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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-27-2011, 2:15 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 704
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Peruta v. San Diego: NRA Files Amicus Brief in Ninth Circuit CCW Case

On Monday, May 23, 2011, the CRPA Foundation and a number of San Diego residents had attorneys from Michel & Associates, PC file their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in their appeal seeking to overturn a U.S. district court ruling from December 10, 2010 that upheld San Diego Sheriff William Gore’s restrictive and unfair policies in issuing permits to carry concealed firearms. The case is Peruta v. County of San Diego. (See the Opening Brief here).

Today, May 27, 2011, the National Rifle Association weighed in on this appeal with an amicus brief authored by former Solicitor General and renowned constitutional litigator, Paul Clement. The NRA’s brief reiterates the position NRA took in a previous amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit in the Nordyke v. King case, that infringements on fundamental rights, like the right to bear arms, must be reviewed under strict scrutiny. The brief continues though, arguing even if the “substantial burden” test that was ultimately adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Nordyke is the proper test for reviewing Second Amendment infringements, San Diego County’s CCW issuance policy still fails. (See NRA's amicus brief here).

NRA’s amicus brief is the second to be filed in this important case. On May 25, 2011, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) filed its amicus brief, authored by the renowned Second Amendment scholar, and author of "The Framer's Second Amendment," Stephen P. Halbrook, in support of Plaintiffs/Appellants in Peruta case The CORE brief emphasized how the right to “bear arms” does not stop at one’s doorstep, and gave a historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment, discussing how discretionary firearms licensing laws were an incident of slavery. (See CORE’s amicus brief here)

More amicus briefs are expected to be filed over the next few days. To be kept up to date on these filings, subscribe to our alerts at http://michellawyers.com/subscribe.

California law allows a permit to carry a concealed firearm (CCW) to be issued if an applicant has “good cause.” The Peruta lawsuit asserts that under the Second Amendment, a desire for self-defense must constitute “good cause” for the issuance of a CCW, and that Gore’s requirement that an applicant demonstrate some special need or a specific threat in order to get a CCW is an unconstitutional restriction on the right to carry a loaded firearm in public ready to be used for self-defense.

In a nutshell, the district court held that rather than needing a CCW to defend oneself, since California law allows unloaded open carry of handguns one can carry unloaded and openly, and then act pursuant to a California law that requires you to wait until you are about to be attacked, then load your firearm (see Cal. Pen. Code section 12031(j)). Because of the time needed to get an unloaded firearm ready to be used for self-defense, unloaded carry is not an effective way to exercise your fundamental, individual constitutional right to be ready and able to defend yourself under the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs are asking the Ninth Circuit to overrule the district court’s decision. (See opening appellate brief here).

The plaintiffs include several individuals who were either denied CCWs or do not qualify under the Sheriff’s strict issuance standards, as well as the CRPA Foundation. Copies of the court filings in the lawsuit and appeal can be viewed at http://michellawyers.com/perutavsandiego.

The lawsuit and appeal are being funded by the NRA-CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP). To fight for the self-defense civil rights of all Californians, the NRA and CRPA Foundation have joined forces. Through LAP, NRA/CRPAF attorneys fight ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, educate state and local officials about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and produce valid science about game and wildlife resource management.

To contribute to the NRA/CRPAF Legal Action Project (LAP) and support this and similar efforts and Second Amendment litigation in California, visit www.crpafoundation.org and www.nraila.org.

Last edited by sbrady@Michel&Associates; 05-31-2011 at 9:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-27-2011, 2:53 PM
Grakken's Avatar
Grakken Grakken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Made sense to me but what do I know.
__________________
NRA - Life Member

Guns don't kill people. People Kill people.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-27-2011, 2:55 PM
odysseus's Avatar
odysseus odysseus is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 10,412
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the informative post.
__________________
"Just leave me alone, I know what to do." - Kimi Raikkonen

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.' and that `Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.'
- John Adams

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-27-2011, 2:57 PM
mofugly13's Avatar
mofugly13 mofugly13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 745
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
But the right to carry a (loaded) firearm only for immediate self-defense is no right at all. The right does not materialize until it is too late to exercise. Unless criminals and other who pose the threats that a right to self-defense protects against plan to announce their intent to present a grave and immediate threat and then take a time out to enable the potential victim to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights, a right to immediate self-defense is entirely illusory
Excellent, this brief and the CORE brief are so well argued, it seems as if there's no way we can lose. We'll see though...
__________________
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety."
A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government
officials that such right is designed to constrain.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-27-2011, 2:57 PM
Wolverine's Avatar
Wolverine Wolverine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 737
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow! That's a great brief. Thank you NRA. Thank you Paul Clement.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-27-2011, 2:58 PM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Will the NRA help as much as they did in McDonald?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-27-2011, 3:02 PM
Wolverine's Avatar
Wolverine Wolverine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 737
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mofugly13 View Post
Excellent, this brief and the CORE brief are so well argued, it seems as if there's no way we can lose. We'll see though...
If Williams is granted cert. (likely I believe), then it is also likely that all of these other carry cases will be put on hold pending SCOTUS' decision. Still it's good to read the CORE and now NRA briefs. There are some powerful arguments in there.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-27-2011, 3:04 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,943
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
(See the Opening Brief here).
(See NRA's amicus brief here).
(See CORE’s amicus brief here)
Links?

Edit: Found them on your website
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice

Last edited by Southwest Chuck; 05-27-2011 at 3:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-27-2011, 3:16 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 704
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Links on Calgunlaws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Links?

Edit: Found them on your website
Yes, if no links came through on my post, I apologize. I am the wrong guy to ask to get the links posted here (hence my becoming a lawyer, computer and math illiterate). All links work on www.calgunlaws.com. I think there is also a link to our website that has all filings in the Peruta case to date.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-27-2011, 3:27 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,017
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech View Post
Will the NRA help as much as they did in McDonald?
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-27-2011, 3:47 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 39,549
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
Yes, if no links came through on my post, I apologize. I am the wrong guy to ask to get the links posted here (hence my becoming a lawyer, computer and math illiterate). All links work on www.calgunlaws.com. I think there is also a link to our website that has all filings in the Peruta case to date.
Indeed - http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/

Getcher notifications ahead of the pack! Sign up to receive the emails here: http://michellawyers.com/subscribe/
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-27-2011, 3:54 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 704
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Indeed - http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/

Getcher notifications ahead of the pack! Sign up to receive the emails here: http://michellawyers.com/subscribe/
Thank you, Librarian. That is the one. And, I agree it is convenient to sign up for alerts. You will likely get one alert a week or every other week, it won't flood your e-mail. Unless, of course, it is this particular week, but this is exceptional.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-28-2011, 12:22 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well I feel like just got my money's worth out of the easy pay life membership. Fantastic brief. It renews my hope.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 05-28-2011 at 12:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-28-2011, 6:06 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,734
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

I loved that the brief made the point that the county is requiring anyone applying for a CCW to have a higher than average need in order to qualify. And then pointed out that mathematically, "above average" of necessity excludes most people. In excluding most people, rather than a select few such as felons or the mentally incompetent, it's obviously a substantial burden. Therefore, FAIL.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-28-2011, 6:56 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,595
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
I loved that the brief made the point that the county is requiring anyone applying for a CCW to have a higher than average need in order to qualify. And then pointed out that mathematically, "above average" of necessity excludes most people. In excluding most people, rather than a select few such as felons or the mentally incompetent, it's obviously a substantial burden. Therefore, FAIL.

Yup.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-28-2011, 7:40 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,517
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah, baby! "Go, Team, Go!"
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-28-2011, 7:59 AM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 320
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A very well constructed brief. They took the time to address all of the salient points along the way to a brilliant conclusion. This one is worth reading for those who might only read some of the stuff that is coming out of the current cases....
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-28-2011, 9:43 AM
GaryV's Avatar
GaryV GaryV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
I loved that the brief made the point that the county is requiring anyone applying for a CCW to have a higher than average need in order to qualify. And then pointed out that mathematically, "above average" of necessity excludes most people. In excluding most people, rather than a select few such as felons or the mentally incompetent, it's obviously a substantial burden. Therefore, FAIL.
Actually, that's not true. Mathematically the majority of people, even a very significant majority, could be above average. In mathematical terms, "average" doesn't necessarily mean the value at the center of the distribution. The mathematical term for that is the Median. While Median is a type of "average", the term "average" as used in common speech usually applies to the Mean. And with a Mean, unless the values are distributed in a more or less symmetrical fashion around the Median, it is quite easily the case that most values fall either above or below the "average". If you have a group of 10 people in which 9 are 6' tall, and 1 is 5' tall, then the "average" height is 5'11", and 9 of the 10 people would be above average, at 6'.

However, in common speech, we very often use the word "average" to mean Mean, but with the assumption that Mean and Median (and Mode, the most common value, as well) are the same or very similar, though in real-world situations this is often far from true. So from a common speech perspective, though definitely not a mathematical one, the NRA's point is valid, even if the wording is incorrect.

Last edited by GaryV; 05-28-2011 at 9:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-28-2011, 10:07 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,580
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I love that the false "only in the home" interpretation is finally being addressed head on.

That fact is that NO WHERE is Heller or McD does it ever say "ONLY in the home". It amazes me how the anti's can ignore pages and pages of historical analysis on the history of the right to BEAR/CARRY/OR WEAR upon the person, and then just zero in on the "reasonable regulation" part, and then try and claim that total or near total bans are reasonable.

It will be nice to see some feedback from the courts finally agreeing that "No....Heller does not say only in the home....is just says not in certain sensitive places.....and no you can call everything outside the home a sensitive place."

I think all the filings are excellently written and go straight to the heart of the issues. In reading the Peruta appeal filings I am starting to see where the equal protection claim, in trying to bring in the HDSA stuff all seems to start to muddy the waters a bit. Where the pure constitutional challenge really is quite clear and simple, especially when you can use the SDSO's statements and intent of policy is to limit the number to legal permit holders. It'll be nice to see what Gore comes up with to try at satisfy his burden of proof to justify his policies and actions.
__________________
"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; 05-28-2011 at 10:12 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-28-2011, 4:59 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 163
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is excellent. One thing that constantly amazes me is how those promoting rigorous gun control laws can be so completely blind to the failed logic of their arguments. In this case the argument by SD county and the District courts decision that because guns are dangerous that it's completely valid to significantly burden a core element of a fundamental right in the interest of "public safety" without any demonstrable proof that such a burden actually has ANY effect on increasing public safety. In fact considerable data shows exactly the opposite, that increased freedom for law abiding citizens to carry loaded weapons reduces violent crime. They also completely miss the slippery slope of fully thinking through their faulty logic: that if it's constitutional to significantly burden a fundamental right in the interest of public safety, that there are other rights they could burden besides the 2nd that would be considerably more effective in increasing public safety. E.g., how about curtailing LEO restrictions on unreasonable search and seizure? Just bust down the doors of every suspected gang banger without any probable cause and they're sure to find some criminal activity and 'improve' public safety. How about curtailing restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment and self incrimination to get some confessions? A little water boarding might get some useful convictions that improves "public safety". Jury trials? Who needs 'em, just draw the scoundrels up in front of an appointed panel and send them to the chamber. After all expeditious justice at the hands of beliefs and opinions with a few speed bumps over some trampled fundamental rights is justified by public safety in the view of some of our public officials.

Slippery slope. But hey, the district court said it was ok to nullify fundamental rights in the interests of public safety, right?

What the anti-gun rights folks don't see (including those in robes) is while they tilt at windmills with arguments that do absolutely nothing to affect violent crime, that their arguments ... if carried to their logical conclusion ... would completely undermine the very foundations of our society's unique legacy of liberty.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 05-28-2011 at 8:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-29-2011, 1:50 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
I love that the false "only in the home" interpretation is finally being addressed head on.

That fact is that NO WHERE is Heller or McD does it ever say "ONLY in the home". It amazes me how the anti's can ignore pages and pages of historical analysis on the history of the right to BEAR/CARRY/OR WEAR upon the person, and then just zero in on the "reasonable regulation" part, and then try and claim that total or near total bans are reasonable.

It will be nice to see some feedback from the courts finally agreeing that "No....Heller does not say only in the home....is just says not in certain sensitive places.....and no you can call everything outside the home a sensitive place."

I think all the filings are excellently written and go straight to the heart of the issues. In reading the Peruta appeal filings I am starting to see where the equal protection claim, in trying to bring in the HDSA stuff all seems to start to muddy the waters a bit. Where the pure constitutional challenge really is quite clear and simple, especially when you can use the SDSO's statements and intent of policy is to limit the number to legal permit holders. It'll be nice to see what Gore comes up with to try at satisfy his burden of proof to justify his policies and actions.
The issue of carry was never a question before the court. The opinion given was only on the question before the court. Everything else was dicta.

So while no where do the opinions state "only in the home", the opinions also don't say "you have the right to bear...."

Which is why:

1. the anti's keep saying you cant bear outside the home
2. we are even having laws suites trying to get bear
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-29-2011, 2:26 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 946
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you didn't have any right to carry outside of the home, then "sensitive" places, as discussed in the majority opinion in Heller, would be a moot issue.

So no -- they didn't say you had a right, they said there are places outside the home where you don't have the right. Therefore, because you don't have right the right in some places, it means you do have the right in others.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-29-2011, 3:40 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
If you didn't have any right to carry outside of the home, then "sensitive" places, as discussed in the majority opinion in Heller, would be a moot issue.

So no -- they didn't say you had a right, they said there are places outside the home where you don't have the right. Therefore, because you don't have right the right in some places, it means you do have the right in others.
dicta is not binding law. its commentary, which is what Scalia was doing when he when he commented "we aren't saying that its a absolute law. there can be some restrictions such as [oh, i dont know] limiting possession in sensitive area's.

He was just throwing out some common types restrictions that the scotus wouldnt have a problem with.

All the commentary means nothing. the only legally binding part of a decision is the one or two sentence's that specifically answer the question put forth.

In hellers case's:

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

and answered

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.


Even:
"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

is just reiterating the court of appeals position

Last edited by sreiter; 05-29-2011 at 3:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-29-2011, 4:12 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,231
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
I love that the false "only in the home" interpretation is finally being addressed head on.
To be fair, "finally" is not exactly true. That false understanding of bear was first challenged in Sykes v. McGinness (now Richards v. Prieto) and subsequently many other bear cases throughout the country (most of them by SAF/Gura).

Quote:
In reading the Peruta appeal filings I am starting to see where the equal protection claim, in trying to bring in the HDSA stuff all seems to start to muddy the waters a bit. Where the pure constitutional challenge really is quite clear and simple, especially when you can use the SDSO's statements and intent of policy is to limit the number to legal permit holders.
Yep. These are actually very simple issues to address. Do you, or do you not have a right to bear arms outside one's home? If so, what does the contour of the right look like? What did "bear" mean at the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
dicta is not binding law. its commentary, which is what Scalia was doing when he when he commented "we aren't saying that its a absolute law. there can be some restrictions such as [oh, i dont know] limiting possession in sensitive area's.

He was just throwing out some common types restrictions that the scotus wouldnt have a problem with.

All the commentary means nothing. the only legally binding part of a decision is the one or two sentence's that specifically answer the question put forth.

In hellers case's:

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

and answered

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.


Even:
"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

is just reiterating the court of appeals position
You're not exactly correct. In order to reach the majority result in Heller - namely, that the D.C. ordinances infringed on rights guaranteed under 2A, as was found by the D.C. Circuit - the USSC undertook one of the most intensive historical analysis of an enumerated right, ever. Part of that analysis was to determine what "arms", "keep", and "bear" meant. That text is not superfluous, and to claim it merely dicta is to make a significant legal and tactical blunder.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-29-2011, 5:00 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
To be fair, "finally" is not exactly true. That false understanding of bear was first challenged in Sykes v. McGinness (now Richards v. Prieto) and subsequently many other bear cases throughout the country (most of them by SAF/Gura).



Yep. These are actually very simple issues to address. Do you, or do you not have a right to bear arms outside one's home? If so, what does the contour of the right look like? What did "bear" mean at the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment?



You're not exactly correct. In order to reach the majority result in Heller - namely, that the D.C. ordinances infringed on rights guaranteed under 2A, as was found by the D.C. Circuit - the USSC undertook one of the most intensive historical analysis of an enumerated right, ever. Part of that analysis was to determine what "arms", "keep", and "bear" meant. That text is not superfluous, and to claim it merely dicta is to make a significant legal and tactical blunder.

-Brandon
Brandon - while commendable they spent the time to fully investigate all of the above (well, more to the point, utilized the various amicus briefs where the analysis was done, how exactly would dismissing it as dicta be a legal and tactical blunder?

There was no new ground covered. Gun advocates have long used historical documents, citing exactly what the founding fathers meant when they created the 2a. It worked here. It hasn't in the past.

Just like citing exactly what the author of the 14a meant with P or I. that wasn't persuasive.

Are the definitions of what "arms", "keep", and "bear" now part of con law and are now legal and binding? Never subject to re-interpretation to a different court?

The issue of Scalia talking about regulations and sensitive places being off limits is judicial dictum (an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.) Scalia writes "I understand the concerns about gun violence voiced in various amicus briefs, .... it is not this courts job to render the 2a extinct"

i would argue dictum proprium also applies.

Also, are you saying that I'm am incorrect when stating "the only legally binding thing to take away from Heller was the answer to the single question put forth to the court?

Now, I understand that even dicta, or descenting opinions are often used as part of a argument in a future action, and sometimes carry weight. Thats not the issue here. The discussion is "did the remarks about no possession in sensitive area in heller give us "bear" outside the home"...hell did heller in general give us bear outside the home
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-29-2011, 5:05 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,371
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
the USSC undertook one of the most intensive historical analysis of an enumerated right, ever.
Which isn't saying much because previous attempts by courts, other than reviewing their own prior decisions all saying no, have been as close to zero as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-29-2011, 5:16 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,970
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Good luck in Court, & thanks for all your hard work.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-30-2011, 2:17 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,231
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

You're falling into the trap of viewing the 2A through a peephole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
Brandon - while commendable they spent the time to fully investigate all of the above (well, more to the point, utilized the various amicus briefs where the analysis was done, how exactly would dismissing it as dicta be a legal and tactical blunder?
The majority's historical and etymological analysis provided insight as to what the Second Amendment meant and served to protect. In order to reach the decision it did, the Court used those data to form the legal basis of its holding to affirm the D.C. Circuit's decision and rule D.C.'s ordinances as unconstitutionally infringing on Dick Heller's 2A rights. SCOTUS could have made Heller a one or two-page decision stating that 2A was an individual right and simply affirm without much analysis. However, the majority chose to create and publish a lengthy decision that went deeply to what 2A meant for an individual right of self-defense, including much on "bear" and what it meant to "bear arms".

The blunder is in assuming that the Court didn't mean what it said. That sort of challenge generally doesn't go well for the challenger. I expect a few judges in CA4 and CA7 to learn that in the next 12-24 months.

Quote:
There was no new ground covered. Gun advocates have long used historical documents, citing exactly what the founding fathers meant when they created the 2a. It worked here. It hasn't in the past.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that there was an acknowledged fundamental enumerated individual right to keep and bear arms prior to Heller and McDonald?

We won 2A in 2008. We won incorporation in 2010. This is a new (and fast-growing) body of law in a new world.

Quote:
Just like citing exactly what the author of the 14a meant with P or I. that wasn't persuasive.
Are you unintentionally overlooking McDonald and Thomas's concurring opinion?

Quote:
Are the definitions of what "arms", "keep", and "bear" now part of con law and are now legal and binding? Never subject to re-interpretation to a different court?
Stare decisis is taken seriously by those sitting on the Court. Given an opportunity, they chose to not disturb even a decision they knew to be wrongly-decided (Slaughter House Cases). There's no going backward with liberty (especially this one) without severe consequences. Imagine what could/would happen if another Court overturned Heller and McDonald 20 years or so from now, after hundreds of federal district and appellate court decisions. Remember, you don't piss off the guy that holds your money, or the guy who has the guns.

Quote:
The issue of Scalia talking about regulations and sensitive places being off limits is judicial dictum (an opinion by a court on a question that is directly involved, briefed, and argued by counsel, and even passed on by the court, but that is not essential to the decision.) Scalia writes "I understand the concerns about gun violence voiced in various amicus briefs, .... it is not this courts job to render the 2a extinct"

i would argue dictum proprium also applies.
You're misunderstanding what Heller said, and why. Here's an extraordinarily boiled-down version for easier comprehension:

Quote:
We hold that:

* 2A protects a fundamental, individual right of self-defense unconnected with militia service.

* Keep is more than possessing parts, and in fact means "operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." "Keep arms was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else."

* Bear 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."

* Arms are "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

* D.C.'s ordinances before us are unconstitutional as they violate the 2A we discussed above for all of the reasons we discussed above.

* (Paraphrasing) "Yes, we understand that this decision is huge, a game-changer for the Republic, and its implications will scare people. Please don't think that we're going to let everyone walk around in schools with concealed MP-5 submachine guns. Some gun regulations, such as keeping guns out of courthouses and restrictions on concealed carry (but only where open carry is available for bear), don't infringe on 2A rights."
Why would Heller discuss concealed carry and sensitive places if it was only about "in the home"? They were offering lower courts guidance on a fundamental right that *included* the right to bear in public, not writing a long opinion on a social lightning rod because they needed the practice.

Quote:
Also, are you saying that I'm am incorrect when stating "the only legally binding thing to take away from Heller was the answer to the single question put forth to the court?
That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm also saying that courts who should know better are participating in the 2A 2 Step dance-a-thon and SCOTUS is going to "say so more plainly" so even those with reading comprehension problems can understand what they said in Heller.

Quote:
Now, I understand that even dicta, or descenting opinions are often used as part of a argument in a future action, and sometimes carry weight. Thats not the issue here. The discussion is "did the remarks about no possession in sensitive area in heller give us "bear" outside the home"...hell did heller in general give us bear outside the home
Heller can easily and justifiably be read to acknowledge "bear" outside the home, but only if you're intellectually honest enough to admit it.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Last edited by wildhawker; 05-30-2011 at 2:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-30-2011, 6:33 AM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There's another part of this "dicta" mess that we should all understand.

Dicta*, in and of itself, is an opinion of the court, that is ordinarily not binding nor especially persuasive, because it is not necessary to the reasoning of the court in deciding the issue at hand. However ...

In cases of First Impression** (and Heller was just that), what we would normally call "dicta" is now highly persuasive. Most especially if that dicta is from the Supreme Court itself.

Why? Because there is no other authority to turn to, in cases of first impression.









*Dicta n. Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. The plural of dictum. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dicta (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved)

**Case of first impression n. a case in which a question of interpretation of law is presented which has never arisen before in any reported case. Sometimes, it is only of first impression in the particular state or jurisdiction, so decisions from other states or the federal courts may be examined as a guideline. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...rst+impression (Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved)
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-30-2011, 12:25 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
You're falling into the trap of viewing the 2A through a peephole.
Actually, I'm not. My view of what the 2a is, is not what i'm discussing, I'm discussing what the SCOTUS has, up until this point told us it is.

You're looking at it too broadly, and specifically avoiding my statement. Yes or No, SCOTUS ruled on only one thing in the Heller case "Is Washington DC's ban on keeping a functional handgun in the home for personal protection constitutional", and there ruling ONLY speaks to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter
Brandon - while commendable they spent the time to fully investigate all of the above (well, more to the point, utilized the various amicus briefs where the analysis was done, how exactly would dismissing it as dicta be a legal and tactical blunder?

Quote:
The majority's historical and etymological analysis provided insight as to what the Second Amendment meant and served to protect. In order to reach the decision it did, the Court used those data to form the legal basis of its holding to affirm the D.C. Circuit's decision and rule D.C.'s ordinances as unconstitutionally infringing on Dick Heller's 2A rights. SCOTUS could have made Heller a one or two-page decision stating that 2A was an individual right and simply affirm without much analysis. However, the majority chose to create and publish a lengthy decision that went deeply to what 2A meant for an individual right of self-defense, including much on "bear" and what it meant to "bear arms".
But everyone with any sense, and anyone who read any founding father documentation pre-constitution knew all this. The reference material in the briefs that you are citing above, have all been brought up before. I knew about all that in 1991.

The only thing different here is these judges were pro 2a enough to agree with the documentation. They could have just as easily dismissed it as hogwash.

The fact remains the supporting documents/definitions don't need to be considered by any other judge or court.


Quote:
The blunder is in assuming that the Court didn't mean what it said. That sort of challenge generally doesn't go well for the challenger. I expect a few judges in CA4 and CA7 to learn that in the next 12-24 months.
Wut? Of course they meant what they said. They said DC must issue a permit for Heller to have a functioning handgun in his home. Thats what his lawsuit was about. It says so right there in the last paragraph of the decision.


Quote:
There was no new ground covered. Gun advocates have long used historical documents, citing exactly what the founding fathers meant when they created the 2a. It worked here. It hasn't in the past.

Quote:
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that there was an acknowledged fundamental enumerated individual right to keep and bear arms prior to Heller and McDonald?
I'm saying all the historical reference material, the definitions of what "arms" "bear" ,etc are is nothing new. We've been saying all that before, and it's been before courts before. This is the first 2a case in a very long time to come before the SCOTUS, and the first time the material may have to in case before the SCOTUS, however no other court gave a ... hoot. The definitions, founding fathers intent, etc. wasn't all of a sudden discovered locked in a attic and somehow the discovery of it is of biblical proportion and will have the weight of god himself.

Judges have ignored it the supporting evidence before, they will in the future.

If someone was to ignore the actually ruling to the 1 question put before the SCOTUS (having a working handgun in the home for personal protection is a constitutional guarantee), then they do so at their own peril

Quote:
Are you unintentionally overlooking McDonald and Thomas's concurring opinion?
Are you unintentionally overlooking McDonald and Scalia telling Gura to STFU and STFD when he said "are you trying to get a job teaching, or do you want to win this case. Get off the P or I argument"

Thomas was the only justice even considering P or I, irrespective of having enough documentation of what the congress, and the author of the 14a meant it to mean, that a blind man could see.

Quote:
Stare decisis is taken seriously by those sitting on the Court. Given an opportunity, they chose to not disturb even a decision they knew to be wrongly-decided (Slaughter House Cases). There's no going backward with liberty (especially this one) without severe consequences. Imagine what could/would happen if another Court overturned Heller and McDonald 20 years or so from now, after hundreds of federal district and appellate court decisions. Remember, you don't piss off the guy that holds your money, or the guy who has the guns.
I understand Stare decisis well. It didn't seem to bother the court when they voted on citizens united


Quote:
You're misunderstanding what Heller said, and why. Here's an extraordinarily boiled-down version for easier comprehension:

We hold that:

* 2A protects a fundamental, individual right of self-defense unconnected with militia service.

* Keep is more than possessing parts, and in fact means "operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." "Keep arms was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else."

* Bear 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."

* Arms are "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

* D.C.'s ordinances before us are unconstitutional as they violate the 2A we discussed above for all of the reasons we discussed above.

* (Paraphrasing) "Yes, we understand that this decision is huge, a game-changer for the Republic, and its implications will scare people. Please don't think that we're going to let everyone walk around in schools with concealed MP-5 submachine guns. Some gun regulations, such as keeping guns out of courthouses and restrictions on concealed carry (but only where open carry is available for bear), don't infringe on 2A rights."
I'm sorry, but I whole hearty disagree with you, and I fell you are really stretching it. I believe the above is what we would all like to believe thats what Heller GAVE US in terms of binding law.

It doesnt give us all those things, any more then it doesn't give the anti's anything they falsely say Heller gave them.

This is what Heller gave us, it's right there is in the written decision.

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

The SCOTUS gives us an extraordinarily boiled-down version for easier comprehension right there, in their own words.

Anything else such as "arms in common use" is nice ammo for us because they make reference to it. But the haven't really ruled what is or isn't "in common use. We cherry pick phrases, just like the anti's when they ignore everything else but "hand gun in the home for self defense" and "reasonable regulation [all bans are reasonable restrictions to them].

My point being nothing was settled other then a working handgun in the home for self defense by Heller. and nothing will be until all the other issued raised by Heller (ie all the things we want and believe it gave us) until we go to SCOTUS and they specifically rule "you have a constitutional right to carry everywhere but these specific places"

Quote:
Why would Heller discuss concealed carry and sensitive places if it was only about "in the home"? They were offering lower courts guidance on a fundamental right that *included* the right to bear in public, not writing a long opinion on a social lightning rod because they needed the practice.
to address all the briefs before them saying the world would cease to exit as we know it if people were allowed to own a gun and to appease the idiots on the wrong side of this issue. Its still a political hotbed

Quote:
Also, are you saying that I'm am incorrect when stating "the only legally binding thing to take away from Heller was the answer to the single question put forth to the court?
Quote:

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm also saying that courts who should know better are participating in the 2A 2 Step dance-a-thon and SCOTUS is going to "say so more plainly" so even those with reading comprehension problems can understand what they said in Heller.
So, it's your contention that a SCOTUS ruling comprises everything stated in the entire decision, regardless of the question asked and answered.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But, then i dont understand why were arent all carrying everywhere except the specific place Scalia said we couldn't?

I mean, as soon as Heller came down, you started carrying, right?

Quote:
Heller can easily and justifiably be read to acknowledge "bear" outside the home, but only if you're intellectually honest enough to admit it.
Heller can easily and justifiably be read to acknowledge "bear" inside the home was the only thing specifically mentioned in both the suit and answer. Everything else is assumption, inference, wishful thinking, and projecting your own views into the decision, but only if you're intellectually honest enough to admit it.

*** unless I am completely mistaken about how the SCOTUS works with the whole "The QUESTION before the court...." thing.

There is a specific question before the court. Only the answer to that question matters and becomes the standard of law.

Please show me where in jurisprudence the above statement is not the case.

Refer me to Blacks, the constitution, somewhere that states the supreme court decisions function as anything other then answering the 1 specific question put before them.

thanks
Steve

Last edited by sreiter; 05-30-2011 at 12:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-30-2011, 1:12 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You should count the number of times Heller was cited in McDonald.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-30-2011, 1:51 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
You should count the number of times Heller was cited in McDonald.
Exactly what does that have to do with anything?

Referencing something that you feel will bolster your position/side of the debate doesn't mean that what you are citing is binding law.

Again, real simple, if Heller gave us carry, why is no one carrying?

Why are the law suits for carry all predicated on refusal of permit, and not because someone was arrested for exercising their constitutional right to carry under Heller and McDonald?

I'll answer that. Because, we need the courts to come right out and specifically state we have the right to carry, because as of now, we don't.

You might want to research some cases where one of the parties cite the dissenting opinion as the legal basis of their position/side of the debate.

Last edited by sreiter; 05-30-2011 at 1:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-30-2011, 4:10 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 946
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
You might want to research some cases where one of the parties cite the dissenting opinion as the legal basis of their position/side of the debate.
Wasn't the definition of carry cited in Heller from a dissenting opinion?
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-30-2011, 4:22 PM
tonelar's Avatar
tonelar tonelar is offline
Dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Franpsycho
Posts: 6,041
iTrader: 117 / 100%
Default

This "only in the home" nonsense comes from the view that the DC Gun Ban prevented people from having operable firearms in their homes.
Aside from incorporation, I was hoping McDonald would clarify this point.
__________________

Last edited by tonelar; 05-30-2011 at 4:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-30-2011, 4:46 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is this a replay over what Heller did or didn't say? It sure appears that way.

Justice Alito writing the opinion of the Court:

Quote:
Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.[my emphasis]
That is the very first sentence in the McDonald opinion: Heller held ... AND they struck down ... because of that holding.

This is not rocket science, even if the lower courts (and so many others) want to make it out as such.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-30-2011, 5:10 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,231
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
Is this a replay over what Heller did or didn't say? It sure appears that way.

Justice Alito writing the opinion of the Court:

That is the very first sentence in the McDonald opinion: Heller held ... AND they struck down ... because of that holding.

This is not rocket science, even if the lower courts (and so many others) want to make it out as such.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-30-2011, 5:59 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
Justice Alito writing the opinion of the Court:

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.[my emphasis]

That is the very first sentence in the McDonald opinion: Heller held ... AND they struck down ... because of that holding.
emphasis fixed.

Of course they ruled 2a protects the right to keep and bear for self defense. Never a question.

What you're missing, as everyone else, Heller specifically dealt with the ban DC placed on guns in the home. Thats what Heller sued for. The right to keep a handgun in operating condition in his house for self defense purposes.

if you don't understand that, I'm not going to keep trying to how a lawsuit works.

if you believe Heller gives you the right to carry everywhere but the few places Scalia mentioned, I suggest you start carrying, as Ca. can't touch you because McDonald made BEAR the law of the land and you are now protected from state and federal impediments to your 2a right
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-30-2011, 7:25 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sreiter, I can assure you Al Norris has not missed a thing. As the author and compiler of what is perhaps the most comprehensive and up-to-date archive of all things 2A in the judicial world, Al Norris could school most of us on the finer points of 2A jurispridence.

Al Norris, is assuming, I believe correctly, that what Heller and McDonald say about the scope of the right is entirely beyond what they say about the scope of either particular case. There is much much more inherent in the dicta and in the rulings than the details of the cases themselves.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 05-30-2011 at 7:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-30-2011, 7:29 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 859
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
emphasis fixed.

Of course they ruled 2a protects the right to keep and bear for self defense. Never a question.

What you're missing, as everyone else, Heller specifically dealt with the ban DC placed on guns in the home. Thats what Heller sued for. The right to keep a handgun in operating condition in his house for self defense purposes.

if you don't understand that, I'm not going to keep trying to how a lawsuit works.

if you believe Heller gives you the right to carry everywhere but the few places Scalia mentioned, I suggest you start carrying, as Ca. can't touch you because McDonald made BEAR the law of the land and you are now protected from state and federal impediments to your 2a right
that must be why SCOTUS just asked the maryland SC to explain why they think it doesnt apply outside of the home last week.
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Last edited by ddestruel; 05-31-2011 at 9:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-30-2011, 8:01 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,076
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

What are we arguing? The state of the law *before* the court rules? If that were the case, there would be no lawsuit.

So we are arguing over how we expect a *rational* court to rule? If that were the case, there would also be no lawsuit, since existing case law is hardly rational.

So we are arguing over how we expect an *irrational* court will rule?

We've all seen what bad judges can do. Predicting the outcome is hardly easy. Look at what happened in Nordyke. They outright said that they could rule however they wanted "despite language [from SCOTUS] suggesting the contrary"!

The best we can do in that situation is to have the 9th make a ruling so obviously out of whack that we can force SCOTUS to issue a smackdown.

Hardly an assured slam dunk, from where I sit.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:44 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical