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 10-16-2014, 9:09 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 756
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Win in Morris

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/n...l#.VD_vQjp8PIU


The Rocky Mountain Legal Foundation already won a PI against the Corps of engineers. They just received a MSJ order in their favor. The decision relies heavily on Peruta.

Last edited by wolfwood; 10-16-2014 at 9:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-16-2014, 10:16 AM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 303
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Judge O'Scannlain's tactical approach in delaying the writ of mandamus seems increasingly sound. First this decision relies on Peruta, then that one, then those decisions, all adding to the weight of Peruta and making it more and more difficult to unwind.
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-16-2014, 10:16 AM
p1choco p1choco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 512
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

That happened rather quickly. I remember reading about that not too long ago.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-16-2014, 10:52 AM
inalienable's Avatar
inalienable inalienable is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nice. Some good tidbits from the analysis:

1) "An unloaded firearm is useless for self-defense purposes without its ammunition."

2) A tent is a home in the context of the 2nd amendment.

- inalienable
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-16-2014, 10:53 AM
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: 6,570
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Nice. Very nice.
__________________
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
  #6  
Old 10-16-2014, 10:57 AM
j-rod's Avatar
j-rod j-rod is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Bay
Posts: 248
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Excellent, lets apply this to CA game refuges
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-16-2014, 11:06 AM
madsend81 madsend81 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Lakewood
Posts: 907
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hmm, Judge Winmill is another Clinton appointee.

Here is a quote from the order:

Quote:
Conclusion
The regulation banning the use of handguns on Corps’ property by law-abiding
citizens for self-defense purposes violates the Second Amendment. While the Corps
retains the right to regulate the possession and carrying of handguns on Corps property,
this regulation imposes an outright ban, and is therefore unconstitutional under any level
of scrutiny, as set forth in Heller and Peruta. The Court recognizes that this result
conflicts with GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2014 WL
4059375 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 18, 2014), but the Court’s decision is dictated by the law of the
Ninth Circuit, namely Peruta.
Will this part
Quote:
The Court recognizes that this result conflicts with GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2014 WL
4059375 (N.D.Ga. Aug. 18, 2014), but the Court’s decision is dictated by the law of the Ninth Circuit, namely Peruta.
help spur a SCOTUS review of a carry case? Namely two cases involving bearing arms on Army Corps of Engineers land in two different districts arriving at different conclusions?
__________________
Disclaimer: For all you know, I am just some dude on the internet. The advice I give is worth what you have paid for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, 2014
“People who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from people who don’t follow the rules. The Second Amendment should never be an afterthought. It should reside at the forefronts of our minds.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-16-2014, 11:07 AM
madsend81 madsend81 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Lakewood
Posts: 907
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by j-rod View Post
Excellent, lets apply this to CA game refuges
Unfortunately, the judge in this order limits the effects of his ruling to Idaho only.
__________________
Disclaimer: For all you know, I am just some dude on the internet. The advice I give is worth what you have paid for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, 2014
“People who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from people who don’t follow the rules. The Second Amendment should never be an afterthought. It should reside at the forefronts of our minds.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-16-2014, 11:17 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 793
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madsend81 View Post
Hmm, Judge Winmill is another Clinton appointee.

Here is a quote from the order:

Will this part
help spur a SCOTUS review of a carry case? Namely two cases involving bearing arms on Army Corps of Engineers land in two different districts arriving at different conclusions?

Will it spur SCOTUS to review or will it spur the 9th to reverse. hes careful to point out that he is governed by the 9th and peruta ....... and he points out the conflict with the georgia ruling.
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Quote:
....."there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” and the public interest always weighs in favor of protecting constitutional rights. See Joelner v. Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004).
I VOTE and contribute to organizations who share my pursuit of freedom
1991
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-16-2014, 3:24 PM
Bhart356 Bhart356 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Eugene Volokh weighs in...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...eers-property/
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-16-2014, 3:29 PM
Bhart356 Bhart356 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
Will it spur SCOTUS to review or will it spur the 9th to reverse. hes careful to point out that he is governed by the 9th and peruta ....... and he points out the conflict with the georgia ruling.

If I understand the process correctly, don't see how the Ninth can reverse with Peruta locked up in its current state. Peruta is a published ruling that the rest of the Ninth must follow, unless they overturn it en banc. Right now the case sits there, oddly untouchable. Thanks Kamala.

Of course one of the legal scholars in this forum may have a different take on it.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-16-2014, 5:10 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,865
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
Will it spur SCOTUS to review or will it spur the 9th to reverse. hes careful to point out that he is governed by the 9th and peruta ....... and he points out the conflict with the georgia ruling.
.... Which was based on Nordyke ...... He also states why Nordyke is not relavent in this case, thus, niether is the Georga Carry Ruling.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-16-2014, 7:01 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 2,917
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
While the ban on carrying firearms for self-defense may impose a burden on this core right of the Second Amendment severe enough to call for strict scrutiny, it is unnecessary for the Court to decide that issue because the regulation fails to pass muster even if intermediate scrutiny is applied.

Reading that from a Clinton appointee gives me some hope.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-17-2014, 10:00 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,283
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thx for posting, wolf wood.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-17-2014, 1:49 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,078
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I read court opinions that include "The Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm for self-defense purposes. That right extends outside the home" but has SCOTUS specifically written such a decision? Again, much talking about, but "is it official"?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-17-2014, 5:16 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,283
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I read court opinions that include "The Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm for self-defense purposes. That right extends outside the home" but has SCOTUS specifically written such a decision? Again, much talking about, but "is it official"?
Nope. They're just quoting & following the 9th Circuit's 3-judge panel of Peruta.

That could be overturned by Peruta being taken en banc by the 9th Circuit, and/or Peruta being granted cert. by SCOTUS and them ruling something different.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-17-2014, 9:06 PM
Tiberius's Avatar
Tiberius Tiberius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,066
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Idaho Court Strikes Corps of Engineers Gun Ban

An Idaho federal court struck down the Army Corps of Engineers ban on loaded guns on its property, as violating the 2nd Amendment.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...eers-property/
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 10:09 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.