, 12:09 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 Phiremin View Post
Relisted...again.
Thomas must need more time for his dissent.
I think there are only 2 conferences left. What happens after that?

And why would Thomas dissent?

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-12-2017, 12:15 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 Untamed1972 View Post
Any of these cases boil down to 2 or 3 basic questions:

1) Does the 2A guarantee a right to carry a loaded firearm in public for immediate personal defense?

2) Can the Gov't (at any level) determine the manner of legal carry?

3) Is permitting/licensing constitutional when it comes to the free exercise of a fundamental right?

At a minimum we absolutely need to get an answer to #1, because right now the lower courts have been refusing to answer that simple question and dancing around the issue to pass the buck off onto SCOTUS.

By combining the cases then you could in theory answer all 3 of those questions in one decision. All of the old state cases regarding concealed carry found that banning concealed was legal because unrestricted open carry was available and protected by the 2A. But the reasons for dislike of concealed at the time were largely for "social manners" kinda reasons. So the question could become as "social manners" change with time, can the state opt for one form of carry over the other, so long as at least ONE form of unrestricted carry is available? Seems to me that is only one means of carry is available it should not also be subject to a license/permit.
All of the above clearly indicates:

1. You haven't read Heller v. DC and the precedents cited within...

OR

2. You are misrepresenting them...

Here's the PDF:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-12-2017, 1:34 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,583
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
All of the above clearly indicates:

1. You haven't read Heller v. DC and the precedents cited within...

OR

2. You are misrepresenting them...

Here's the PDF:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


=8-|
Or I have read it....multiple times.

What am I misrepresenting? Heller clearly defined what bearing arms meant, which including descriptions of concealed carry. Other state court cases upheld the banning of concealed carry because they clearly stated the open carry was the protected 2A right.

The lower courts have been dancing around that since Heller was released. I was actually in the court room to hear the first oral arguments for Peruta at the district court. We have some courts saying banning OC is ok because CC is available, we have other courts saying the opposite. The original Peruta ruling said may-issue was legal because we had UOC at the time. Then the en banc panel completely ingnored that wasn't even available anymore at the time of its kangaroo court ruling. If you put both cases together the court....if they act honorably would have to address all 3 questions I stated in my first post.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-12-2017, 1:51 PM
Snoop Doggy Dawg Snoop Doggy Dawg is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The delay is because they are writing a per curium opinion a la caetano. Two more weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-12-2017, 2:31 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
An awful lot of fortune tellers. Just the facts mam. Just the facts.
Only nine people know, and they ain't talkin'.

I wish they would... or better still, have the conferences recorded for public viewing/listening. What are they hiding?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-12-2017, 3:25 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 Untamed1972 View Post
Or I have read it....multiple times.

What am I misrepresenting? Heller clearly defined what bearing arms meant, which including descriptions of concealed carry. Other state court cases upheld the banning of concealed carry because they clearly stated the open carry was the protected 2A right.

The lower courts have been dancing around that since Heller was released. I was actually in the court room to hear the first oral arguments for Peruta at the district court. We have some courts saying banning OC is ok because CC is available, we have other courts saying the opposite. The original Peruta ruling said may-issue was legal because we had UOC at the time. Then the en banc panel completely ingnored that wasn't even available anymore at the time of its kangaroo court ruling. If you put both cases together the court....if they act honorably would have to address all 3 questions I stated in my first post.
" All of the old state cases regarding concealed carry found that banning concealed was legal because unrestricted open carry was available and protected by the 2A."

^^^ It wasn't about one being available allowing a restriction on another! That's the deliberate misrepresentation.

Rights are rights period. Open is the protected mode by default - period.

Scalia said it himself...bans on open carry do not pass constitutional muster. Period.

Lower courts aren't dancing...they're being run by politicians in robes who are no different than politicians running states that don't like Open Carry, and lobbyists for organizations who want to push CCW at the EXPENSE of OC.

These people are just flat out defying SCOTUS in Heller - and hoping for a change of mind if they keep pushing hard and long enough.

And they do so knowing that SCOTUS's enforcement ability is only as good as the willingness of the system to respect their decision. Right now, that system - in particular the CA and HI and FL part of it is flat out thumbing their noses at Heller.

It's not dancing...it's deliberate defiance.

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-13-2017, 3:57 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Any of these cases boil down to 2 or 3 basic questions:

1) Does the 2A guarantee a right to carry a loaded firearm in public for immediate personal defense?

2) Can the Gov't (at any level) determine the manner of legal carry?

3) Is permitting/licensing constitutional when it comes to the free exercise of a fundamental right?

At a minimum we absolutely need to get an answer to #1, because right now the lower courts have been refusing to answer that simple question and dancing around the issue to pass the buck off onto SCOTUS.

By combining the cases then you could in theory answer all 3 of those questions in one decision. All of the old state cases regarding concealed carry found that banning concealed was legal because unrestricted open carry was available and protected by the 2A. But the reasons for dislike of concealed at the time were largely for "social manners" kinda reasons. So the question could become as "social manners" change with time, can the state opt for one form of carry over the other, so long as at least ONE form of unrestricted carry is available? Seems to me that is only one means of carry is available it should not also be subject to a license/permit.
Put aside #3, that's not going to be challenged by either party so long as the permit is not a huge burden.

I just don't see how the cases get combined, they are too different. At a minimum, one case gets heard while the other basically gets put away and then remanded after the other is decided.
But with these two cases, if one wins the other should lose theoretically, so it doesn't make sense to hold one.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-13-2017, 10:27 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,360
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Question

Quick question, has Norman applied for Cert to SCOTUS yet? I didn't find much on the Google machine.
__________________
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
  #72  
Old 06-13-2017, 10:54 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
Quick question, has Norman applied for Cert to SCOTUS yet? I didn't find much on the Google machine.
Not yet, he still has a month or two left and Lawyers almost never file early.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-13-2017, 12:29 PM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Quick question, has Norman applied for Cert to SCOTUS yet? I didn't find much on the Google machine.
No reference immediately available but if memory serves, Norma has until 25 July, 2017.
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-13-2017, 5:45 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Anyone else excited for the impending denial of cert and mass disillusionment of dozens of all but the most delusional Pollyannas of calguns?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-14-2017, 2:36 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 689
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Anyone else excited for the impending denial of cert and mass disillusionment of dozens of all but the most delusional Pollyannas of calguns?
I am just numb from the entire Peruta saga....

Hopefully you are wrong about the denial of cert, however if SCOTUS can't count to five, then we probably dodge a bullet here and hope that Kennedy retires at the end of the month and takes RBG with him.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 06-14-2017, 3:52 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,170
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Anyone else excited for the impending denial of cert and mass disillusionment of dozens of all but the most delusional Pollyannas of calguns?
Although a denial is likely, let's hope for some actual guidance, like "bring an open carry suit".
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-14-2017, 6:07 AM
Silent Pulse's Avatar
Silent Pulse Silent Pulse is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can someone explain to me why I see posts that say denial is highly probable?

I'm a logical thinker and I am simply drawing a blank when I see that.

Under what theory or fundamental principle is denial something that will likely happen? Evidence? Explanation? Something...
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-14-2017, 6:12 AM
Master_P Master_P is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 210
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Pulse View Post
Can someone explain to me why I see posts that say denial is highly probable?

I'm a logical thinker and I am simply drawing a blank when I see that.

Under what theory or fundamental principle is denial something that will likely happen? Evidence? Explanation? Something...
Statistical probability, based on the number of relists, and how past cases have fared after receiving a similar number of relists.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 06-14-2017, 6:18 AM
Silent Pulse's Avatar
Silent Pulse Silent Pulse is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_P View Post
Statistical probability, based on the number of relists, and how past cases have fared after receiving a similar number of relists.
Could I receive a sample cited source?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 06-14-2017, 6:31 AM
Master_P Master_P is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 210
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Pulse View Post
Could I receive a sample cited source?
The links were on scotusblog. You may want to search there.
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 4:11 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.