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
  #281  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:02 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
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.
Ah, forgot about Davis, that would do it...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
This is not rocket surgery.
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:09 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
What is really needed is a case (hypothetically speaking) where a citizen is bearing arms illegally (by state or local statue) and then uses that weapon logically and legally to defend his own life from an attacker despite that ban, but then is prosecuted resulting with his constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment rights being revoked.

I wonder what would be the result of case like that on appeal to the SCOTUS with a better court than we currently have with Kennedy on board?

Justice Thomas was spot on in pointing out that LOGICALLY the founding fathers would not have been limiting the 2nd amendment to carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen and that a universal right to BEAR arms was included in the keeping of arms.
I believe someone pointed out (Sarabellum?) that if you legally use a gun to defend yourself that you were carrying illegally, it's all gravy/grandfathered in, considered legal.

However, if stopped with a gun you're carrying illegally without legally using it for self defense, you're screwed.

So if you can magically teleport a gun into your hands when being attacked, you're fully legal.

Even if that isn't the case, I don't think they will charge someone specifically to avoid your hypothetical.

The bastards got here by being clever and evil, not stupid.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:13 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 106
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What is our next move, Norman v. State?
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:15 AM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 7,793
iTrader: 72 / 99%
Default

“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.”
__________________
"Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Theodore Roosevelt

Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA, Guardian Front Sight
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:16 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 lowimpactuser View Post
I believe someone pointed out (Sarabellum?) that if you legally use a gun to defend yourself that you were carrying illegally, it's all gravy/grandfathered in, considered legal.

However, if stopped with a gun you're carrying illegally without legally using it for self defense, you're screwed.

So if you can magically teleport a gun into your hands when being attacked, you're fully legal.

Even if that isn't the case, I don't think they will charge someone specifically to avoid your hypothetical.

The bastards got here by being clever and evil, not stupid.
Maybe it's all gravy (not prosecuted) because of the likelihood for the case to win a pro-2a case law on appeal.

Surely it's happened before. I'm betting that's just a can of worms that DAs really don't want to open.

It's worth mentioning that it IS legal (in CA at least, I'm not sure about elsewhere) to concealed carry without a permit if you feel (and can prove) your life is in immediate danger. ("immediate", as in, running away from someone who is trying to kill you.. not just a generalized feeling that someone is out to get you [in the eyes of the court, that's what restraining orders are for])

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-26-2017 at 11:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:17 AM
dave86's Avatar
dave86 dave86 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 52
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Gorsuch was obviously the right choice.

Ginsberg needs to go

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IP0_43I9N1...vivacancer.jpg
__________________
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

Margaret Thatcher
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:22 AM
lawj11 lawj11 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

lol how predictable. This sucks.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:23 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 dave86 View Post
Ginsberg needs to go
I don't wish ill upon her, but I do wish she'd just freakin' retire already.

She never should have been appointed in the first place, she's the very definition of an activist judge.

I realize no judge is fully without bias, but justice appointments should ALWAYS be able to think rationally and put themselves in other people's shoes. Gorsuch, for example, is capable of rational thought. As is Thomas. She, however, is not. She will always rule one way and one way only, which is in favor of her personal feminist liberal beliefs.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-26-2017 at 11:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:26 AM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,798
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood as implying that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. However, as the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins, such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case[.]" In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the geographical (or in the case of the Federal Circuit, subject-specific) jurisdiction of that court. -Wikipedia article on Certiorari
Though it may well feel that way, I wouldn't call denial of cert handing 9th a victory, especially not with a scathing dissent specifically calling out:
  • en banc avoided answering the important question in the matter
  • 9th would likely be compelled to rule in favor of Peruta had they answered the question

Quote:
This Court has 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.’”
The State's argument in this case was intentionally centered on a technicality; ruling on concealed carry alone without regard to the overall infringement of 2A in California when taken with open carry prohibition in context. This is despite Peruta's amended claim which makes the issue clear as pointed out in today's opinion of dissent.

While we didn't get the victory we wanted, I wouldn't view this as an outright defeat. This is simply the court refusing to hear this case. It does not set legal precedent. We don't know the reasons for denial though we can speculate that ambiguity on the technical merits may have come into play.

What I mean is there's a difference between affirming the scope of Peruta on legal technicalities vs. affirming the contextual conclusion in Peruta with respect to 2A/Heller. It seems like SCOTUS wants more circuit split to take up this issue, and importantly it seems the State is trying to cling to these narrow technicalities everywhere. You'll see this in their push to apply favorable scrutiny so they can avoid running afoul of the complete purpose of 2A. They currently claim the 'core' purpose is home defense even though Heller specifically states otherwise.

Perhaps an upcoming retirement is on the table, but I would assume in that case they'd simply relist for next session. My gut tells me it was going to be a 4-4 split and the argument for Peruta scope to force answering the key question wasn't compelling enough to carry the swing.

Of course I could be wrong about everything. Take all speculation with a huge grain of salt.

Last edited by naeco81; 06-26-2017 at 11:36 AM.. Reason: added wiki link
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:29 AM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,970
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
Of course that should not be necessary, The existing 2A should override any federal or state legislation, but yet apparently even that is not enough. The idea of needing legislation to guarantee a constitutional right is just upside down.

Here's an idea though. Has anybody proposed or really thought through the idea of a parallel FEDERAL permit process for average citizens? Maybe the answer here is to have legislation for a Federal permit process, administered by the DOJ or ATF, that allows regular citizens to have a permit, good in all 50 states, that cannot be over-ridden by state or local laws. Rights guaranteed in the Federal constitution should never be considered a sates-rights issue.
But then you propose legislation. I'd use a face palm too but it seems you used them all. Civil Rights Act of 1964 ring any bells? How about the Voting Rights Act? All Civil Rights are backed up with Federal Legislation. BTW its not only Carry that is burdened, States walk willy nilly all over the 2nd Amendment. Magazines, rifles, etc that are in common use are burdened by various States. That needs to go away too, just not laws concerning Carry.

The only real question I have is what pitfalls are there if Congress takes over the entire field. What unintended consequences would come from it? Never mind getting Congress to agree on legislation or the hurdles for the moment. Or is getting a clean ruling in favor of 2A from the SCOTUS a much better route? Because if waiting for SCOTUS is the answer, it seems we got a longggggggg wait IMO.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:30 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
What is our next move, Norman v. State?
Our next move is to replace a justice. Nothing happens until the court moves back to the right.

Right now, my guess is the vote count is:

1) No cert without a clear majority in their favor and will do whatever gymnastics required to limit gun rights: Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg
2) No cert under any circumstances. Don't want to expand gun rights, but would grudgingly uphold 2A if they were forced to hear a case: Roberts & Kennedy
3) Want cert and would uphold 2A: Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas

You need to replace a justice in group 1 or 2 to move on a case.
If the rumors are True, maybe it's Kennedy.

But the good news is that Gorsuch joined the dissent from denial, so we know where he stands.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:35 AM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,148
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The sooner trump gets to nominate another justice the better
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:42 AM
subaruwrx subaruwrx is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: SoCal
Posts: 73
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Republicans have the nuclear option... Kennedy will go and we'll have our victory.
__________________
shall not be infringed
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:48 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 68
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Could be worse.
Hillary wins the election. We have a 5 justice liberal majority: Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and justice Maxine Waters.
Unlike Roberts and Kennedy, who don't want to expand gun rights, but at least have enough respect for precedent to deny cert and simply not take the case, the 5 liberal justices have no such hang-ups about the pesky constitution standing in the the way of their personal ideology.
They grant cert and uphold the 9th circuit
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:53 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is online now
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 461
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
I wonder what the immediate, practical effect this will have here in California;
You'll see this introduced again:
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB466&version =20150AB46696AMD

Last edited by champu; 06-26-2017 at 5:03 PM.. Reason: attempting to fix link to include relevent bill version
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:56 AM
numpty's Avatar
numpty numpty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,054
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subaruwrx View Post
Republicans have the nuclear option... Kennedy will go and we'll have our victory.
I like your screen name, but I'd feel a lot better with two appointees.
__________________
error 500

I owe FP something.
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:58 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by subaruwrx View Post
Republicans have the nuclear option... Kennedy will go and we'll have our victory.
Kennedy has to go first.
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 06-26-2017, 12:00 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,226
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
Of course that should not be necessary, The existing 2A should override any federal or state legislation, but yet apparently even that is not enough. The idea of needing legislation to guarantee a constitutional right is just upside down.

Here's an idea though. Has anybody proposed or really thought through the idea of a parallel FEDERAL permit process for average citizens? Maybe the answer here is to have legislation for a Federal permit process, administered by the DOJ or ATF, that allows regular citizens to have a permit, good in all 50 states, that cannot be over-ridden by state or local laws. Rights guaranteed in the Federal constitution should never be considered a sates-rights issue.
You are correct I agree on both points, I have had said the same concerning needing a Federal permit process. Now that its apparent that our supreme court is not pro self defense I think we will see the anti gun crowd start to ramp up more restrictive gun laws. IMO although many states are not as anti gun as CA or NJ but many are not as pro gun as AZ and a few other states which are in the minority so I would not be surprised to see push for a nationwide turn back toward the anti gun laws.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 06-26-2017, 12:05 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWalt View Post
But then you propose legislation. I'd use a face palm too but it seems you used them all. Civil Rights Act of 1964 ring any bells? How about the Voting Rights Act? All Civil Rights are backed up with Federal Legislation. BTW its not only Carry that is burdened, States walk willy nilly all over the 2nd Amendment. Magazines, rifles, etc that are in common use are burdened by various States. That needs to go away too, just not laws concerning Carry.
We actually agree. I should have been more clear in the distinction I was making. Legislation should not be required, but unfortunately it is since depending on the courts is not working. That is the sad state of affairs we are now in. We need a solution that does not depend on the agreement or cooperation of either the Federal courts or the states and their courts. I agree that all the infringements you mentioned need to go, I'm just looking at a solution that gets to at least part of the problem.
__________________
The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 06-26-2017, 12:09 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 champu View Post
I'm confused... Tribal gaming? I don't see anything in that bill that relates to concealed carry. Also that billed was signed into law by the governor already, so I don't understand why it would be introduced again.

Edit: Ok I did a little research and see what you meant now. It was formerly a bill to increase the standards for "good cause". The bill was basically defeated and then gutted and amended into something unrelated to guns, which was passed.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-26-2017 at 12:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 06-26-2017, 12:10 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,589
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Well, Norman is a "clean" open carry case (none of the "extraneous" issue of Peruta) .
Norman isn't a clean case because Florida has a shall-issue system, so the state can always use a flip of the Peruta logic: hey, you want to "bear" in Florida? No problem, get a permit! Norman isn't asking for the right to "bear" in some manner, it's asking for the right to bear in one particular manner.

As for Nichols case, that's actually the biggest danger to permanently losing our "bear" right. He's like someone with no medical training attempting to do a heart transplant. He knows he's going to kill the patient and he's doing it anyway. He may give final victory to Team Feinstein.
__________________
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
  #302  
Old 06-26-2017, 12:27 PM
numpty's Avatar
numpty numpty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,054
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Norman isn't a clean case because Florida has a shall-issue system, so the state can always use a flip of the Peruta logic: hey, you want to "bear" in Florida? No problem, get a permit! Norman isn't asking for the right to "bear" in some manner, it's asking for the right to bear in one particular manner.

As for Nichols case, that's actually the biggest danger to permanently losing our "bear" right. He's like someone with no medical training attempting to do a heart transplant. He knows he's going to kill the patient and he's doing it anyway. He may give final victory to Team Feinstein.
Well, this is concerning.
__________________
error 500

I owe FP something.
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 06-26-2017, 12:36 PM
mrrobot mrrobot is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 06-26-2017, 12:39 PM
CASEC's Avatar
CASEC CASEC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 876
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbolton View Post
Exactly what ran through my mind when I read about this.
Men can neither bestow or rescind rights. Let your conscience be your guide.
__________________
Nothing I post is legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 06-26-2017, 1:08 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Norman isn't a clean case because Florida has a shall-issue system, so the state can always use a flip of the Peruta logic: hey, you want to "bear" in Florida? No problem, get a permit! Norman isn't asking for the right to "bear" in some manner, it's asking for the right to bear in one particular manner.
Well, as I recall, the Norman plaintiffs have argued that the Florida courts have explicitly called out concealed carry in Florida as a privilege, not a right. So if concealed carry is a privilege according to the Florida courts, then what exactly is a right there?

That said, the FL legislature changed possession of the permit from an affirmative defense to a direct element of the crime (i.e., that lack of a permit is part of the crime, rather than possession of the permit being a mere "affirmative defense"), so that may have mooted the "privilege" argument insofar as the FL courts go. And, indeed, the appellate court there ruled, and the FL supreme court affirmed, that the FL concealed carry permit "shall issue" scheme is sufficient to satisfy the right to bear, and since it's the FL supreme court that affirmed such, that pretty much eliminates the "privilege" argument.

It'll be interesting to see what the petition for cert looks like. But with the current composition of the Supreme Court, it's a near certainty that the Court will deny cert to Norman, and really to all other 2A cases involving firearms.

It will take at least two Supreme Court nominations, with at least one of them being a replacement of a Democrat appointee and the other either being a replacement of a Democrat appointee or a replacement of Kennedy, before we see any real positive movement on the right to arms in the Supreme Court. Replacing Kennedy alone might be sufficient, but I think it's more likely than not, given decisions such as the ObamaCare case, that Roberts is also refusing to side with the right to arms.
__________________
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
  #306  
Old 06-26-2017, 1:11 PM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1968LS2 View Post
“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.”
God freaking damn it. This. Needs. To. Be. Repeated. Have they forgotten Scalise already? Or Animal Farm?
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ly-congressmen

Quote:
When it comes to gun control, no one is more hypocritical than liberal celebrities and politicians. While these people promote the end of gun rights for ordinary Americans, it’s often the case that they are protected in public and in their homes, by cadres of highly trained and armed bodyguards. They reap the benefits of the Second Amendment, while treating the rest of us like children who can’t be trusted with a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 06-26-2017, 1:22 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

I know it would be a huge stretch, and virtually unprecedented, but just for argument's sake, is this case permanently DEAD dead, or can SCOTUS theoretically still decide to hear the case later in the future?

Or was this a death-blow that ensures it can't possibly ever be heard, even in the extremely unlikely event that SCOTUS wanted to change their mind someday?
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 06-26-2017, 1:35 PM
Lex Talionis's Avatar
Lex Talionis Lex Talionis is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post

It's worth mentioning that it IS legal (in CA at least, I'm not sure about elsewhere) to concealed carry without a permit if you feel (and can prove) your life is in immediate danger. ("immediate", as in, running away from someone who is trying to kill you.. not just a generalized feeling that someone is out to get you [in the eyes of the court, that's what restraining orders are for])
And the sad part of that of course is that the founding fathers understood that the rights in the 2nd Amendment did not require a specific articulable threat but rather the knowledge that an immediate means should be permitted to deal with both generalized threats as well as specific threats.
__________________


THE LAW OF RETALIATION - an eye for an eye
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 06-26-2017, 1:50 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I don't wish ill upon her, but I do wish she'd just freakin' retire already.

She never should have been appointed in the first place, she's the very definition of an activist judge.

I realize no judge is fully without bias, but justice appointments should ALWAYS be able to think rationally and put themselves in other people's shoes. Gorsuch, for example, is capable of rational thought. As is Thomas. She, however, is not. She will always rule one way and one way only, which is in favor of her personal feminist liberal beliefs.
Why don't you though? She's put my life in danger in circumstances that would have been alieviated by carrying a gun. That b!tch can suffer muscle wasting disease and loss of her bowel movements; she's nearly gotten me killed, I heartily wish her death if she will not retire (and given her vocal opposition to trump she won't) so death is the only way.

I wouldn't be opposed to "living constitution Breyer" having a "dead letter" condition crop up either.

These bastards are trying to get us killed. My sympathy is gone. Pursuant to Brandenburg v. Ohio, I'm not inciting imminent violence, so I'm good. I will heartily cheer the death of the tyrants in black robes that have led to my victimization. May they die soon and their legacy in this area rot faster than a beached whale in summer heat.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 06-26-2017, 1:52 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 Lex Talionis View Post
And the sad part of that of course is that the founding fathers understood that the rights in the 2nd Amendment did not require a specific articulable threat but rather the knowledge that an immediate means should be permitted to deal with both generalized threats as well as specific threats.
And for the overall security of a free state (not just ourselves), we can't forget that part.
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 06-26-2017, 2:12 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Norman isn't a clean case because Florida has a shall-issue system, so the state can always use a flip of the Peruta logic: hey, you want to "bear" in Florida? No problem, get a permit! Norman isn't asking for the right to "bear" in some manner, it's asking for the right to bear in one particular manner.

As for Nichols case, that's actually the biggest danger to permanently losing our "bear" right. He's like someone with no medical training attempting to do a heart transplant. He knows he's going to kill the patient and he's doing it anyway. He may give final victory to Team Feinstein.
Those three opinions are quite... strong.

I'd be curious to see a timeline over the past 8 years of your prescient assessments of the Peruta and (later) Richards legal teams and their strategies. Both of which today result in a TOTAL FAIL. Perhaps you can fill us in on your prior assessments. Were you saying all along that they were obviously destined to fail, and not only fail, but have a Circuit Court of Appeals clarify that there is no right to concealed carry? Or is that a "win by losing" strategy in your view?

I understand that you are predicting not just an F as the Peruta and Richards teams/strategies earned, but an F- for Nichols. Exactly what form(s) will the "victory to Team Feiinstein" take? Ban on ownership/possession of any firearm ("Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in."), or what, exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 06-26-2017, 2:22 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,589
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
I'd be curious to see a timeline over the past 8 years of your prescient assessments of the Peruta and (later) Richards legal teams and their strategies.
I don't try to assess the legal strategies of those groups. They are top legal teams. I can cheer them on and that's about all. Everyone here knew their chance of success wasn't high, due to the highly political nature of the question and the composition of the court.

Nichols isn't an attorney. He's a clown. He really is like a tree trimmer attempting to perform brain surgery. I don't need to know much about his legal arguments to know that he's going to find some way to fail. The courts look for any mistake, and a lone guy working part time who isn't even an attorney and is relying on GoFundMe is going to make many mistakes. Even if he were a brilliant attorney (which he is not), he would make fatal mistakes by working alone and part time and without institutional funding and support.

I'm not evaluating anyone's legal arguments. I'm evaluating the people who make the arguments.
__________________
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.

Last edited by CCWFacts; 06-26-2017 at 2:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 06-26-2017, 2:35 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,132
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

Bright side of this is that the much more important issue than protecting your life is access to wedding cakes. They agreed to hear that case, so finally we will know if it's legal for a Muslim baker to refuse to make me a bacon flavored 5 layer when I marry my dog.

Priorities gentlemen, if you thought protecting your life was more important in the highest crime areas in the State where carry is the only protection then you're being fools.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez


Last edited by Discogodfather; 06-26-2017 at 2:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 06-26-2017, 2:48 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Those three opinions are quite... strong.

I'd be curious to see a timeline over the past 8 years of your prescient assessments of the Peruta and (later) Richards legal teams and their strategies. Both of which today result in a TOTAL FAIL. Perhaps you can fill us in on your prior assessments. Were you saying all along that they were obviously destined to fail, and not only fail, but have a Circuit Court of Appeals clarify that there is no right to concealed carry? Or is that a "win by losing" strategy in your view?

I understand that you are predicting not just an F as the Peruta and Richards teams/strategies earned, but an F- for Nichols. Exactly what form(s) will the "victory to Team Feiinstein" take? Ban on ownership/possession of any firearm ("Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in."), or what, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I don't try to assess the legal strategies of those groups. They are top legal teams. I can cheer them on and that's about all. Everyone here knew their chance of success wasn't high, due to the highly political nature of the question and the composition of the court.
So you never gave any thought at all the the actual legal arguments they were making, but only that somehow you assessed them as "top legal teams". That's very interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Everyone here knew their chance of success wasn't high, due to the highly political nature of the question and the composition of the court.
So doesn't that same caveat apply to Nichols? Or do you want to say that the TOTAL FAILURE of the "top legal teams" "due to the highly political nature of the question and the composition of the court" is qualitatively somehow different from your predicted failure of Nichols? They failed because of the question/court, but Nichols will fail because Nichols?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Nichols isn't an attorney.
You've made one factual statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
He's a clown. He really is like a tree trimmer attempting to perform brain surgery. I don't need to know much about his legal arguments to know that he's going to find some way to fail. The courts look for any mistake, and a lone guy working part time who isn't even an attorney and is relying on GoFundMe is going to make many mistakes. Even if he were a brilliant attorney (which he is not), he would make fatal mistakes by working alone and part time and without institutional funding and support.
That brings up back to the fact that the TOTAL FAIL of the teams that meet all your criteria for excellence, or whatever, failed for a reason, but you want to attribute that fail to something other than that which is identical to the conditions facing Nichols. Why the double standard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I'm not evaluating anyone's legal arguments. I'm evaluating the people who make the arguments.
And how did that evaluation of the people making the arguments in Peruta and Richards, by your very own standards, work out?

You fail to answer the question regarding your claim about Nichols resulting in a big win ("final victory") for Team Feinstein as some kind of apocalyptic event. Please give us your answer.

Last edited by surfgeorge; 06-26-2017 at 2:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 06-26-2017, 2:59 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,589
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
So you never gave any thought at all the the actual legal arguments they were making, but only that somehow you assessed them as "top legal teams". That's very interesting.
I gave them as much thought as I could. I'm not an attorney. But it's not just the logic of the arguments that's important. It's all the procedural things that go into winning. Getting every detail right takes a team of excellent attorneys and staff. Nichols isn't a team, he isn't an attorney, and he isn't excellent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Or do you want to say that the TOTAL FAILURE of the "top legal teams" "due to the highly political nature of the question and the composition of the court" is qualitatively somehow different from your predicted failure of Nichols? They failed because of the question/court, but Nichols will fail because Nichols?
Peruta wasn't a total failure in my opinion. A total failure would be cert accepted, and then the court finds that there is no right to bear arms, or that right is subject to rational basis scrutiny, or some other outcome like that that renders "bear" meaningless. That's total failure and that's the risk with Nichols. That would be the big win for Team Feinstein.

Loss in Peruta is disappointing but it doesn't destroy any upcoming court cases. We did gain some information from it, namely that there isn't a majority for us on the court and we need to change the composition to win.
__________________
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
  #316  
Old 06-26-2017, 3:18 PM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 1,692
iTrader: 74 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I

Loss in Peruta is disappointing but it doesn't destroy any upcoming court cases. We did gain some information from it, namely that there isn't a majority for us on the court and we need to change the composition to win.
This ^^^^^^^^
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 06-26-2017, 3:25 PM
marcusrn's Avatar
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 613
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Even though expecting this decision, it was like being punched in the stomach upon hearing it officially and reading Thomas decent.

I'm game rooster proud to have been co plaintive with Michelle Laxson, Dr. Leslie Buncher, Edward Peruta, James Dodd and also grateful to Adam Richards and Brett Steward of Prieto vs Richards.

Heartfelt thanks to all at NRA and to Chuck Michel @ Michel and Associates, Sean Brady, Paul Clement at Kirkland Ellis LLP. Thank you all CRPA, SAF, and Calguns supporters especially those who support with $.

In 2009 I went on Ed Perutas web site and listened to him try to get an application for CCW from the blue haired ladies at SD Sheriffs licensing division. Not only did he have the gall to question their illegal methods but he recorded the freaking encounter. They had never dealt with anyone like Ed Peruta, when this happens they usually bring out the sworn "investagators". It was laughable, but I knew the story too well and called Ed on the phone staight away. He told me there was only so much he could put up with and that he hired a local attorney to represent him. I thank this patriot from Connecticut for getting involved and encourge all to stay involved. I talked with him today and he feels reciprocity is strategically the next important step. He's on KOGO AM Radio SD at 1730 hours. Continue the movement and godspeed.
Mark S Cleary
__________________

Last edited by marcusrn; 06-26-2017 at 3:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 06-26-2017, 3:47 PM
101st Airborne's Avatar
101st Airborne 101st Airborne is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Auburn
Posts: 470
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Achiever View Post
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.
Agreed.

Why bother to review this if the 50 state concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017 passes?
__________________
Army Veteran 2/31st F.A., 101st Airborne
NRA Endowment Life Member/CGN Contributor
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 06-26-2017, 3:55 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 101st Airborne View Post
Agreed.

Why bother to review this if the 50 state concealed carry reciprocity act of 2017 passes?
Because it's not going to, and certainly not the Hudson/out of state license for residents.

So we're screwed for the foreseeable future minus a meteor hitting SCOTUS while they're in session.

Or the donor class announcing instead of tax cuts or Israel, their litmus test will be reciprocity for any candidates, right or left.

I think the odds of a meteor are better.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 06-26-2017, 3:58 PM
mexicangunlover mexicangunlover is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 260
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Charles Nichols called it a long time ago that this would be denied and now pray that his lawsuit prevails which is looking pretty good so far. Should have joined him instead of fighting him. My money is on Nichols now.
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 6:26 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.