Calguns.net  

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 06-23-2017, 6:43 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 Baja Daze View Post
You underestimate the libtards on SCOTUS....

We could get Cert granted and a subsequent loss stating that there is absolutely NO right to "bear" arms beyond our homes period!

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "open carry" is the right and "bear" extends beyond the home, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of Americans open carrying in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.
...and you obviously haven't been paying attention in this thread.

Go back and read the first three of this Part, and the last 2 of Part I - I'm tired of repeating myself.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have made the "underestimate" statement...

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 06-23-2017, 6:49 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 Southwest Chuck View Post
That would only hasten the Convention of States Project and put a fire under it. I would prefer we push the envelop on the issue. Make'em ban bear if they got the balls ...... I'm pretty sure Gingsburg and that wise Latina have a set .... I don't think Kennedy has the 'nads to go that far though
Convention of States would most likely result in a further eroding of our rights...

If Sotomayor is sitting on a fence...further politics come into play...

...Puerto Rico.

Someone in the Uniparty is working a Puerto Rico related deal with Justice Sotomayor's "attentiveness" in mind.

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 06-23-2017, 7:39 AM
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 mrrabbit View Post
Convention of States would most likely result in a further eroding of our rights...

If Sotomayor is sitting on a fence...further politics come into play...

...Puerto Rico.

Someone in the Uniparty is working a Puerto Rico related deal with Justice Sotomayor's "attentiveness" in mind.

=8-|
Risk vs Reward. It's a possibility, but not as far as the 2A is concerned, so I disagree on that point and it certainly isn't the 'Most Likely" outcome in my view. Free States have the Majority. Plus, having a strong 2A will ultimately protect the other fundamental rights, one way or another.
__________________
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
  #164  
Old 06-23-2017, 8:35 AM
SPGuy SPGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 111
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I've got a question I've been wondering for a while now....it might be a completely noob question but why is it out of all the bill of rights it's only the second amendment that is truely regulated by the states instead of the Federal? You can't say "in Colorado you can use this word or phrase but you can't in Arizona according to the law." Or "wait you mean to tell me I have to house the national guard while my neighbor 2 miles away in Oregon doesn't cause my state says I have to?" How did this whole states have control thing really happen? I do believe this pertains to this thread but I will move it if I need to...

Imagine how red this country would be on Election Day if EVERYONES state was forced to follow Ca gun laws

Last edited by SPGuy; 06-23-2017 at 8:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 06-23-2017, 8:52 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,842
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

The Bill of Rights (First 10 - 12 or 13 actually) was a push by the States as a reminder to the new Federal Government IN WRITING that the Federal Government is to respect the preexisting rights of THEIR citizens in the several States and the preexisting rights of the States themselves.

And of course under the English tradition, States or "Authorites" could if they chose to regulate things like CCW, certain religious practices, education, appointments, occupational licensing, etc...

Put yourselves in the shoes of a States protecting the preexisting rights of your citizens AND your State and the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights starts to have more clarity.

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 06-23-2017, 9:06 AM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Nothing today but some commentary from scotusblog live blog:

Quote:
1) When is the next possible release of orders?
2) Might it be the big, end-of-term orderlist?
3) How unusual would it be for the court to save a number of big orders - Masterpiece Cake shop, the 2A case - for the final release of the term?
by David 6:45 AM ↑0

Edith Roberts
There will be orders on Monday, and probably more after an as-yet-unnanounced clean-up conference. I don't think it would be that unusual to save the high-profile orders until the end.
6:45 AM

Quote:
So does this mean we'll have an answer as to whether they'll take Peruta by Monday?
by Ben 7:33 AM ↑0

Amy Howe
I think either Monday or Tuesday, yes. I can't remember whether I typed this earlier and am too lazy to look, but if Monday is the last day for opinions they will hold another conference that day and announce orders on Tuesday morning.
7:33 AM

Amy Howe
Mostly the orders from that day will "clean up" the cases that have been on hold waiting the outcome in merits cases decided on Monday, but as I recall last year they granted a few cases on that conference too.
7:34 AM
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 06-23-2017, 9:41 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
You underestimate the libtards on SCOTUS....

We could get Cert granted and a subsequent loss stating that there is absolutely NO right to "bear" arms beyond our homes period!

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "open carry" is the right and "bear" extends beyond the home, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of Americans open carrying in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.
It has ever been thus...

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "citizenship" is the right and the "right to vote" exists, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of African-Americans voting in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.

See: Dred Scott
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 06-23-2017, 11:43 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
The Bill of Rights (First 10 - 12 or 13 actually) was a push by the States as a reminder to the new Federal Government IN WRITING that the Federal Government is to respect the preexisting rights of THEIR citizens in the several States and the preexisting rights of the States themselves.

And of course under the English tradition, States or "Authorites" could if they chose to regulate things like CCW, certain religious practices, education, appointments, occupational licensing, etc...

Put yourselves in the shoes of a States protecting the preexisting rights of your citizens AND your State and the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights starts to have more clarity.

=8-)
So what you're saying is that an Article V Convention will result in the repeal of the 14th Amendment.

Right?
__________________
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
  #169  
Old 06-23-2017, 2:38 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
So what you're saying is that an Article V Convention will result in the repeal of the 14th Amendment.

Right?
From the Articles of Confederation (13 State Unanimous Approval) to the Constitution (Only 9 Required - rest pressured by majority to go along).

^^^ That's a lowered standard right there already which resulted in more power given to the Federal government.

All of our Amendments to the Constittution have been by the proposal method in which the States are in control.

Articles of Convention is the mechanism that has never been used in which once kicked in the States are no longer in control.


THIS is exactly what the Uniparty wants - the ability as the elite with many liberal members rewriting the Constitution as they want it!


- Explicitly recognizing the new slavery that exists today - people declared as losing their rights EVEN after serving their jail sentence.

- Explicitly recognzing the lost of rights that occur as a result of bureacratic procedure and law - not due proces in a Superior Court before a jury of one's peers.

- Explicitly recognizing the special classes that exist today who somehow have more rights than US.

- Declaring certain rights to be "group" rights, not invididual rights.

...and on and on.


It is the Uniparty with key legislators, media personalities and lobbyists that are pushing this agenda - rewriting the Constitution using procedures and rules under Articles of Convention - the States would have no control over - is their wet dream.


Too many so-called Conservative and Libertarians are falling for it.


The Constitution is NOT the problem - the people in office are.

You don't break A to fix B in this case. You toss B's arse out onto the street.

Once that starts to happen, C, D and E's behavior will start to change.

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 06-23-2017, 4:46 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [Filed for cert to SCOTUS, 1/12/17] PART II

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
From the Articles of Confederation (13 State Unanimous Approval) to the Constitution (Only 9 Required - rest pressured by majority to go along).

^^^ That's a lowered standard right there already which resulted in more power given to the Federal government.

All of our Amendments to the Constittution have been by the proposal method in which the States are in control.

Articles of Convention is the mechanism that has never been used in which once kicked in the States are no longer in control.
Excuse me? The Constitution explicitly calls out the conditions of ratification:

Quote:
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof
So your claim here must amount to one that says that the individual states will not be in control of the conventions within them.


Quote:
THIS is exactly what the Uniparty wants - the ability as the elite with many liberal members rewriting the Constitution as they want it!
Please explain how it is that rewriting the Constitution helps the Uniparty when the Uniparty already has full control over the entire government.


Quote:
- Explicitly recognizing the new slavery that exists today - people declared as losing their rights EVEN after serving their jail sentence.
You mean like, say, their right to keep and bear arms? Oh, wait.


Quote:
- Explicitly recognzing the lost of rights that occur as a result of bureacratic procedure and law - not due proces in a Superior Court before a jury of one's peers.
You mean like, say, their right to be free at all? (Which is what is lost when one is branded a "terrorist", "enemy combatant", or whatever)


Quote:
- Explicitly recognizing the special classes that exist today who somehow have more rights than US.
Because, you know, transparency on that front is so much more effective at keeping the population quelled than is pretending that everyone is equal but actually acting otherwise.


Quote:
- Declaring certain rights to be "group" rights, not invididual rights.
How in the world does that help them if they can already simply decide that some nebulous thing like "public safety" completely overshadows the right in question?


Quote:
The Constitution is NOT the problem - the people in office are.
And the people who are in office got there how? You think that happened in a vacuum?


Quote:
You don't break A to fix B in this case. You toss B's arse out onto the street.
You can't do that if there isn't a means of doing that. Now we're talking about the "information" people use to decide who winds up in office, and who decides what choices they have on the ballot in the first place.


Quote:
Once that starts to happen, C, D and E's behavior will start to change.
Well, no, actually.

We've had over 100 years of this. That's over 100 years for the system to prove that it can protect liberty. Over 100 years of failure of the system to protect liberty. Do you really think the system will "heal" on its own without structural changes? Seriously???


Structural change is possible only through alteration of the Constitution. So the choice is between:
  1. Not altering the Constitution and letting things continue as they are, which guarantees that we wind up with tyranny.
  2. Altering the Constitution and taking the chance that we wind up with tyranny anyway.
Well, seeing how it is the former, and not the latter, which guarantees tyranny, it should be obvious that it is the former, not the latter, that we should be opposing. When the choice is between certain death and probable death, I'll choose the latter anytime. One would be insane to choose the former.

And yes, an alteration to the Constitution is necessary. That alteration is necessary because it is mechanism (not lofty declarations) that is required to ultimately avoid tyranny. I'm under no illusion about the probability that such changes will be enacted, but some chance of that is better than no chance, and you're arguing for the latter.

Yeah, I agree that if the states get the opportunity to alter the Constitution, it may well result in something like the repeal of the 14th Amendment, among other things. But if you don't take the opportunity then we will end up with tyranny, because that is the natural course of things when restrictions continuously pile up as they normally do in any society that doesn't have an effective and highly active mechanism that removes restrictions at least as often as they're created. And we don't have such a mechanism.
__________________
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; 06-23-2017 at 6:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 06-24-2017, 9:18 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

2,816 days down...

TWO DAYS to go!

Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 06-24-2017, 10:02 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,653
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Convention of States would most likely result in a further eroding of our rights...

If Sotomayor is sitting on a fence...further politics come into play...

...Puerto Rico.

Someone in the Uniparty is working a Puerto Rico related deal with Justice Sotomayor's "attentiveness" in mind.

=8-|
You need 38 states to agree on changing rights. Convention of the states would put us awfully close to fixing our rights to be the way our founders intended them to be. This idea of a "runaway convention" not only flawed but kind of absurd too.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 06-24-2017, 12:54 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is online now
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,955
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Now is the time and Peruta is the tool

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
You need 38 states to agree on changing rights. Convention of the states would put us awfully close to fixing our rights to be the way our founders intended them to be. This idea of a "runaway convention" not only flawed but kind of absurd too.
I disagree. Leaving aside the argument that Progressive activists are the most likely attendees of such a convention, it is impossible to make the Second Amendment any more clear. If you changed it to: "The right to own and carry firearms cannot be restricted in any way whatsoever and this especially means by anyone who is a Democrat or Progressive", a Progressive Supreme Court would simply interpret "restricted" or any other prohibition to not include restrictions necessary for "public safety". As we know from our experience in California, "public safety" is a term that means anything they want. If some gang member could use a stolen gun to kill a child, they could say that confiscating your firearm is necessary for "public safety" because it might be stolen by a gang member. Might. It might also be used to defend yourself against that gang member but YOUR safety isn't important. Only the possible death of a theoretical child is.

The one and only way to preserve our right to keep and bear arms is through SCOTUS enforcing Heller and McDonald through reversing such abominations as the En Banc decision on Peruta. Now is the time and Peruta is the tool. The best legacy Kennedy could leave would be to vote to have SCOTUS hear Peruta in the Fall and then retire, letting the President appoint a Conservative to hear the case.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 06-24-2017, 1:27 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I don't really understand all this talk about needing to amend the constitution. SCOTUS has already opined significantly in favor of the 2A right being an individual right to carry. I feel like many who post here never read the actual Heller decision in its entirety. I'd recommend doing that.

The current Peruta litigation is about enforcing the Heller opinion because the State has taken an intentionally narrow view that has split the lower courts by technicality, and/or is arguing the almost non-existent unincorporated-areas-carry will suffice to appease 2A. This is an argument without merit, tantamount to claiming 1A would be sufficiently protected if there were pockets of free speech zones scattered throughout unpopulated regions.

Long story short, we have good reason to be optimistic if SCOTUS hears the case because they have already issued an opinion on the core matter. Now they just need to direct the lower courts to apply that standard in enforcement with respect to some form of carry being mandated so the State will have to choose between legal open carry or shall issue CCW.

At this point we just need to wait and see if SCOTUS will take it up. Monday/Tuesday are the days it could happen this session. I think all this talk of a constitutional convention is ridiculous frankly.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 06-24-2017, 1:39 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by naeco81 View Post
I don't really understand all this talk about needing to amend the constitution. SCOTUS has already opined significantly in favor of the 2A right being an individual right to carry. I feel like many who post here never read the actual Heller decision in its entirety. I'd recommend doing that.
Mostly happy talk. It is highly doubtful that the necessary number of states will vote to have a convention. They have much more important things to worry about than whether they should help the poor sods in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Kalifornia have the right to carry concealed.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 06-24-2017, 2:01 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Mostly happy talk. It is highly doubtful that the necessary number of states will vote to have a convention. They have much more important things to worry about than whether they should help the poor sods in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Kalifornia have the right to carry concealed.
Depending on what such an amendment said, it could potentially help them too. I don't believe there are any states right now where the gun-owning populace is completely happy with the amount of firearms regulations. NFA, GCA, and FOPA affects all of us, after all.

I, for one, would like to see an amendment that says something like, "The right of the people to keep and bear all arms and related accessories, up to and including those which are in use by our nation's law enforcement and military infantrymen, being necessary to the rights of life and liberty and a secure state, shall not be regulated nor infringed by any national, state, or local government."

Wishful thinking, I know. Even though it's pretty clear to me that the above text is precisely what the Founding Fathers meant, apparently it has to be spelled out for the mouth-breathers who run this state.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-24-2017 at 2:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 06-24-2017, 7:26 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 wireless View Post
You need 38 states to agree on changing rights. Convention of the states would put us awfully close to fixing our rights to be the way our founders intended them to be. This idea of a "runaway convention" not only flawed but kind of absurd too.
Once the states approve and send delegate . . . there's nothing to stop the Delegates from changing tack.

Just like the SCOTUS has no real enforcement power.

Just remember who runs the states...the same Uniparty elites.

They will protest roque delegates in public...and push for approval in private.

=8-|

Last edited by mrrabbit; 06-24-2017 at 7:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 06-24-2017, 7:28 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 SimpleCountryActuary View Post
I disagree. Leaving aside the argument that Progressive activists are the most likely attendees of such a convention, it is impossible to make the Second Amendment any more clear. If you changed it to: "The right to own and carry firearms cannot be restricted in any way whatsoever and this especially means by anyone who is a Democrat or Progressive", a Progressive Supreme Court would simply interpret "restricted" or any other prohibition to not include restrictions necessary for "public safety". As we know from our experience in California, "public safety" is a term that means anything they want. If some gang member could use a stolen gun to kill a child, they could say that confiscating your firearm is necessary for "public safety" because it might be stolen by a gang member. Might. It might also be used to defend yourself against that gang member but YOUR safety isn't important. Only the possible death of a theoretical child is.

The one and only way to preserve our right to keep and bear arms is through SCOTUS enforcing Heller and McDonald through reversing such abominations as the En Banc decision on Peruta. Now is the time and Peruta is the tool. The best legacy Kennedy could leave would be to vote to have SCOTUS hear Peruta in the Fall and then retire, letting the President appoint a Conservative to hear the case.
To enforce Heller v. DC . . . IS . . . to DENY cert for Peruta.

Read Heller v. DC please...

=8-|
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 06-24-2017, 7:45 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 26
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default An example involving SCOTUS and Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPGuy View Post
I've got a question I've been wondering for a while now....it might be a completely noob question but why is it out of all the bill of rights it's only the second amendment that is truely regulated by the states instead of the Federal? You can't say "in Colorado you can use this word or phrase but you can't in Arizona according to the law." Or "wait you mean to tell me I have to house the national guard while my neighbor 2 miles away in Oregon doesn't cause my state says I have to?" How did this whole states have control thing really happen? I do believe this pertains to this thread but I will move it if I need to...

Imagine how red this country would be on Election Day if EVERYONES state was forced to follow Ca gun laws
Some long history behind that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._v._Cruikshank
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 06-24-2017, 11:28 PM
CASEC's Avatar
CASEC CASEC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 876
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I wonder if Kennedy's rumored retirement has anything to do with the delay.
__________________
Nothing I post is legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 06-24-2017, 11:31 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,242
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CASEC View Post
I wonder if Kennedy's rumored retirement has anything to do with the delay.
Short of the justices coming out and saying that's the reason, there's no way to know. But it's as good of a guess as any.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 06-24-2017, 11:32 PM
CASEC's Avatar
CASEC CASEC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 876
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Short of the justices coming out and saying that's the reason, there's no way to know. But it's as good of a guess as any.
I don't know if they can hold the case over till next term, but if they can I would say that is the reason.
__________________
Nothing I post is legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 06-25-2017, 4:00 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,368
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Nope, not gonna talk about impeachment in this thread either.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. 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
  #184  
Old 06-25-2017, 4:11 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Re the speculation that the delay with Peruta has something to do with the (possible) imminent retirement of Justice Kennedy, here is a column written today, after last night's one-year-moved-up Kennedy clerks re-union. The writer was a law clerk to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain (of Peruta three-judge-panel fame) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The author is not claiming any "knowledge", but his speculation seems more "informed" than many others... not that that necessarily makes it more accurate, especially if, as he acknowledges as a possibility, Kennedy himself may not have decided yet.

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/no-ju...ring-tomorrow/
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 06-25-2017, 9:08 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Never ever going to happen!

/thread
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 06-26-2017, 6:32 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The court has denied review in Peruta, over a dissent from Thomas and Gorsuch.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 06-26-2017, 6:34 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 637
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Well the dissent should be good reading. Can anybody link?
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 06-26-2017, 6:35 AM
MarCat MarCat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From SCOTUSBlog...

The court has denied review in Peruta, over a dissent from Thomas and Gorsuch.

What a bummer.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 06-26-2017, 6:36 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 637
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...17zor_8759.pdf

Here it is. ctrl+F for peruta.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 06-26-2017, 6:55 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 637
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Good nuggets

From the denial dissent:

Quote:
As we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “‘wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted). The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. 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.
Quote:
Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.
Quote:
The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.

...

The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 06-26-2017, 6:59 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,842
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

And before anyone here tries to commnet on Justice Thomas's dissent . . .

. . . take the time to actually READ IT please!

It's very good, to the point AND reiterates Heller v. DC.

And it call out the politics of the CA 9 - without directly calling them political hacks.

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:02 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 selfshrevident View Post
From the denial dissent:
"from the bedroom to the kitchen."

Best quote ever by a Supreme Court justice!

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:07 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 637
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
"from the bedroom to the kitchen."

Best quote ever by a Supreme Court justice!

=8-)
Indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:24 AM
Chatterbox Chatterbox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I wonder if this passage:

"Hence, I do not see much value in waiting for additional courts to weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at stake. "

indicates that the remainder of the court is waiting for more cases to proceed?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:28 AM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

It's a well written dissent.

Quote:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
EDWARD PERUTA, ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 16–894. Decided June 26, 2017

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins,
dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees
that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arm[s] shall
not be infringed.” At issue in this case is whether that
guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for
self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one
of national importance or that the courts of appeals have
already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant
the petition for a writ of certiorari.
I
California generally prohibits the average citizen from
carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or concealed.
With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits
open carry altogether. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§25850,
26350 (West 2012). It proscribes concealed carry unless a
resident obtains a license by showing “good cause,” among
other criteria, §§26150, 26155, and it authorizes counties
to set rules for when an applicant has shown good cause,
§26160.
In the county where petitioners reside, the sheriff has
interpreted “good cause” to require an applicant to show
that he has a particularized need, substantiated by documentary
evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The
sheriff ’s policy specifies that “concern for one’s personal
safety” does not “alone” satisfy this requirement. Peruta
v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144, 1148 (CA9 2014)

2 PERUTA v. CALIFORNIA
THOMAS, J., dissenting
(internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, an applicant
must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish the
applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed
in harm’s way.” Id., at 1169 (internal quotation marks
and alterations omitted). “[A] typical citizen fearing for
his personal safety—by definition—cannot distinguish
himself from the mainstream.” Ibid. (emphasis deleted;
internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). As a
result, ordinary, “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” District
of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635 (2008), may
not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in
public spaces.
Petitioners are residents of San Diego County (plus an
association with numerous county residents as members)
who are unable to obtain a license for concealed carry due
to the county’s policy and, because the State generally
bans open carry, are thus unable to bear firearms in public
in any manner. They sued under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42
U. S. C. §1983, alleging that this near-total prohibition on
public carry violates their Second Amendment right to
bear arms. They requested declaratory and injunctive
relief to prevent the sheriff from denying licenses based on
his restrictive interpretation of “good cause,” as well as
other “relief as the Court deems just and proper.” First
Amended Complaint in No. 3:09–cv–02371, (SD Cal.)
¶¶149, 150, 152. The District Court granted respondents’
motion for summary judgment, and petitioners appealed
to the Ninth Circuit.
In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit
reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. The panel examined the constitutional
text and this Court’s precedents, as well as historical
sources from before the founding era through the end
of the 19th century. Id., at 1150–1166. Based on these
sources, the court concluded that “the carrying of an operable
handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of
self-defense . . . constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the
Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017) 3
THOMAS, J., dissenting
meaning of the Second Amendment.” Id., at 1166. It thus
reversed the District Court and held that the sheriff ’s
interpretation of “good cause” in combination with the
other aspects of the State’s regime violated the Second
Amendment’s command that a State “permit some form of
carry for self-defense outside the home.” Id., at 1172.
The Ninth Circuit sua sponte granted rehearing en banc
and, by a divided court, reversed the panel decision. In
the en banc court’s view, because petitioners specifically
asked for the invalidation of the sheriff ’s “good cause”
interpretation, their legal challenge was limited to that
aspect of the applicable regulatory scheme. The court thus
declined to “answer the question of whether or to what
degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect
a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms
openly in public.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824
F. 3d 919, 942 (2016). It instead held only that “the Second
Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a
member of the general public to carry concealed firearms
in public.” Id., at 924 (emphasis added).
II
We should have granted certiorari in this case. The
approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and
the petition raises important questions that this Court
should address. I see no reason to await another case.
A
The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to
whether the Second Amendment protects the right to
concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to
public carry—was untenable. Most fundamentally, it was
not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called
into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole.
See First Amended Complaint ¶63 (“Because California
does not permit the open carriage of loaded firearms,

4 PERUTA v. CALIFORNIA
THOMAS, J., dissenting
concealed carriage with a [concealed carry] permit is the
only means by which an individual can bear arms in public
places”); id., ¶74 (“States may not completely ban the
carrying of handguns for self-defense”). And although the
complaint specified the remedy that intruded least on the
State’s overall regulatory regime—declaratory relief and
an injunction against the sheriff ’s restrictive interpretation
of “good cause”—it also requested “[a]ny further relief
as the Court deems just and proper.” Id., ¶152.
Nor was the Ninth Circuit’s approach justified by the
history of this litigation. The District Court emphasized
that “the heart of the parties’ dispute” is whether the
Second Amendment protects “the right to carry a loaded
handgun in public, either openly or in a concealed manner.”
Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106,
1109 (SD Cal. 2010). As the Ninth Circuit panel pointed
out, “[petitioners] argue that the San Diego County policy
in light of the California licensing scheme as a whole
violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a
responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in
public for the purpose of lawful self-defense in any manner.”
742 F. 3d, at 1171. The panel further observed that
although petitioners “focu[s]” their challenge on the “licensing
scheme for concealed carry,” this is “for good
reason: acquiring such a license is the only practical avenue
by which [they] may come lawfully to carry a gun for
self-defense in San Diego County.” Ibid. Even the en banc
court acknowledged that petitioners “base their argument
on the entirety of California’s statutory scheme” and “do
not contend that there is a free-standing Second Amendment
right to carry concealed firearms.” 824 F. 3d, at 927.
B
Had the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question
actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been
compelled to reach the opposite result. This Court has


Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017) 5
THOMAS, J., dissenting
already suggested that the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As
we explained in Heller, to “bear arms” means to “‘wear,
bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a
pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive
or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.’” 554 U. S., at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United
States, 524 U. S. 125, 143 (1998) (GINSBURG, J., dissenting);
alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted).
The most natural reading of this definition encompasses
public carry. 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. See Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3
2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (“To speak of ‘bearing’
arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate
‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [Heller]
Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but
also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned
the terms by the Supreme Court”); Moore v. Madigan, 702
F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).
The relevant history appears to support this understanding.
The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of
cases and secondary sources from England, the founding
era, the antebellum period, and Reconstruction, which
together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms
includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner.
See 742 F. 3d, at 1153–1166 (canvassing the relevant
history in detail); Brief for National Rifle Association as
Amicus Curiae 6–16. For example, in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.
243 (1846)—a decision the Heller Court discussed extensively
as illustrative of the proper understanding of the
right, 554 U. S., at 612—the Georgia Supreme Court
struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban
on concealed carry. 1 Ga., at 251. Other cases similarly
suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is

6 PERUTA v. CALIFORNIA
THOMAS, J., dissenting
permissible, an effective ban on all forms of public carry is
not. See, e.g., State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A
statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts
to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be
so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose
of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
Finally, the Second Amendment’s core purpose further
supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends
to public carry. The Court in Heller emphasized
that “self-defense” is “the central component of the [Second
Amendment] right itself.” 554 U. S., at 599. This purpose
is not limited only to the home, even though the need for
self-defense may be “most acute” there. Id., at 628. “Selfdefense
has to take place wherever the person happens to
be,” and in some circumstances a person may be more
vulnerable in a public place than in his own house. Volokh,
Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for
Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research
Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009).
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:28 AM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,762
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Wow such a sad thing to wake up to

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
__________________
CZ 75 SP-01 ROCKS!
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:29 AM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

cont'd...

Quote:
C
Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that
the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public
carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this
important question definitively. Twenty-six States have
asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for
Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, and the lower courts have
fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals
and three state courts of last resort have decided
cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public
carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the one below)
have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the
issue. See Drake, 724 F. 3d 426, cert. denied sub nom.
Drake v. Jerejian, 572 U. S. ___ (2014); 724 F. 3d, at 440
(Hardiman, J., dissenting); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712
F. 3d 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 571 U. S. ___ (2013); Ka-

Cite as: 582 U. S. ____ (2017) 7
THOMAS, J., dissenting
chalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 (CA2 2012),
cert. denied sub nom. Kachalsky v. Cacace, 569 U. S. ___
(2013); Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933; id., at 943 (Williams, J.,
dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 800–
802, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785–786 (2012); Williams v. State,
417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011); Mack v.
United States, 6 A. 3d 1224, 1236 (D. C. 2010). Hence, I do
not see much value in waiting for additional courts to
weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at
stake.
The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects
a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second
Amendment as a disfavored right. See Friedman v. Highland
Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (THOMAS, J., dissenting
from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6) (“The Court’s
refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second
Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the
Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that
disregard our other constitutional decisions”); Jackson v.
City and County of San Francisco, 576 U. S. ___, ___
(2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain
rights above others, and I do not think this Court should
impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred
rights. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (“Second Amendment
rights are no less protected by our Constitution than
other rights enumerated in that document”). The Court
has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in
over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v.
Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard
argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the
question presented turned on the meaning of the First
Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of
the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable,
especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence
is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared
to the First and Fourth Amendments.






8 PERUTA v. CALIFORNIA

THOMAS, J., dissenting

* * *
For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded
constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the
guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated
and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear
choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear
arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by
idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly
when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully
dissent.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:31 AM
Urban Achiever Urban Achiever is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Disappointing, but not unexpected. It is a good omen though that Gorsuch signed on to the dissent. Trump chose wisely with him. We've got three more potential vacancies coming up. I'm optimistic that it will work out for us in the long run.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:31 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 495
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatterbox View Post
I wonder if this passage:

"Hence, I do not see much value in waiting for additional courts to weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at stake. "

indicates that the remainder of the court is waiting for more cases to proceed?
Grace v DC perhaps?

Of course this denial will result in a ctrl+C; ctrl+V of the Peruta en banc decision by the DC Circuit.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:32 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's possible to interpret this quote as meaning that other justices argued that they need to wait for a "more appropriate" case. Be that Norman or Nichols, or who knows what they're thinking.

"We should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case
[empahsis added]." p. 3
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 3:02 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.