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
  #201  
Old 06-26-2017, 6:35 AM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,825
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Grace does seem the closest analogue to me; correct if wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:04 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,593
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Of course this is a disappointment. Lifetimes of top-quality legal work and thousands of pointless forum posts have been spent on this.

But it's not a surprise. Unlike most cases SCOTUS gets, this is one where the justices have strong personal feelings about it, and so they will not take the case unless one side or the other has certainty of the outcome. BTW, if Hillary had won, I'm 100% sure cert would have been granted because the outcome would have been guaranteed.

It's actually good they didn't take the case. I don't want them taking a case if there's any chance they are going to delete "bear" from the 2A. Let's hope Trump will soon get to replace one or more liberal justices.

This outcome will also give a boost to political efforts to solve the problem. National recip, written the right way, would achieve almost the same outcome.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:04 AM
solislbc solislbc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 299
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I thought we had a split court? Wonder why the other two conservative judges not join the dissent???

Last edited by solislbc; 06-26-2017 at 7:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:04 AM
The Tiger's Avatar
The Tiger The Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Mordor aka Los Angeles
Posts: 1,201
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Not surprised but disappointed
__________________

NRA Benefactor
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:06 AM
The Tiger's Avatar
The Tiger The Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Mordor aka Los Angeles
Posts: 1,201
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solislbc View Post
I thought we had a split court? Wonder why the other to conservative judges not join the dissent???
Because if we had all 4 "conservatives" they would have granted cert.

It was probably Roberts that joined the liberals on this
__________________

NRA Benefactor
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:06 AM
solislbc solislbc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 299
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Of course this is a disappointment. Lifetimes of top-quality legal work and thousands of pointless forum posts have been spent on this.

But it's not a surprise. Unlike most cases SCOTUS gets, this is one where the justices have strong personal feelings about it, and so they will not take the case unless one side or the other has certainty of the outcome. BTW, if Hillary had won, I'm 100% sure cert would have been granted because the outcome would have been guaranteed.

It's actually good they didn't take the case. I don't want them taking a case if there's any chance they are going to delete "bear" from the 2A. Let's hope Trump will soon get to replace one or more liberal justices.

This outcome will also give a boost to political efforts to solve the problem. National recip, written the right way, would achieve almost the same outcome.
Makes sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:14 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tiger View Post
Because if we had all 4 "conservatives" they would have granted cert.

It was probably Roberts that joined the liberals on this
No. It takes four to grant a cert, five to get a victory.

No point in taking the case if Kennedy is not onboard.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:18 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solislbc View Post
I thought we had a split court? Wonder why the other two conservative judges not join the dissent???
Dissents from cert denials are very rare. It means much, much more than there is a dissent at all.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:18 AM
CASEC's Avatar
CASEC CASEC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 876
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
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
He also said (paraphrase) that if the Court wouldn't support the right let them say so. I'm hopeful that taken together that means that there are other Justices that are with us and they are playing the long game and avoiding a bad ruling by waiting on one or two more Justices to be appointed. I hope that Thomas hangs in there long enough to get this issue squared away, and am encouraged that Gorsuch stood with us. It is also of note that an AC brief from the NRA was cited. I'd like to read that as "keep them coming boys". I hope the NRA beats down the door eventually. If we can replace Kennedy and Ginsburg I think that will throw the doors open and it's just a matter of time. Look at what already happened. The case of the bakers turning away the gays; the church and state funding; also partial implementation of the travel ban. They are starting to reel in the ninth. I think the second is the atomic bomb in all of these cases. The left is really scared to death of a true right to be armed, because once it is really enshrined through SCOTUS it will be pretty hard to take away and that would throw a real monkey wrench in their long term plans. imo
__________________
Nothing I post is legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:19 AM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,346
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Unhappy Our last hope, the U.S. Congress?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Of course this is a disappointment. Lifetimes of top-quality legal work and thousands of pointless forum posts have been spent on this.

But it's not a surprise. Unlike most cases SCOTUS gets, this is one where the justices have strong personal feelings about it, and so they will not take the case unless one side or the other has certainty of the outcome. BTW, if Hillary had won, I'm 100% sure cert would have been granted because the outcome would have been guaranteed.

It's actually good they didn't take the case. I don't want them taking a case if there's any chance they are going to delete "bear" from the 2A. Let's hope Trump will soon get to replace one or more liberal justices.

This outcome will also give a boost to political efforts to solve the problem. National recip, written the right way, would achieve almost the same outcome.
It could be many years before the balance of power changes enough for SCOTUS to finally defend the gun rights of Californians. And douchebag Gavin Newsom (the Little Finger of Democratic Politics) is awaiting his chance to take the Governorship of California in 2018.

So our only hope is the U.S. Congress? Could be. It certainly raises the stakes for all the interested American political factions for control of Congress, the Presidency, and balance of power on the Supreme Court.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:20 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Overall, this finalizes the proof of political courts. There will be the next case, but it will require different justices. We've gone as far as we can with the current judges and justices. Bummer.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:22 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsandrockets View Post
It could be many years before the balance of power changes enough for SCOTUS to finally defend the gun rights of Californians.
If Kennedy retires we are there. If Bader-Ginsburg passes we are there. Next year or two have a lot of hope for us and a lot of anxiety for the antis.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:24 AM
readinglist readinglist is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 64
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thomas really sums it up here:
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:32 AM
Flyron's Avatar
Flyron Flyron is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 253
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsandrockets View Post
It could be many years before the balance of power changes enough for SCOTUS to finally defend the gun rights of Californians. And douchebag Gavin Newsom (the Little Finger of Democratic Politics) is awaiting his chance to take the Governorship of California in 2018.

So our only hope is the U.S. Congress? Could be. It certainly raises the stakes for all the interested American political factions for control of Congress, the Presidency, and balance of power on the Supreme Court.


Maybe this decision is what was needed to start the legislation ball an assure that no state may deny any rights, protected by the US Constitution as written.
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:33 AM
The Tiger's Avatar
The Tiger The Tiger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Mordor aka Los Angeles
Posts: 1,201
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
No. It takes four to grant a cert, five to get a victory.

No point in taking the case if Kennedy is not onboard.
4 and four are the same number
__________________

NRA Benefactor
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:37 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So with Thomas and Gorsuch in dissent, and given Alito expressed his continued support for the reasoning behind Scalia's opinion in Heller as recently as this past fall, that leaves Kennedy and/or Roberts as 'wafflers' that may be reconsidering their vote in Heller and/or McDonald. If that is truly the case, then punting further definition on the scope of the 2nd amendment until Kennedy and/or Ginsburg are replaced with a true originalist conservative is probably a "good thing".
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:38 AM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,346
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The division between the various U.S. States when it comes to anti-gun laws reminds me very much of the division of the U.S. States over racial-segregation laws during the 1950's.

It took an act of Congress to finally put an end to State enforced race segregation. It probably requires an act of Congress to put an end to State anti-gun laws too.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:40 AM
THBailey's Avatar
THBailey THBailey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 332
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I especially like the last paragraph in Justice Thomas' dissent:




* * *
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.
__________________
THBailey


As Will Rogers once said:
"Everyone is ignorant, only in different subjects."
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:47 AM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,346
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THBailey View Post
I especially like the last paragraph in Justice Thomas' dissent:




* * *
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.
Thomas is far and away my favorite Supreme Court Justice and has been for a long time.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:48 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,360
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Next stop: Nichols. We will win, and the CA legislate will give us shall issue just to get us to hide our guns.

Nichols will be the pawn no one cared about until he makes it to the other side and gets promoted to a queen. Checkmate.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

New NRA Campaign to Liberals: "Afraid of a tryannical Trump Administration? Buy a gun..."

Last edited by sfpcservice; 06-26-2017 at 8:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:58 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 6,212
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

I don't know about everyone else, but I wasn't particularly keen on Kennedy as the deciding vote on our right to carry.
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 06-26-2017, 7:58 AM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,915
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

The silver lining is that Gorsuch clearly is the successor to Scalia. We could have easily had Merrick Garland. Gorsuch is going to be a friend to the Constitution, hopefully for many decades, and I see nothing but good things ahead.

We lost this one. There is still national CCW legislation that might restore our rights here in CA. There are hopefully a few more SCOTUS seats to appoint and President Trump has shown extremely sound judgment on that front. We have a wonderful new (and young) SC justice on the bench who isn't a fake conservative like Roberts, but the real deal. There is nothing stopping appointment of a judge like Hardiman (mentioned in the dissent) as long as the GOP keeps the majority in the senate, which it is likely to do until at least 2020. There is very little to feel down about.

While I'm disappointed, I'm still optimistic. Thank God for President Trump (and I do).
__________________
Securing a safe to a Post-tension slab - DIY

HK P30SK LEM for sale, S&W 27, S&W 37, Marlin Mountie - NorCal

Quote:
Originally Posted by KWalkerM View Post
eh why bring logic into this, that makes too much sense... besides when you have bested a fool, you have accomplished nothing and he is a fool.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 06-26-2017, 8:01 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,360
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The dissent clearly indicates to Me they have their eye on a different, possibly cleaner case. This isn't a defeat, it's pulling your overconfident enemy further into the kill zone.

An open carry win will be far more devastating to gun control.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

New NRA Campaign to Liberals: "Afraid of a tryannical Trump Administration? Buy a gun..."

Last edited by sfpcservice; 06-26-2017 at 8:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 06-26-2017, 8:20 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,172
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Congress, executive and justices won't support and defend the constitution so that leaves ... ?
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 06-26-2017, 8:23 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Next stop: Nichols. We will win, and the CA legislate will give us shall issue just to get us to hide our guns.

Nichols will be the pawn no one cared about until he makes it to the other side and gets promoted to a queen. Checkmate.
Win where?

In the Ninth? You really see them getting to a majority on any decision (or en banc should Nichols get a lucky three judge panel) that would further the ability of ordinary citizens to bear arms in public? Whence the optimism? {I'd suspect something along the lines of "Yes, open carry is the protected right, but it can be "regulated" to the point of a de facto ban"... they won't word it that way, of course... or maybe they will.]

Likely next up for SCOTUS will be Norman. They might decide that before Nichols even makes it through the Ninth process. Norman will likely be very telling at SCOTUS... if they deny cert... game over for California and Hawaii (In my lifetime anyway... barring any amazing transformation of the populous and their voting predilections).

Last edited by surfgeorge; 06-26-2017 at 8:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 06-26-2017, 8:36 AM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,825
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Grace > Nichols > Norman
imo
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 06-26-2017, 8:45 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wonder what the immediate, practical effect this will have here in California; I can easily envision sheriffs, such as in Ventura county, who have only recently come to embrace CCW issuance to the common citizen, returning to the old ways with regard to issuance. That might mean that a large number of CCW permits are simply allowed to expire over time, or outright revoked.
I'm also sure that the sheriff of Los Angeles county is breathing a sigh of relief, as it continues to be business as usual. Same for the city of Los Angeles.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 06-26-2017, 8:47 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,597
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
The dissent clearly indicates to Me they have their eye on a different, possibly cleaner case. This isn't a defeat, it's pulling your overconfident enemy further into the kill zone.

An open carry win will be far more devastating to gun control.
The current court will not give us carry. The current court has gone as far as it will with gun rights. It's been seven years since a gun case was taken by SCOTUS. SCOTUS is hostile to 2A rights, and if that doesn't make it clear, I don't know what will.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 06-26-2017, 8:48 AM
CZ man in LA's Avatar
CZ man in LA CZ man in LA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,090
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Justice Thomas and Gorsuch dissent are good reads. Hopefully this awakens the Never Trumpers that Trump nominating Gorsuch was the best thing that could've happened to have a friend of the 2A in the bench.
__________________
"Prohibit the peasants from owning katanas, wakizashis, arrows, spears, or matchlock rifles. If the peasants are armed, they will not pay nengu (taxes) and they will not be subordinate to the officials."

Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Sword Hunt Edict of 1588, establishing the class division between the peasants (commoners) and the samurai (the governing elites).

Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 06-26-2017, 9:03 AM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 96
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am sad beyond words this morning.

At least +3 for Thomas for:

"bear from the bedroom to the kitchen" for that truly is the only right I currently have in this state.

Clarifying that 2A is being treated as a second (or worse) class right.

"marbled halls"

All are distilled gems of truth and wisdom.
__________________
The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 06-26-2017, 9:04 AM
Laurence927's Avatar
Laurence927 Laurence927 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 150
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Disappointed, yet still trying to be hopeful for the future. Like many have said above, the dissents from Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch are definitely worth reading.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 06-26-2017, 9:05 AM
Flyron's Avatar
Flyron Flyron is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: SoCal
Posts: 253
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tiger View Post
4 and four are the same number


Hard to believe that the nine SCOTUS justices can't discuss or decide on any issue before them, since they are to sworn to judge based upon the facts applied by law and not personal opinions or political views being such.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 06-26-2017, 9:07 AM
jbolton's Avatar
jbolton jbolton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Tracy, CA
Posts: 1,342
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Congress, executive and justices won't support and defend the constitution so that leaves ... ?
Exactly what ran through my mind when I read about this.
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic21740_3.gif
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 06-26-2017, 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

I'm disappointed too (and out $100, by the sound of it), and this is one of those instances where I really wish my prediction had been correct.

That said, Peruta was not all for naught. While it didn't gain us a statewide shall-issue law, it helped us in other ways. It sparked a conversation that caused many CA counties to re-think their policies. In the time since the 3-judge panel ruled in our favor until now, my own county went from may-issue to virtual-shall-issue, largely because of the publicity of this case. My county has started treating CCW's as something they WANT good people to have, and go out of their way to help us attain one. It used to just be this thing that occasionally someone would apply for and occasionally they would approve.

I know of a few other counties that are the same way.

Hopefully Paladin can help me out here since he is the keeper of the CCW maps, but if anyone can find it, take a look at the CCW policies in CA in 2009 versus today. Then try to tell me again how Peruta was a waste of time.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-26-2017 at 9:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 06-26-2017, 9:18 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

Here is the 2017 map. California hasn't been this friendly to CCW in perhaps over a century.

No matter where you live in CA, you could move less than an hour away and get a permit.


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-26-2017 at 9:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 06-26-2017, 9:21 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Congress, executive and justices won't support and defend the constitution so that leaves ... ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbolton View Post
Exactly what ran through my mind when I read about this.
Soap box, ballot box...

I guess one is forced to confront the question as to which laws one views as unlawful tyrannical violations of natural rights (aka "unconstitutional", and can make sound logical arguments for being so) are worth taking the risk of violating in the name of liberty/freedom/personal safety.

It's an ugly choice. But there it is. (I'm sure many, if not most or all the readers of this forum have already made that decision long before the Peruta denial of cert today).
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 06-26-2017, 9:24 AM
CalNRA's Avatar
CalNRA CalNRA is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,638
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Here is the 2017 map. California hasn't been this friendly to CCW in perhaps over a century.
For the life of me I am trying to figure out why Yolo and Imperial are dark red. Any insight?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
This is not rocket surgery.
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 06-26-2017, 9:31 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 CalNRA View Post
For the life of me I am trying to figure out why Yolo and Imperial are dark red. Any insight?
Anti-2a sheriffs.

In Yolo, in particular, it's purely because of the city of Davis (which is, for those who don't know, a liberal UC college town like Berkeley). The rest of the county is rural and largely pro-2a.

Yolo's sheriff is the "Prieto" in "Richards v. Prieto"

I have no idea about Imperial county.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-26-2017 at 9:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 06-26-2017, 9:31 AM
rbetts's Avatar
rbetts rbetts is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Occupied Fair Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,081
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Deuchebag Sheriffs!
__________________


Golden State Tactical <---click here or Here--->Golden State Tactical Store

An Outpost Deep In the Heart of the Beast! Home of "California Compliant" AR15 Parts and Magazines and some of the lowest priced guns in the state!!!
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 06-26-2017, 9:33 AM
digger2's Avatar
digger2 digger2 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Escondido
Posts: 246
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ts-appeal.html blast court decision to reject gun rights appeal.

Last edited by Kestryll; 06-26-2017 at 10:13 AM..
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 12:35 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.