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
  #1  
Old 06-09-2016, 7:27 AM
glockman19's Avatar
glockman19 glockman19 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,962
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default Peruta Decision Discussion Thread

Wow...Judicial Activism at it's finest.

Does anyone find it coincidental that they waited until Hillary won the number of delegates to release their decision?

Even more important is who the next SCOUTS justice will be.
__________________
Our country DOES have a gun problem - guns are protected and Democrats really, really don't like it. It's a problem alright. The only problem is that it's *their* problem. -IVC
"There's a difference between an open mind and an empty one" -Fjold
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-09-2016, 7:37 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If true, they may have miscalculated - this can be used to galvanize those on the fence to vote for Trump - they released it too late to get cert granted and a decision from a favorable SCOTUS this term. There are a lot of people even on the left leaning side that still like their guns and the 2nd Amendment. If that's pushed as a real issue, it's possible that this could bite the 9th in the butt hard when a Trump appointee concurs with the rest and tells the 9th "No, really - bear actually does mean carry." And I guess while I'm dreaming, maybe they'll also revisit the whole "necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table" bit and say shall issue for all and open carry for those that don't want to bother with a permit. Hey, we all gotta try and stay positive somehow, right?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-09-2016, 7:43 AM
Urban Achiever Urban Achiever is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

More and more it's looking like Irish Democracy here in California.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-09-2016, 8:29 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,378
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

We all knew they were going to reverse it. And they clearly had to take a VERY narrow path to be able to do so, so as not to run afoul of Heller, McD, Caetano, etc. So they stuck very narrowly to "no right to conceal", while completely ignoring the broader question.

The next suit needs to ask the very specific question: "Does the 2A guarantee a right to carry weapons outside the home for self defense? Yes, or no?"

The courts have been doing everything they can to dodge answering that specific question....because they don't want to.....because they know the answer is YES!
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-09-2016, 8:40 AM
glockman19's Avatar
glockman19 glockman19 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,962
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Achiever View Post
More and more it's looking like Irish Democracy here in California.
Yep..
__________________
Our country DOES have a gun problem - guns are protected and Democrats really, really don't like it. It's a problem alright. The only problem is that it's *their* problem. -IVC
"There's a difference between an open mind and an empty one" -Fjold
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-09-2016, 8:43 AM
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 2,419
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
The next suit needs to ask the very specific question: "Does the 2A guarantee a right to carry weapons outside the home for self defense? Yes, or no?"
This.

A.W.D.
__________________
Quote:
In the end, time and irony always win.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-09-2016, 9:02 AM
glockman19's Avatar
glockman19 glockman19 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,962
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
We all knew they were going to reverse it. And they clearly had to take a VERY narrow path to be able to do so, so as not to run afoul of Heller, McD, Caetano, etc. So they stuck very narrowly to "no right to conceal", while completely ignoring the broader question.

The next suit needs to ask the very specific question: "Does the 2A guarantee a right to carry weapons outside the home for self defense? Yes, or no?"

The courts have been doing everything they can to dodge answering that specific question....because they don't want to.....because they know the answer is YES!
And the only way to answer this question is for a citizen to be arrested in order to gain standing. Another 3-5 years for the case to be heard, another 1-2 years for a decision, then the 3-5 year appeal...so, they managed to screw over another generation.

The Bill of Rights are LAWS that govern GOVERNMENT. The Second Amendment states that GOVERNMENT, "shall not infringe" on this Inalienable Right...Inalienable in that is is NOT given by man so it can't be taken away by man, or man's legislation.

The California Government and the 9th Circuit Court are openly engaging in areas where they have NO AUTHORITY.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FOR. IT IS THE ULTIMATE DETERRENT TO GOVERNMENT'S RUNAWAY AUTHORITY.

The Founding Fathers would have banned together and made it clear to the "Authority" this was NOT a negotiation.

WE MUST HOLD ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE.
__________________
Our country DOES have a gun problem - guns are protected and Democrats really, really don't like it. It's a problem alright. The only problem is that it's *their* problem. -IVC
"There's a difference between an open mind and an empty one" -Fjold
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-09-2016, 9:03 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Hot part of Ventura County
Posts: 1,593
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiz-of-Awd View Post
This.

A.W.D.
If this ruling is appealed, and if SCOTUS chooses to take it up, this is exactly what they will have to address. The court made two things very CLEAR:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9th Ckt Peruta Ruling Pg. 45
We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms does not include, in any degree, the
right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9th Ckt Peruta Ruling Pg. 46
There may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm
openly in public. The Supreme Court has not answered that question, and we do not answer it here.
So an appeal to SCOTUS would be asking them to settle those two questions once and for all. Answering those questions may not appeal to the court, or it could be one of those things that they finally decide to tackle. Unless a suitable replacement for Scalia is found, the answer to both of those questions would be likely be NO in a 5-4 decision against.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-09-2016, 10:04 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,513
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
Unless a suitable replacement for Scalia is found, the answer to both of those questions would be likely be NO in a 5-4 decision against.
Clearly. And since Hillary is going to win in the greatest landslide in history, you have your answer.

Just wait until Newsom is in control of CA, and the Dems have their supermajority back. Felony prosecution for just posting on CalGuns.
__________________

Last edited by retired; 06-10-2016 at 10:02 AM.. Reason: Rule #3
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-09-2016, 10:13 AM
stevebla stevebla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 103
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Clearly. And since Hillary is going to win in the greatest landslide in history, you have your answer.

Just wait until Newsom is in control of CA, and the Dems have their supermajority back. Felony prosecution for just posting on CalGuns.
Time will tell.

Last edited by retired; 06-10-2016 at 10:02 AM.. Reason: clean up
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-09-2016, 10:44 AM
ladiver ladiver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 113
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Clearly. And since Hillary is going to win in the greatest landslide in history, you have your answer.

Just wait until Newsom is in control of CA, and the Dems have their supermajority back. Felony prosecution for just posting on CalGuns.
Or even thinking about it. That is what constitutes "mental health" issues!

Last edited by retired; 06-10-2016 at 10:03 AM.. Reason: clean up
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-09-2016, 10:56 AM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,112
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19 View Post
Wow...Judicial Activism at it's finest.

Does anyone find it coincidental that they waited until Hillary won the number of delegates to release their decision?

Even more important is who the next SCOUTS justice will be.
I'm on thin ice when trying to discuss the finer points of law, but here goes.

SCOTUS hasn't specifically addressed the right to carry outside the home. Lower courts have, SCOTUS has not. The 9th isn't being activist, they're being careful and simply waiting for SCOTUS to provide guidance - they're being quite the opposite of activist. The activist approach would be to decide there is a right. Which we would all prefer.

As an aside, Judge Garland's supporters say we're being worrisome when we say he voted to go en banc on a DC decision. They say that just because he voted to go en banc it doesn't mean he'd vote against the lower court's decision. That, it seems to me, is deliberately misleading. Judges don't vote to go en banc when they agree with the court's decision. As we've just seen with Peruta.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:00 AM
greensoup greensoup is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 458
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19 View Post
And the only way to answer this question is for a citizen to be arrested in order to gain standing. Another 3-5 years for the case to be heard, another 1-2 years for a decision, then the 3-5 year appeal...so, they managed to screw over another generation.

The Bill of Rights are LAWS that govern GOVERNMENT. The Second Amendment states that GOVERNMENT, "shall not infringe" on this Inalienable Right...Inalienable in that is is NOT given by man so it can't be taken away by man, or man's legislation.

The California Government and the 9th Circuit Court are openly engaging in areas where they have NO AUTHORITY.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FOR. IT IS THE ULTIMATE DETERRENT TO GOVERNMENT'S RUNAWAY AUTHORITY.

The Founding Fathers would have banned together and made it clear to the "Authority" this was NOT a negotiation.

WE MUST HOLD ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE.
Technically I suppose the guys that lost the suit could open carry and perhaps get a much faster result. I don't know they'd want to martyr themselves for the cause though.

The court avoiding running afoul of the constitution by only ruling on concealed weapons. They didn't say you can't carry they just said the state has the right to regulate concealed carry. Now that they were denied concealed carry, technically they could open carry get arrested and potentially run into the constitution. At least that's the way it sounds.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:01 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
As an aside, Judge Garland's supporters say we're being worrisome when we say he voted to go en banc on a DC decision. They say that just because he voted to go en banc it doesn't mean he'd vote against the lower court's decision. That, it seems to me, is deliberately misleading. Judges don't vote to go en banc when they agree with the court's decision. As we've just seen with Peruta.
Which is precisely why I believe that the en banc vote records (and particularly who made the call for en banc) ought to be an open and public record - just like the voting records of our legislators. If it was Thomas who called for the en banc because he got he feewings hurt that the other two judges on the original panel voted for the constitution then he ought to be removed from office and disqualified from ever practicing law again as this is a clear conflict of interest and he ought to have recused himself. En banc in this instance was pure politics and the courts need to be apolitical if they ever want to be taken seriously again.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:25 AM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,262
iTrader: 69 / 100%
Default

Tar, feathers and a short rope.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:31 AM
gsxr600booya gsxr600booya is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: los angeles
Posts: 182
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I'm moving to Texas in a year. My ccw is up in March of next year I'll be gone by December. I'm throwing in the towel

Last edited by retired; 06-10-2016 at 10:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:32 AM
HumedoNino HumedoNino is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 184
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gsxr600booya View Post
I'm moving to Texas in a year **** this. My ccw is up in March of next year I'll be gone by December. I'm throwing in the towel
Well, bye
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:34 AM
gsxr600booya gsxr600booya is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: los angeles
Posts: 182
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Haha Nino I'm actually going for my wife's job but I can't be happier.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:34 AM
jdracing jdracing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Vacaville
Posts: 110
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Having just read the opinion once (so far), the thing that jumped out is that this may force California's (and other State's) hands on concealed carry. Judge Fletcher goes out of his way, time and again, to narrow the question to only whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to concealed carry. To which the majority answers "no." He specifically ducks whether 2A guarantees a right to carry at all (meaning open carry-the only other option), because he claims it's not before him. He says that's for SCOTUS to decide, and that it didn't do so in Heller.

OK, so what's next? What if SCOTUS eventually decides there is a right to carry (in some form) under 2A? That means CA's concealed carry law allowing counties to effectively eliminate it, coupled with CA's prohibition on open carry, violates 2A. So, CA legislators, and State legislators across the Country, will either have to (1) permit concealed carry without the prohibitive restrictions imposed by some counties, or (2) live with open carry. They can't constitutionally prohibit both (which of course is plaintiffs' argument, but this court refused to answer it by narrowing the issue to concealed carry only).

Fletcher and the majority seem to almost be daring that result. Or they believe that if they force SCOTUS' hand on this point, SCOTUS will conclude that 2A doesn't include a right to carry. That in turn, of course, will depend on who is on SCOTUS at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:37 AM
HumedoNino HumedoNino is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 184
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gsxr600booya View Post
Haha Nino I'm actually going for my wife's job but I can't be happier.
I gotcha brother, I understand. I wish that I could leave, unfortunately, I have older parents, family, work that is keeping me here. One day though
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:56 AM
baggss's Avatar
baggss baggss is offline
Stoopid American Redneck™
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: The Hot part of Ventura County
Posts: 1,593
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Clearly. And since Hitlery is going to win in the greatest landslide in history, you have your answer.

Just wait until Newsom is in control of CA, and the Dems have their supermajority back. Felony prosecution for just posting on CalGuns.
I love how every naysayer here has some sort of Crystal ball and knows exactly what's going to happen. Glass half empty much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greensoup
The court avoiding running afoul of the constitution by only ruling on concealed weapons. They didn't say you can't carry they just said the state has the right to regulate concealed carry. Now that they were denied concealed carry, technically they could open carry get arrested and potentially run into the constitution. At least that's the way it sounds.
The question they didn't answer is more intriguing to me the more I think about it. Ok, since SCOTUS has not specifically said the RTKBA guarantees the right to carry outside of the home, they ruled it does not protect concealed carry but it may or may not protect open carry. Got it, disagree, but I got it.

What they didn't answer, at least as far as I can tell right now, is that between CA's draconian Open Carry law and the misapplication of the good cause statement for CC, the state effectively bans carry by the majority of it's citizens. They chose to ignore the elephant in the room: mainly that the 2A means different things in Ventura County and in LA County (among others) because 2 individuals in positions of power think differently. Are there other enumerated rights that are treated as such? This is the essence of the statement made in the original panel ruling about not treating the 2A as a "Second class" right, or a right to which "a completely different set of rules applies".

They obviously tried very hard to set absolutely no new case law here and make no waves, simply deciding to mimic what other circuits have said in order to keep the status quo.
__________________
"The best gun is the one you'll have on you when you need it the most, the one you know how to use, the one that goes BANG every single time you pull the trigger. Whether that gun cost you $349 or $1,100 it's worth every penny if it saves your life, or the life of someone you love.” -Tim Schmit, CCW Magazine July 2015



Last edited by baggss; 06-09-2016 at 11:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:59 AM
atomicwedgy's Avatar
atomicwedgy atomicwedgy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 196
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggss View Post
If this ruling is appealed, and if SCOTUS chooses to take it up, this is exactly what they will have to address. The court made two things very CLEAR:





So an appeal to SCOTUS would be asking them to settle those two questions once and for all. Answering those questions may not appeal to the court, or it could be one of those things that they finally decide to tackle. Unless a suitable replacement for Scalia is found, the answer to both of those questions would be likely be NO in a 5-4 decision against.


Thank you. This is one of the first posts I absorbed.

At this point, we see it heading to SCOTUS. Then what?

They can say yes the right to keep and bear extends away from the home, or no the right does not?

What about the other inherent rights? Are those for within the home as well?
__________________
"A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his superior skills."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-09-2016, 12:21 PM
hkguy80 hkguy80 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 51
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Was anyone really delusional enough to believe any other outcome was possible? I'd assert SCOTUS' decision will be no different.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-09-2016, 12:29 PM
Hog Hunter's Avatar
Hog Hunter Hog Hunter is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Dont be foolish.

I dont understand why you would think the 2A is about CCW. It's not. Its all about OPEN CARRY.

You guys need to dump the CCW lawsuits and go for the real.

Charles Nichols's lawsuit is what needs the public eye and backing. He has stood a real legal ground and is mocked by Calguns? What is wrong with you people?

I have no Idea why you haven't poured everything into this our true fundamental right. You cant lose!


Quit trying to be a sneak thief with CCW and demand OPEN CARRY under the 2A.

Otherwise you are wasting donations.

Read what was said..

"We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public."


If open carry was proven legal as it is and CA had to allow it they would scramble to put together a CCW program so it wouldn't be in their face.

Wake Up! Open Carry is the only way!
__________________
One shot, One kill.

Last edited by Hog Hunter; 06-09-2016 at 12:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-09-2016, 12:30 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,378
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdracing View Post
Having just read the opinion once (so far), the thing that jumped out is that this may force California's (and other State's) hands on concealed carry. Judge Fletcher goes out of his way, time and again, to narrow the question to only whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to concealed carry. To which the majority answers "no." He specifically ducks whether 2A guarantees a right to carry at all (meaning open carry-the only other option), because he claims it's not before him. He says that's for SCOTUS to decide, and that it didn't do so in Heller.

OK, so what's next? What if SCOTUS eventually decides there is a right to carry (in some form) under 2A? That means CA's concealed carry law allowing counties to effectively eliminate it, coupled with CA's prohibition on open carry, violates 2A. So, CA legislators, and State legislators across the Country, will either have to (1) permit concealed carry without the prohibitive restrictions imposed by some counties, or (2) live with open carry. They can't constitutionally prohibit both (which of course is plaintiffs' argument, but this court refused to answer it by narrowing the issue to concealed carry only).

Fletcher and the majority seem to almost be daring that result. Or they believe that if they force SCOTUS' hand on this point, SCOTUS will conclude that 2A doesn't include a right to carry. That in turn, of course, will depend on who is on SCOTUS at the time.
Theoretically in my layman's view option #1 would no longer be a viable legal option for the state.....because the court just clearly said that concealed carry is not a right.....therefore granting concealed carry would not satisfy the exercise of ones right would it? I mean didn't they just say that even if concealed carry was allowed, that wouldn't be exercising your 2A right because concealed carry is not covered under the constitution. So it would seem they're saying that any state that still bans open carry is violating the constitution. Am I wrong? (All of this assuming that carry outside the home is ruled upon at some point)
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

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

Last edited by Untamed1972; 06-09-2016 at 12:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-09-2016, 12:44 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,378
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hog Hunter View Post
If open carry was proven legal as it is and CA had to allow it they would scramble to put together a CCW program so it wouldn't be in their face.
Wake Up! Open Carry is the only way!
As I stated above.....because the court ruled concealed carry is not a right....suddenly granting or mandating concealed carry even if shall issue wouldn't not satisfy the exercise of ones 2A right. If the right is open carry....then open carry MUST be allowed.

If they don't want to see it....then they could so like AZ and allow concealed carry w/o a permit so people would have the option.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-09-2016, 12:54 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,330
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

More than a few of us saw this coming when they convened the En Banc panel obviously because if they agreed with the decision, they'd have let it stand and the panel was not needed.

Based on their activity of late, the SCOTUS will either not take this up or affirm.
That is also just as clear to those who pay attention.

Eventually most of you will come to understand you will never restore firearms rights and keep losing them if you stay in California.

You may stay for numerous valid reasons, but you will lose your firearms rights continually if you stay so be prepared.
There is nothing the shrinking minority of gun owners can do to stop this here. Nothing. Broken Arrow. We are over-run.

The only way to preserve gun rights is to live in a state where they are revered. Period.

All of us who intend to move aren't moving just for gun rights nor are they the primary reason, their loss is more a sign of the political climate and over-crowed state dominated by metro-area leftist statist elitist voters that hurts us in many other ways than a sole reason to move. We are considering moving for a better life, firearms rights are just one of the many ways life will be better.

At least it is finally now clear for Californians: stay or leave, your firearms rights hang on your decision.
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran


Not wasting any more time and energy tilting, Don Quixote-like, on a regulatory problem that, constitutionally, should not even exist in a free state.
I cannot change the world unlike my hero Samuel Adams—but I can change my place in it.
Gone fishin' for now and soon gone from California.

Last edited by advocatusdiaboli; 06-09-2016 at 1:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-09-2016, 1:05 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hog Hunter View Post
I dont understand why you would think the 2A is about CCW. It's not. Its all about OPEN CARRY.

You guys need to dump the CCW lawsuits and go for the real.

Charles Nichols's lawsuit is what needs the public eye and backing. He has stood a real legal ground and is mocked by Calguns? What is wrong with you people?

I have no Idea why you haven't poured everything into this our true fundamental right. You cant lose!


Quit trying to be a sneak thief with CCW and demand OPEN CARRY under the 2A.

Otherwise you are wasting donations.

Read what was said..

"We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public."


If open carry was proven legal as it is and CA had to allow it they would scramble to put together a CCW program so it wouldn't be in their face.

Wake Up! Open Carry is the only way!
Not sure about that. You assume these committed leftists on the 9th Circuit will follow precedent and allow for guns to be carried in their face.
As we've seen they'll take any steps necessary like en banc to strangle Heller/McDonald in the cradle.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-09-2016, 1:12 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkguy80 View Post
Was anyone really delusional enough to believe any other outcome was possible? I'd assert SCOTUS' decision will be no different.
It was pretty obvious the 3 judge panel's ruling was toast. It was somewhat unknown what the opinion would be specifically. We were somewhat fortunate this was limited to CCW though. I was expecting a total cut and paste of Drake and Woollard, 2 cases which weren't specific to CC or OC because the permits in MD and NJ encompassed both.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-09-2016, 1:13 PM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 888
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The path before us is clear. Either we Make America Great Again, or we fade into the darkness. I didn't want it this way, but it's the only way forward.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-09-2016, 1:20 PM
gun toting monkeyboy's Avatar
gun toting monkeyboy gun toting monkeyboy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Diego (more or less)
Posts: 6,580
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hog Hunter View Post
I dont understand why you would think the 2A is about CCW. It's not. Its all about OPEN CARRY.

You guys need to dump the CCW lawsuits and go for the real.

Charles Nichols's lawsuit is what needs the public eye and backing. He has stood a real legal ground and is mocked by Calguns? What is wrong with you people?

I have no Idea why you haven't poured everything into this our true fundamental right. You cant lose!


Quit trying to be a sneak thief with CCW and demand OPEN CARRY under the 2A.

Otherwise you are wasting donations.

Read what was said..

"We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public."


If open carry was proven legal as it is and CA had to allow it they would scramble to put together a CCW program so it wouldn't be in their face.

Wake Up! Open Carry is the only way!
Oh look. Another low post count person shilling for Charles Nichols. Who here is surprised? The problem is that the man is an egotistical, incompetent boob. That is why he gets mocked on here. He literally gets laughed out of court most the time. Counting on him to win a case like this is like relying on The Three Stooges for brain surgery.

-Mb
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplinker View Post
It's OK not to post when you have no clue what you're talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-09-2016, 1:39 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,467
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Clearly. And since Hitlery is going to win in the greatest landslide in history, you have your answer.

Just wait until Newsom is in control of CA, and the Dems have their supermajority back. Felony prosecution for just posting on CalGuns.
come to think about it. I had a CPRA article years ago addressing a Hillary presidency. in short all guns, ammo, gun parts anything firearm related was a felony. even an old guns and ammo magazine was illegal under a Hillary presidency and people read these books in hiding and so on. a loose round of ammunition that someone failed to turn in and found during a home inspection would result in jail time.

I apologize that I cannot find this article I have looked time and time again. it was around 2000 or 2002.

It was quite scary to read. but fiction may turn into fact.

but back on topic. if I ever find this or someone else has this one please post it. if I find it I will post the same.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-09-2016, 1:47 PM
jdracing jdracing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Vacaville
Posts: 110
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Theoretically in my layman's view option #1 would no longer be a viable legal option for the state.....because the court just clearly said that concealed carry is not a right.....therefore granting concealed carry would not satisfy the exercise of ones right would it? I mean didn't they just say that even if concealed carry was allowed, that wouldn't be exercising your 2A right because concealed carry is not covered under the constitution. So it would seem they're saying that any state that still bans open carry is violating the constitution. Am I wrong? (All of this assuming that carry outside the home is ruled upon at some point)
So, I see your point and understand how you got there, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion.

IF SCOTUS decides what the Peruta majority has ducked, it should be whether 2A guarantees a right to carry outside the home. If they decide "yes," which would we strongly believe they should, that leaves it to the states to make laws consistent with that 2A right, and prohibits laws inconsistent with that right. Just because the 9th Circuit has said that there is no separate 2A right to conceal carry, doesn't mean that a state allowing concealed carry, while prohibiting open carry, fails to satisfy a SCOTUS mandate of a 2A right to carry outside the home. It just means that a state isn't prevented by 2A from effectively banning concealed carry--so long as it doesn't completely prohibit carrying outside the home.

What such a ruling by SCOTUS would do is prevent a state from prohibiting both concealed and open carry, because there's no other way to carry outside the home other than concealed or open, as far as I can figure. That is effectively what CA does now, with laws prohibiting open carry (unless your county has fewer than 200,000 people) and laws allowing counties to effectively prohibit concealed carry by requiring ridiculously high "good cause" standards.

I wonder how Everytown and Brady Bunch parents would feel about folks exercising their 2A rights by showing up at their kids' soccer and softball games with open side arms, because the state continues to allow the counties to effectively prohibit concealed carry? I have to think that the state laws on concealed carry in California would loosen up right quick, and the good cause standards would be taken out of the hands of the counties. Because failure to do so would mean open carry couldn't be prohibited.

Last edited by jdracing; 06-09-2016 at 1:53 PM.. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-09-2016, 2:04 PM
Urban Achiever Urban Achiever is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm thinking open carry needs to be the avenue pushed. If we get it, I will be carrying my S&W 629 around on my hip loud and proud to scare all the ninnies in LA county.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-09-2016, 2:09 PM
boxbro's Avatar
boxbro boxbro is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Santa Monica
Posts: 793
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

This state is done.
Off to AZ I'm going sometime in the near future.
Of course I'll be listing all my off roster guns to make sure they stay in CA for those who are still willing to deal with this BS state.
So sad, born and raised here but I'm finally done.
__________________
"Look at the tyranny of party -- at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty -- a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes -- and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction....."

"The Character of Man," Mark Twain's Autobiography
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-09-2016, 2:13 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,378
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdracing View Post
So, I see your point and understand how you got there, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion.

IF SCOTUS decides what the Peruta majority has ducked, it should be whether 2A guarantees a right to carry outside the home. If they decide "yes," which would we strongly believe they should, that leaves it to the states to make laws consistent with that 2A right, and prohibits laws inconsistent with that right. Just because the 9th Circuit has said that there is no separate 2A right to conceal carry, doesn't mean that a state allowing concealed carry, while prohibiting open carry, fails to satisfy a SCOTUS mandate of a 2A right to carry outside the home. It just means that a state isn't prevented by 2A from effectively banning concealed carry--so long as it doesn't completely prohibit carrying outside the home.

What such a ruling by SCOTUS would do is prevent a state from prohibiting both concealed and open carry, because there's no other way to carry outside the home other than concealed or open, as far as I can figure. That is effectively what CA does now, with laws prohibiting open carry (unless your county has fewer than 200,000 people) and laws allowing counties to effectively prohibit concealed carry by requiring ridiculously high "good cause" standards.

I wonder how Everytown and Brady Bunch parents would feel about folks exercising their 2A rights by showing up at their kids' soccer and softball games with open side arms, because the state continues to allow the counties to effectively prohibit concealed carry? I have to think that the state laws on concealed carry in California would loosen up right quick, and the good cause standards would be taken out of the hands of the counties. Because failure to do so would mean open carry couldn't be prohibited.
Of course it would all hinge on how SCOTUS ruled, but even Heller made mention of bans on concealed carry.

But I don't see how you can on one hand say "you have no right to concealed carry and is not covered by the 2A" but then say "but we will let you conceal carry to exercise your 2A rights".

If open carry is the right.....then it must be allowed, the state could certainly offer concealed as option like say AZ does, but I don't see how under this current ruling it could be required, because they went to great lengths to establish that concealed carry has never been a protected right, so allowing concealed carry would not be the exercise of a protected right.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-09-2016, 2:27 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 711
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

IMO the court should have ruled for Peruta on the grounds that the state has failed to establish a good cause standard, The state should not allow each sheriff or city police chief to make up there on standards based on there own personal opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-09-2016, 2:28 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,717
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The decision is a clear cut case of the Court abdicating its responsibility to rule on the issue before it, which the panel correctly cast is the Constitutionality of California's concealed weapon statute taken in context with California law denying open carry.

Rather than to have the courage to address the real issue, the Circuit majority plays a game in which it pretends that one part of the state's gun control law is viewed in isolation, when the affect on bearing arms plainly depends upon the interaction of the various parts of the regulatory scheme.

Nor can the Ninth take the position with integrity, which it has taken to its shame, that Scotus has yet to rule as to whether a right to bear exists outside the home. The duty of a Federal Appellate court is to apply existing precedent to make a ruling and not to pass the buck to the High Court.

That the Ninth Circuit chose to take the politically correct path is all the more apparent given its release of the Peruta decision so immediately on the tail of the last super primary in which Hilary Clinton made issue of Bernie Sanders stance in support of gun rights. One can only speculate that the decision was held so as not to encourage more gun supporters, and there are more than a few in the Democratic Party, to turn out for Bernie and/or to think twice about voting for Hilary.

Reading between the lines, does anyone else see what I believe happened here, which is the reason the decision avoided dealing with the argument that the concealed weapon law had to be read in context with the denial of the right to open carry? I believe that the Chief Judge was having trouble finding a majority that would uphold California's statutory scheme, which suggests that open carry will be found to be guaranteed.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-09-2016, 2:34 PM
jdracing jdracing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Vacaville
Posts: 110
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Of course it would all hinge on how SCOTUS ruled, but even Heller made mention of bans on concealed carry.

But I don't see how you can on one hand say "you have no right to concealed carry and is not covered by the 2A" but then say "but we will let you conceal carry to exercise your 2A rights".

If open carry is the right.....then it must be allowed, the state could certainly offer concealed as option like say AZ does, but I don't see how under this current ruling it could be required, because they went to great lengths to establish that concealed carry has never been a protected right, so allowing concealed carry would not be the exercise of a protected right.
\

Because I don't think the right is "open carry". The right is "carry outside the home for purposes of defense." I think you can satisfy a Constitutional right by permitting an action (e.g. concealed carry) even though that action is not itself Constitutionally guaranteed.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-09-2016, 2:43 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 852
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

let the dupe threads begin!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:33 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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.