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
  #81  
Old 06-14-2017, 6:34 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
The links were on scotusblog. You may want to search there.
Ok will do.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 06-14-2017, 7:44 AM
spalterego spalterego is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 101
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I Think this is what you are looking for.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/09/th...cs-of-relists/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/09/th...cs-of-relists/
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 06-14-2017, 7:56 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 spalterego View Post
I checked on the site. I also checked the FAQ's on scotusblog too regarding relists.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 06-14-2017, 8:31 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Pulse View Post
Could I receive a sample cited source?
For the third or fourth, or maybe even fifth time:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/th...ber-term-2015/
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 06-14-2017, 1:22 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
For the third or fourth, or maybe even fifth time:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/th...ber-term-2015/
So how about answering if you're excited for the pending denial of cert?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 06-14-2017, 2:11 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
So how about answering if you're excited for the pending denial of cert?
I have a certain level of "anticipatory excitement" about receiving an answer, any answer.

Following the statistics (what other rational, evidence-based basis is there for speculation?), I'd suspect denial of cert, as that will follow the pattern.

But, anything can happen... because there's no "reason" Peruta couldn't be one of those diminishingly-small-percentage anomalies.

IF cert IS denied, most "exciting" for me would be several lengthy, "strongly-worded" dissents from, and concurrences of, denial. That'd be good reading.

Last edited by surfgeorge; 06-14-2017 at 2:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 06-14-2017, 2:16 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 514
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If odds (10:1 for granting cert or summary decision anyone?) were on offer, I might be inclined to take the wager. But given even odds, and since denial of cert seems the likely outcome, I am on the sidelines.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 06-14-2017, 3:29 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 388
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm actually thinking this might go the way of Cataeno because of the en banc shenanigans.

No cert but not a loss either. Just a "you screwed up, go read Heller".

Fast, simple, expedient, and gets everyone off the hook for a bad case decision.
__________________
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
  #89  
Old 06-14-2017, 4:17 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I'm actually thinking this might go the way of Cataeno because of the en banc shenanigans.

No cert but not a loss either. Just a "you screwed up, go read Heller".

Fast, simple, expedient, and gets everyone off the hook for a bad case decision.
But Caetano eventually has struck down stun gun bans. Mostly inconsequential but a definite step forward and essentially answers the bare question before the court without going any further.

Striking good cause, or liberalizing issuance of carry of guns in public in the largest state in the union would be YUGE no matter what.

There's no "compromise" on Peruta that isn't a major win or loss.
I don't know how they can per Curiam Heller without it being a major deal with major repercussions.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 06-14-2017, 4:22 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
I have a certain level of "anticipatory excitement" about receiving an answer, any answer.

Following the statistics (what other rational, evidence-based basis is there for speculation?), I'd suspect denial of cert, as that will follow the pattern.

But, anything can happen... because there's no "reason" Peruta couldn't be one of those diminishingly-small-percentage anomalies.

IF cert IS denied, most "exciting" for me would be several lengthy, "strongly-worded" dissents from, and concurrences of, denial. That'd be good reading.
No, I mean getting excited about being able to say you were right and basically forcing people to take the Kcbrown pill. And laugh at all the prognosticators who acted like they knew everything when they knew nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
If odds (10:1 for granting cert or summary decision anyone?) were on offer, I might be inclined to take the wager. But given even odds, and since denial of cert seems the likely outcome, I am on the sidelines.
Is this about the lorax bet?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 06-14-2017, 7:04 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 514
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Is this about the lorax bet?
Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06-15-2017, 9:43 AM
rplusplus's Avatar
rplusplus rplusplus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baghdad West
Posts: 2,206
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I'm thinking like November 8 2016...
Ready to accept defeat... but hoping for a miracle.
__________________
US Navy Retired 1987-2007

Happy Days
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-15-2017, 10:03 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 388
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
But Caetano eventually has struck down stun gun bans. Mostly inconsequential but a definite step forward and essentially answers the bare question before the court without going any further.

Striking good cause, or liberalizing issuance of carry of guns in public in the largest state in the union would be YUGE no matter what.

There's no "compromise" on Peruta that isn't a major win or loss.
I don't know how they can per Curiam Heller without it being a major deal with major repercussions.
Well, let's just imagine that Peruta gets PC'd and there aren't any dissents or concurrences. Just: "Read Heller again."

What part of the opinion is wrong? What part of the law is struck? What part of the State's gun regulations are unconstitutional?

It would be the judicial equivalent of; "If I have to stop this car...."
__________________
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
  #94  
Old 06-15-2017, 3:22 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Well, let's just imagine that Peruta gets PC'd and there aren't any dissents or concurrences. Just: "Read Heller again."

What part of the opinion is wrong? What part of the law is struck? What part of the State's gun regulations are unconstitutional?

It would be the judicial equivalent of; "If I have to stop this car...."
That would be read by everyone-accurately- as a peevish and childish move by SCOTUS; and lower the decorum of the institution itself.

SCOTUS, even when handing smackdowns, cites where you can improve your paper and return for full credit but with a note in your permanent record.

Returning the paper for revision with literally no content besides "see original assignment details" would be seen as degrading the last of the 3 branches, and Slate, Vox, and every other psuedointellectual would talk about the trumpification of SCOTUS with a single appointment, and hint that the Congress baseball shooter was justified.

Still a big deal.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-15-2017, 7:11 PM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 562
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I'm actually thinking this might go the way of Cataeno because of the en banc shenanigans.

No cert but not a loss either. Just a "you screwed up, go read Heller".

Fast, simple, expedient, and gets everyone off the hook for a bad case decision.
Assuming this happens, does this remand the case back to the 9th, or to the district court? A remand back to the district court followed by new appeals to the 9th will drag out a resolution for at least several more years.
__________________
---
As of 10/10 the Governor has 121 bills left on his desk to sign or veto by 10/13.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-15-2017, 9:57 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Anyone think if enough of us called the SCOTUS clerk's office enough times tomorrow that someone there would get angry enough eventually to shout into the phone "They decided XYZ! Are you happy now! Stop calling!"?

Otherwise we gotta wait 'til Monday...
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-16-2017, 6:24 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,174
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prometa View Post
Assuming this happens, does this remand the case back to the 9th, or to the district court? A remand back to the district court followed by new appeals to the 9th will drag out a resolution for at least several more years.
It goes back to the 9th who in turn can probably send it back to the district court depending on the circumstances. If it gets sent back due to the states intervention then yes, it'll be a waste of time since the underlying question will be ignored.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06-16-2017, 6:24 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,174
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Anyone think if enough of us called the SCOTUS clerk's office enough times tomorrow that someone there would get angry enough eventually to shout into the phone "They decided XYZ! Are you happy now! Stop calling!"?

Otherwise we gotta wait 'til Monday...
Unlike every other government agency SCOTUS doesn't leak.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06-16-2017, 7:06 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: 11,067
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplusplus View Post
I'm thinking like November 8 2016...
Ready to accept defeat... but hoping for a miracle.
I expect a few wins, some day. Whether I'm still alive to see it is the only question. This is a multi-generational fight.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 06-16-2017, 9:50 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,174
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
In one sense, certainly. But from another perspective, kicking the can down the road gives more time for a second (J. Kennedy) or perhaps even third (J. Kennedy and J. Ginsberg) conservative Justice to be seated.
In that case, perhaps, although I'm sure the 9th will try to speed things up, render a similiar opinion and we'll be back where we started.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 06-16-2017, 8:03 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 388
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
That would be read by everyone-accurately- as a peevish and childish move by SCOTUS; and lower the decorum of the institution itself.

SCOTUS, even when handing smackdowns, cites where you can improve your paper and return for full credit but with a note in your permanent record.

Returning the paper for revision with literally no content besides "see original assignment details" would be seen as degrading the last of the 3 branches, and Slate, Vox, and every other psuedointellectual would talk about the trumpification of SCOTUS with a single appointment, and hint that the Congress baseball shooter was justified.

Still a big deal.
So what? They got it so screwed up due to political ideology that the decision doesn't match the complaint, gives undue deference to the State to intervene for no valid legal reason, and ignores the changes in the law. The 9th DESERVES a smackdown for this opinion.

Given that there's a rumor that Ginsberg is not healthy (again), and that the Court is limiting the cases she is involved with, and the near end of the term, and Gorsuch's newness, a quick PC would solve a bunch of immediate problems without any real backlash.
__________________
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
  #102  
Old 06-17-2017, 7:23 PM
clunkmess clunkmess is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 282
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The court decided in favor of the 2nd Amendment with Heller and McDonald, so why wouldn't they take this case and decide in its favor?

The odds look good!
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-17-2017, 7:55 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,151
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Just as the nomination and confirmation process for Gorsuch was off topic for this thread, so too is discussion of potential retirements from the Supreme Court and possible replacements.

Fine discussion to have, but if you want to have it, start a thread in OT.

Some posts deleted.
__________________
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
  #104  
Old 06-18-2017, 4:40 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,174
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clunkmess View Post
The court decided in favor of the 2nd Amendment with Heller and McDonald, so why wouldn't they take this case and decide in its favor?

The odds look good!
The court typically only takes cases due to lower courts confusion (split), they do not run in and take cases based on mistakes unless it's an egregious one. IOW they want to make sure lower courts rule in a uniform fashion.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-18-2017, 9:13 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 press1280 View Post
The court typically only takes cases due to lower courts confusion (split), they do not run in and take cases based on mistakes unless it's an egregious one. IOW they want to make sure lower courts rule in a uniform fashion.
While I absolutely agree that's the original intent/purpose/design for the Supreme Court's existence, I really don't think that's how it actually works in practice - not when there's any kind of bias among the justices. And they all have biases. Some are biased in our favor, some aren't, but they are all inherently biased, and always will be for as long as they are politically appointed.

The gay marriage case, for example, was taken on by SCOTUS for strictly political reasons. I'm sure there are many, many other examples but that's the one that sticks out in my mind at the moment.

Thankfully, right to carry is a rather political (and currently hot) issue, and I think that works to our benefit here, and is the reason why I still think SCOTUS hears this case, despite nearly everyone here feeling differently.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-18-2017 at 9:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-18-2017, 9:43 AM
stevebla stevebla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North
Posts: 474
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I remain hopeful.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-18-2017, 10:31 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Just as the nomination and confirmation process for Gorsuch was off topic for this thread, so too is discussion of potential retirements from the Supreme Court and possible replacements.

Fine discussion to have, but if you want to have it, start a thread in OT.

Some posts deleted.
Librarian, can we please get a judicial sub forum?

I don't do off-topic anymore because I stay on topic here, but people crap-post in off-topic when we have those threads, but apparently I go too far when returning fire, so I'd like to stay out of the goldilocks crap posting completely, and when people attempt to derail threads with typical OT behavior, apparently I'm too unrestrained when I attempt to beat them at their own game.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-18-2017, 12:27 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 clunkmess View Post
The court decided in favor of the 2nd Amendment with Heller and McDonald, so why wouldn't they take this case and decide in its favor?

The odds look good!
Your asking the Court to be consistent and respectful of precedent.

CCW was already covered by Heller v. DC - under YOUR expectation - they would DECLINE cert for Peruta.

I'm going to tell you the same thing I tell so many others - go ACTUALLY READ Heller v. DC YOURSELF - as written by Justice Scalia.

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-18-2017, 1:06 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Your asking the Court to be consistent and respectful of precedent.

CCW was already covered by Heller v. DC - under YOUR expectation - they would DECLINE cert for Peruta.

I'm going to tell you the same thing I tell so many others - go ACTUALLY READ Heller v. DC YOURSELF - as written by Justice Scalia.

=8-)
Got a question for you on that.

Your interpretation of Heller (which certainly isn't a unique one -- it's shared by a number of others, including the plaintiffs in Norman) seems to hinge upon this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 at 2809
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the "natural right of self-defence" and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!"
My question to you is this: what, exactly, is "the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause"?

A related question is: why isn't concealed carry or open carry mentioned in the part of the decision the Court quoted, if the nonprotected status of concealed carry is the essential takeaway from the above portion of Heller?
__________________
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
  #110  
Old 06-18-2017, 2:14 PM
iroquois's Avatar
iroquois iroquois is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 702
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Your asking the Court to be consistent and respectful of precedent.

CCW was already covered by Heller v. DC - under YOUR expectation - they would DECLINE cert for Peruta.

I'm going to tell you the same thing I tell so many others - go ACTUALLY READ Heller v. DC YOURSELF - as written by Justice Scalia.

=8-)
Yep, to your point it's a little concerning in light of the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the open carry ban in Florida. Granted that was right before Gorsuch.
SCOTUS should decide based on how the constitution reads.
The statement "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" essentially means one can choose to keep arms at all times whether the government likes it or not.
Unlike the Peruta case, DC. v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago was really more specific to bear arms at home not public concealed carry.
Hopefully with the addition of Justice Gorsuch on board the decision will be in our favor.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 06-18-2017, 5:47 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iroquois View Post
Yep, to your point it's a little concerning in light of the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold the open carry ban in Florida. Granted that was right before Gorsuch.
That was the Florida supreme court, not the United States Supreme Court.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 06-18-2017, 6:08 PM
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

Well Heller gave us Keep, let's hope Norman or Peruta furthers us along into defining bear, then we move into arms.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 06-18-2017, 6:23 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,842
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Folks....

I'm not a justice of the Supreme Court who decided Heller v. DC
I'm not a founder of the nation who came from a tradition of English Common Law.
I'm not a 200 year old justice from one of several state courts that have set precedent that SCOTUS affirmed or recognized in Heller v. DC
Nor was I an authority during the Colonial era continuing the English tradition during that era.

If you want to question them - good luck with that.

As I've stated so many time in this thread now, SCOTUS can go so many ways with this:

Consistency / Respect Precedent:

- Decline Cert for Peruta
- Accept Cert for Norman / Nichols - both or one.
- Accept Cert for Peruta as an equal protection case.

Move in a Positive Direction:

- Accept Cert for Peruta and at a minimum kill May Issue CCW and force Shall Issue.


Move in a Negative Direction:

- Decline Cert for Norman / Nichols and tossing Heller v. DC. Thereby sending a messages to all states the OC can be banned.

- Accept Cert for Peruta and move forward with the argument that OC can be banned in favor of CCW tossing Heller v. DC.

- While continuing to recognize the tradition of states to regulate CCW thereby putting our 2nd Amendment behind a permit. Respect tradition and precedent in that particular instance.

^^^ Understand that if those three directly above happen YOUR 2nd Amendment right no longer gets treated as a right - it become hostage to an exercise of privilege.

^^^ That is the wet dream of the Uniparty, various organizations and the elites that like to think they run the country - whether they be Feinstein, Hollywood liberals, Bloomberg or some of your phony Republicans..

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 06-18-2017, 6:24 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 butchy_boy View Post
Well Heller gave us Keep, let's hope Norman or Peruta furthers us along into defining bear, then we move into arms.
It's amazing to me, that over 2 centuries after it was written, there is still a huge number of people who completely don't understand what the simple, plain-English phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means. That we have to have MULTIPLE supreme court cases to define what that means, with each case covering a different word from it, is absolute insanity.

But yet, here we are.

Leave it to the liberals to be completely baffled by the simplest of English sentences.

Quote:
It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the – if he – if "is" means is and never has been that is not – that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 06-18-2017, 6:24 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 butchy_boy View Post
Well Heller gave us Keep, let's hope Norman or Peruta furthers us along into defining bear, then we move into arms.
Heller defined keep and bear....and traditon, precedent, common arms, etc. Read the actual decision please.

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 06-18-2017, 6:27 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 cockedandglocked View Post
It's amazing to me, that over 2 centuries after it was written, there is still a huge number of people who completely don't understand what the simple, plain-English phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means. That we have to have MULTIPLE supreme court cases to define what that means, with each case covering a different word from it, is absolute insanity.

But yet, here we are.

Leave it to the liberals to be completely baffled by the simplest of English sentences.
You gotta wonder how it is that only ONE state in our modern age has the attitude:

"We don't care if you OC or CCW. Have a nice day..."

Vermont

You'd think we'd all be "grown up" by now...

=8-(
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 06-18-2017, 6:28 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 mrrabbit View Post
Heller defined keep and bear....and traditon, precedent, common arms, etc. Read the actual decision please.

=8-)
Heller talked about those items a little, but it's a stretch to say that Heller completely defined them. If that were true, things would be a lot different right now.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 06-19-2017, 4:54 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

We wouldn't be fighting a decade later if Heller defined them. Best result if Peruta is we move forward in defining bear.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 06-19-2017, 5:36 AM
lorax3's Avatar
lorax3 lorax3 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 4,668
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Monday orders are out: no action on Peruta.
__________________
You think you know, but you have no idea.

The information posted here is not legal advice. If you seek legal advice hire an attorney who is familiar with all the facts of your case.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 06-19-2017, 5:48 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That must be some dissent Thomas is writing.
Wonder if he'll finish it before the session ends
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 11:48 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.