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
  #761  
Old 04-17-2013, 11:49 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,591
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail View Post
Which we're prepared for.
Prepared or not, the resulting challenges will take many months to several years (Ezell started off as being a preliminary injunction case and it took 11 months to get a ruling from the appeals court).
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 04-18-2013, 12:10 AM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Prepared or not, the resulting challenges will take many months to several years (Ezell started off as being a preliminary injunction case and it took 11 months to get a ruling from the appeals court).
I don't think you're aware of the politics of Illinois besides the usual "Oh, the Chicago Machine controls everything." A "supermajority" in the Illinois legislature is 60% + 1, not 2/3 like in California and most other states. That is the same number needed to override a veto and to preempt home rule. It's also the reason that we don't have a statewide MSR ban or a ban on normal-capacity magazines and most of the other garbage that all the other A-rated Brady states have. Illinois has been living under pretty much the same gun laws since 1968, when the FOID card came into being.

(I say "we" even though I'm from Alabama because Illinois is my second home state, as a good chunk of my family and friends live there, so I'm in the state several times a year.)

We need 71 votes in the House to pass this thing (the Senate is an easier task). We first tried this in 2010 and got to 67 votes, and this was before Moore. That number did not change with last year's election. We're right on the cusp and could be over it already thanks to Moore, and we will be over it after 2014 regardless. The ISRA and IllinoisCarry haven't been relying solely on legal action in the courts to bring right-to-carry to Illinois: we've been pushing at the grassroots level statewide from Carbondale to Chicago. That's why it was even brought up for a vote 3 years ago. Moore certainly helps, but we were and still are well on our way regardless.

Last edited by Rail; 04-18-2013 at 12:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 04-18-2013, 12:57 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Help our friends in Illinois go shall-issue - details at http://www.firearmspolicy.org/2013/0...y-yes-on-hb997

-BC
__________________
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
  #764  
Old 04-18-2013, 1:01 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,591
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail View Post
I don't think you're aware of the politics of Illinois besides the usual "Oh, the Chicago Machine controls everything." A "supermajority" in the Illinois legislature is 60% + 1, not 2/3 like in California and most other states. That is the same number needed to override a veto and to preempt home rule. It's also the reason that we don't have a statewide MSR ban or a ban on normal-capacity magazines and most of the other garbage that all the other A-rated Brady states have. Illinois has been living under pretty much the same gun laws since 1968, when the FOID card came into being.

(I say "we" even though I'm from Alabama because Illinois is my second home state, as a good chunk of my family and friends live there, so I'm in the state several times a year.)

We need 71 votes in the House to pass this thing (the Senate is an easier task). We first tried this in 2010 and got to 67 votes, and this was before Moore. That number did not change with last year's election. We're right on the cusp and could be over it already thanks to Moore, and we will be over it after 2014 regardless. The ISRA and IllinoisCarry haven't been relying solely on legal action in the courts to bring right-to-carry to Illinois: we've been pushing at the grassroots level statewide from Carbondale to Chicago. That's why it was even brought up for a vote 3 years ago. Moore certainly helps, but we were and still are well on our way regardless.
If it passes, then it moots Moore, and we lose the one "pure" case in our pipeline that might make it to SCOTUS. Even if that's not the case, if you've got a veto-proof majority, then it does Madigan no good to attempt to petition for cert in that case, because even getting Moore overturned will do nothing to help the situation in IL at that point -- the newly passed law will take home rule off the table for firearms and anything related to them.

If it fails to pass, then that'll be a signal to Madigan that the political support in the IL legislature just isn't enough to push it through, and she'll refrain from petitioning for cert in Moore because home rule will take care of her problem for her, and at that point she doesn't have to risk whatever national political aspirations she might have by causing Moore to be applied throughout the country. Followup challenges to deal with the home rule chaos that results will take many months to many years.


Either way, I don't see how Moore will make it to SCOTUS in such a way that it'll help us.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-18-2013 at 1:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 04-18-2013, 1:03 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 262
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Even if the go over the "cliff", Illinois' "home rule" system will allow each county to create their own laws including may-issue laws with their own county specific licenses that are de facto no-issue. Cook county will just setup a system that makes only their own licenses valid in Cook county and then refuse to issue.
Negative,

If a bill passes by 60%, it is preempted in Illinois. They need 60% to override a veto as well.

This is why it doesn't matter what Pat Quinn does. With or without a governor's veto, you need 60% of to preempt new subject matter in Illinois and if it has preemption written (which the shall issue bill does).

It looks like Illinois will get shall-issue and either reciprocity or non-resident permits.
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 04-18-2013, 1:10 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,002
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
Negative,

If a bill passes by 60%, it is preempted in Illinois. They need 60% to override a veto as well.

This is why it doesn't matter what Pat Quinn does. With or without a governor's veto, you need 60% of to preempt new subject matter in Illinois and if it has preemption written (which the shall issue bill does).

It looks like Illinois will get shall-issue and either reciprocity or non-resident permits.
Thank you for the information I did not know that. What Rail and I were referring to as the "cliff" is legislature not acting and the ruling going into effect.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 04-18-2013, 6:58 AM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail View Post
I don't think you're aware of the politics of Illinois besides the usual "Oh, the Chicago Machine controls everything." A "supermajority" in the Illinois legislature is 60% + 1, not 2/3 like in California and most other states. That is the same number needed to override a veto and to preempt home rule. It's also the reason that we don't have a statewide MSR ban or a ban on normal-capacity magazines and most of the other garbage that all the other A-rated Brady states have. Illinois has been living under pretty much the same gun laws since 1968, when the FOID card came into being.

(I say "we" even though I'm from Alabama because Illinois is my second home state, as a good chunk of my family and friends live there, so I'm in the state several times a year.)

We need 71 votes in the House to pass this thing (the Senate is an easier task). We first tried this in 2010 and got to 67 votes, and this was before Moore. That number did not change with last year's election. We're right on the cusp and could be over it already thanks to Moore, and we will be over it after 2014 regardless. The ISRA and IllinoisCarry haven't been relying solely on legal action in the courts to bring right-to-carry to Illinois: we've been pushing at the grassroots level statewide from Carbondale to Chicago. That's why it was even brought up for a vote 3 years ago. Moore certainly helps, but we were and still are well on our way regardless.
As I recall, the last time true Shall Issue came up for a vote in the Illinois legislature, Mike Madigan went behind closed doors on the day of the vote with two swing reps and magically, the bill failed by 4 votes right afterward.

Not to be "that guy", but what's stopping the IL Democratic Party Chair from pulling the same stunt this time?
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 04-18-2013, 7:24 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,458
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
But as everyone told you it would it had the opposite effect.


I agree which is why I posted the case. We need to find a clean non-criminal case where someone is turned down for a CCW and we sue for unlicensed open carry. There is just as good of a chance, perhaps better, that SCOTUS will agree that unlicensed open carry is the right. As for gun free school zones they don't won't hold up to a challenge once we get unlicensed open carry. I think we really need to get on this one before someone else loses it for us. Unfortunately I think there is stubborn resistance to asking for unlicensed open carry or any form of open carry.


I think you're right. I think the court's use of historical analysis points to unlicensed open carry because that was the historical standard and I think they will keep rejecting "concealed" cases until we wake up and go after what they told us to go after.


Exactly.



They just might simply because unlicensed open carry was the way it was done at the time the constitution was written. I think we're foolish if we don't give it a try before some else does and screws it up for us. You can always ask for unlicensed settle for licensed but it's nuts to keep after what the court told us they won't give us while rejecting what they told us is the right.


Exactly.

Thanks again (mostly). It wasn't the soccer moms that were freaked by the open carry events. It was Yee & his ilk.

But, yes, it IS nuts to keep going after what SCOTUS has already told us they won't give us.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
That may be, but we're crazy not to get an open carry case moving up through the system before someone with less competence poisons that well with a bad case or poor arguments.

And this is what worries me. Nichols isn't the only wild card out there that can read & file sure-to-lose lawsuits. You can bet that there are incompetent public defenders going to be tossing trash into the appellate courts as well. Indeed, we have already seen this happen. Its time (past time, actually) to get someone good on this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
I agree completely with this. The Roberts court is conservative in that they like simple, narrow rulings and let lower courts figure out the details.

Moore offers exactly that. Personally, I think it highly unlikely SCOTUS would rule that LOC is protected while concealed is not. They just want to affirm that bear means loaded, functional carry, then leave it to the states to determine which (or both) they want.

Let's just hope that they also give some indications as to scrutiny, since it seems this is the road we are on.

The problem here is that language to effect that the states can decide is not in Heller, while language that LOC is the protected Right is.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
I can see SCOTUS denying cert in Kachalsky for two reasons. First, having a devious mind, I can imagine certain justices denying cert in order to embolden Madigan to petition for cert in Moore. After all, the denial in Kachalsky in some peoples minds is telegraphing SCOTUS' belief that the 2nd amendment may be limited to the home as Madigan believes. If she believes that SCOTUS agrees with her then overturning the 7th circuit would be the way to cement it.

Secondly, as much as Gura attempted to make Kachalsky a carry case, it really looks like a concealed carry case. All of the argument revolves around NY's concealed licensing scheme and the relief requested is to have NY issue concealed carry permits. If SCOTUS believes that open carry is protected and concealed carry can be regulated as the 19th century cases cited in Heller indicated, another case would be the one to deal with this (Moore or Woollard). Moore being the best since SCOTUS can achieve this by striking down a single law without getting into trying to decide with part of which law need to be struck in Kachalsky.

We all know that if OC is required to be legal, CA, NY, NJ, MD and the rest will fall head over heals convincing people to CC.

Exactly!


Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Prepared or not, the resulting challenges will take many months to several years (Ezell started off as being a preliminary injunction case and it took 11 months to get a ruling from the appeals court).

Maybe not. It took a HUGE effort, TONS of money & YEARS of effort to build the first a-bomb. But now a place like N. Korea can build them. Point being that its the first step that's hard. After that, anyone can do it. So, now that the First Step has been done, the rest should follow fairly quickly.


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
  #769  
Old 04-18-2013, 7:40 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 739
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...eterson+denied

when peterson was ruled against one of the thoughts floated in that thread towards the end was to re-appeal on the same thought that if CC is not a right then LOC is what peterson should in the least be entitled to
__________________
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
  #770  
Old 04-18-2013, 8:34 AM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,481
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Help our friends in Illinois go shall-issue - details at http://www.firearmspolicy.org/2013/0...y-yes-on-hb997

-BC
Done! Glad to help.
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 04-18-2013, 12:04 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,591
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
Maybe not. It took a HUGE effort, TONS of money & YEARS of effort to build the first a-bomb. But now a place like N. Korea can build them. Point being that its the first step that's hard. After that, anyone can do it. So, now that the First Step has been done, the rest should follow fairly quickly.
No, those two things are not comparable at all.

The initial time required to bring the a-bomb to fruition was the result of the science and engineering behind it being largely unknown until that point. Those had to be discovered first, and that is what took all the time. Subsequent efforts are relatively fast and painless because the science and engineering is now known.

The amount of time it takes to bring a court case to its conclusion has little to do with any research and development (though there is quite obviously some of that), and everything to do with the glacial pace at which courts move. Moreover, each court case is different and has to be researched largely anew, since the jurisprudence depends greatly upon the venue as well as upon the particular facts of the case.

So while an engineering project will go much faster once the foundational science has been nailed down, a court case will not go much faster once the legal groundwork has been laid, because unlike with the engineering project, the R&D is not the limiting factor on the speed of the case, but rather the court system itself is (not to mention that the opposition will do everything it can to slow the case to a crawl, a factor which simply does not exist in science/engineering).

Hence, new cases will also take many months to many years before a decision is reached. One need only look at Palmer to see this in action. It is most certainly not R&D that is holding up that case.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 04-18-2013, 1:05 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,002
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No, those two things are not comparable at all.

The initial time required to bring the a-bomb to fruition was the result of the science and engineering behind it being largely unknown until that point. Those had to be discovered first, and that is what took all the time. Subsequent efforts are relatively fast and painless because the science and engineering is now known.

The amount of time it takes to bring a court case to its conclusion has little to do with any research and development (though there is quite obviously some of that), and everything to do with the glacial pace at which courts move. Moreover, each court case is different and has to be researched largely anew, since the jurisprudence depends greatly upon the venue as well as upon the particular facts of the case.

So while an engineering project will go much faster once the foundational science has been nailed down, a court case will not go much faster once the legal groundwork has been laid, because unlike with the engineering project, the R&D is not the limiting factor on the speed of the case, but rather the court system itself is (not to mention that the opposition will do everything it can to slow the case to a crawl, a factor which simply does not exist in science/engineering).

Hence, new cases will also take many months to many years before a decision is reached. One need only look at Palmer to see this in action. It is most certainly not R&D that is holding up that case.
I think what he means is that once you have supreme court precedent on your side you have that part of the "engineering" out of the way. Unfortunately Gura chose not to address licensing of a fundamental right in Heller because if he had Ezell and all of the Chicago licensing nonsense games wouldn't be going on now and for years to come. Since we're unlikely to get cert in Woollard and Moore does nothing for us here in California, the next thing we have to address is some form of open carry applicable to California. If we, as I hope we will, tackle California's problems by challenging the Mulford Act and PC26350 as our next move then we have a vehicle to address strict scrutiny and the need to ask permission to exercise the most basic form of an enumerated right ("bear arms").
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 04-18-2013, 2:04 PM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 884
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Help our friends in Illinois go shall-issue - details at http://www.firearmspolicy.org/2013/0...y-yes-on-hb997

-BC
Faxes sent to every single Illinois rep except for the 9 who apparently have broken fax machines.

The quick list of fax numbers is here if anybody wants it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...rVm16Ync#gid=0

Sorry, didn't bother with names. Just sent to all.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand

Last edited by Luieburger; 04-18-2013 at 2:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 04-18-2013, 3:49 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,458
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
I think what he means is that once you have supreme court precedent on your side you have that part of the "engineering" out of the way. Unfortunately Gura chose not to address licensing of a fundamental right in Heller because if he had Ezell and all of the Chicago licensing nonsense games wouldn't be going on now and for years to come. Since we're unlikely to get cert in Woollard and Moore does nothing for us here in California, the next thing we have to address is some form of open carry applicable to California. If we, as I hope we will, tackle California's problems by challenging the Mulford Act and PC26350 as our next move then we have a vehicle to address strict scrutiny and the need to ask permission to exercise the most basic form of an enumerated right ("bear arms").

Completely correct.

In addition, if a criminal case is chosen to attack Mulford/PC26350, I've no doubt that there's already someone in the system that we can use. I.E., someone convicted of this & nothing else & appealing his/her conviction.

I've also no doubt that we can find somebody "clean" to defend. But even if we can't find someone completely clean, we should pick the cleanest guy we can find. Otherwise we risk having an idiot public defender put some complete low-life up in front of the court. And we surely don't want that.


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
  #775  
Old 04-18-2013, 4:41 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,002
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'd avoid a criminal case and just have someone super clean apply for a CCW in SF or LA and when turned down sue the state for the right challenging the Mulford act that prevents him for open carry. By applying for a CCW he attempted to take advantage of only legal method of carry and now that he's been rejected he wants to carry openly. It's a John Q Public v Kamala Harris case, not a case against a stubborn sheriff.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 04-18-2013, 4:42 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,463
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If Illinois goes shall issue, doesn't that moot Moore?
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 04-18-2013, 4:45 PM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,481
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
I'd avoid a criminal case and just have someone super clean apply for a CCW in SF or LA and when turned down sue the state for the right challenging the Mulford act that prevents him for open carry. By applying for a CCW he attempted to take advantage of only legal method of carry and now that he's been rejected he wants to carry openly. It's a John Q Public v Kamala Harris case, not a case against a stubborn sheriff.
Sounds great. Now, can we get the right legal team/organization on board and make it a reality?
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 04-18-2013, 4:49 PM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,481
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
If Illinois goes shall issue, doesn't that moot Moore?
No, it just means the case is over, and Ms. Madigan has accepted her loss in appellate court. It is up to Ms. Madigan to continue the case -the ball is in her court, so to speak.
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 04-18-2013, 4:51 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
I'd avoid a criminal case and just have someone super clean apply for a CCW in SF or LA and when turned down sue the state for the right challenging the Mulford act that prevents him for open carry. By applying for a CCW he attempted to take advantage of only legal method of carry and now that he's been rejected he wants to carry openly. It's a John Q Public v Kamala Harris case, not a case against a stubborn sheriff.
Well, that is an interesting thought.

I've already been assessed (by the LASO when I applied for Reserve training) as unbelievably squeaky clean - it is true as well), so I'd be prepared to consider volunteering.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 04-18-2013, 4:56 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,193
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
I think what he means is that once you have supreme court precedent on your side you have that part of the "engineering" out of the way. Unfortunately Gura chose not to address licensing of a fundamental right in Heller because if he had Ezell and all of the Chicago licensing nonsense games wouldn't be going on now and for years to come. Since we're unlikely to get cert in Woollard and Moore does nothing for us here in California, the next thing we have to address is some form of open carry applicable to California. If we, as I hope we will, tackle California's problems by challenging the Mulford Act and PC26350 as our next move then we have a vehicle to address strict scrutiny and the need to ask permission to exercise the most basic form of an enumerated right ("bear arms").
Before Heller, no one knew how the Supreme Court would vote (remember, O'Connor was the swing vote before she retired in January 2006, Heller started in February 2003), so Gura's strategy had to focus on baby steps. If he'd walked in there saying Heller should be able to own an M16 and carry it on the DC Metro, he would've been laughed out of court and we would have no right to own any firearm at all.
Reply With Quote
  #781  
Old 04-19-2013, 6:21 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,458
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
I'd avoid a criminal case and just have someone super clean apply for a CCW in SF or LA and when turned down sue the state for the right challenging the Mulford act that prevents him for open carry. By applying for a CCW he attempted to take advantage of only legal method of carry and now that he's been rejected he wants to carry openly. It's a John Q Public v Kamala Harris case, not a case against a stubborn sheriff.

That's not a bad strategy. But this is pretty much the Peruta case. Which has the advantage of already being in front on the 9th Circuit. But has the disadvantage of the justices not doing anything. And the additional disadvantage of still seeking a permit.

Whereas a criminal case cannot be ignored, just by virtue of of having a citizen in jail (or probation). Also, criminal cases have priority over civil cases. So, they move fast. And (again) fast is a requirement. The need is to get a subject with the Right People representing him in front of SCOTUS before someone like Nichols gets there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
Well, that is an interesting thought.

I've already been assessed (by the LASO when I applied for Reserve training) as unbelievably squeaky clean - it is true as well), so I'd be prepared to consider volunteering.

As a criminal defendant?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
Before Heller, no one knew how the Supreme Court would vote (remember, O'Connor was the swing vote before she retired in January 2006, Heller started in February 2003), so Gura's strategy had to focus on baby steps. If he'd walked in there saying Heller should be able to own an M16 and carry it on the DC Metro, he would've been laughed out of court and we would have no right to own any firearm at all.

Agree completely that the legal landscape has changed a lot since 2003 & that Our Hero had to pick a strategy that conformed to the times. I'm just saying that things have changed & its time to pick a new strategy.


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
  #782  
Old 04-19-2013, 1:48 PM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Shall-issue fell short by 6 votes in the House. My guess now is that they'll try one more time right before the deadline to pass it, or Madigan will appeal before then.
Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 04-19-2013, 5:07 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,193
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

6 short of majority, or super-majority?
Very few competent lawyer ever turns in a brief early, they always do it at the last second.
Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 04-19-2013, 5:47 PM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,481
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rail View Post
Shall-issue fell short by 6 votes in the House. My guess now is that they'll try one more time right before the deadline to pass it, or Madigan will appeal before then.
http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-75504210/
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 04-19-2013, 6:17 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
That's not a bad strategy. But this is pretty much the Peruta case. Which has the advantage of already being in front on the 9th Circuit. But has the disadvantage of the justices not doing anything. And the additional disadvantage of still seeking a permit.
You're jumping to conclusions not in evidence. On top of that, we have no idea why Kachalsky was denied, just a lot of supposition about OC versus CC.

Quote:
Agree completely that the legal landscape has changed a lot since 2003 & that Our Hero had to pick a strategy that conformed to the times. I'm just saying that things have changed & its time to pick a new strategy.


The Raisuli
It is entirely too early to go after OC only.

We have three "licensing both methods with may-issue" lawsuits in both Woollard v. Gallagher in Maryland, Baker v. Keoloha in Hawaii and Drake v. Filko in New Jersey. We have a total ban case with Moore/Shepard v. Madigan in Illinois (depending on if Madigan appeals or not). We have Richards & Peruta in the 9th in California.

Your desire to go "unlicensed LOC only" is emphatically not shared not just by Mr. Gura, but also Paul Clement (former solicitor general), Dave Kopel (based on his writings in re Silveira and generally discussing carry), and Don Kates (based on his writings). Crazed cases have been filed by pro-se litigant for LOC. It doesn't work, based on previous strategic civil rights litigations filed in re segregation (1930-1967 by NAACP LDF and other groups) and in the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's by LGBT equal rights groups.

Kachalsky may have been denied because of a potential of a straight up ban being appealed (the Moore/Shepard case) by the state of Illinois (SCOTUS tends to review petitions by state actors appealing a strikedown of a state law more than a plaintiff filing for cert after two losses at two levels). If Madigan declines to appeal, they can take up Woollard or Drake (the two purest cases that doesn't differentiate between OC & CC). If CA9 hands the sheriffs a loss, I expect the SD Sheriff or Yolo Sheriff to appeal, and SCOTUS are more likely to take those.

The time to pursue pure unlicensed LOC cases is not now. The best place to file would be in a place where the a circuit court of appeal has already essentially ruled that OC is the right, using preliminary injunctions. Take a guess where that would be...

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 04-19-2013 at 6:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 04-19-2013, 6:59 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,002
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The time to pursue pure unlicensed LOC cases is not now. The best place to file would be in a place where the a circuit court of appeal has already essentially ruled that OC is the right, using preliminary injunctions. Take a guess where that would be...
Not unlicensed only. The idea is that we should challenge an open carry ban like Mulford and leverage a victory there to get the state to grant shall issue concealed carry. Let's look at the carry score card, we lost Richards and Peruta in the district courts and Richards is stalled in the 9th Circuit while the DC case has been stalled what 3-4 years waiting for a decision. We've been denied cert in kachalsky and you lost your case in Colorado - all cases asking for concealed carry permits. All that we are asking is that we get a open carry challenge going before someone else screws it up and forcloses that approach. If we get a win in Woollard or Moore that's wonderful and we can drop the Mulford challenge but if we don't even get cert it gives us something besides having to move to a free state because of years of being denied because we just might be asking the wrong questions.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 04-19-2013 at 7:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 04-19-2013, 7:38 PM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,481
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Not unlicensed only. The idea is that we should challenge an open carry ban like Mulford and leverage a victory there to get the state to grant shall issue concealed carry. Let's look at the carry score card, we lost Richards and Peruta in the district courts and Richards is stalled in the 9th Circuit while the DC case has been stalled what 3-4 years waiting for a decision. We've been denied cert in kachalsky and you lost your case in Colorado - all cases asking for concealed carry permits. All that we are asking is that we get a open carry challenge going before someone else screws it up and forcloses that approach. If we get a win in Woollard or Moore that's wonderful and we can drop the Mulford challenge but if we don't even get cert it gives us something besides having to move to a free state because of years of being denied because we just might be asking the wrong questions.
I think this is the crux of the argument for this type of case. A contingency in case the other cases in the pipeline fail.
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 04-19-2013, 8:11 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,158
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
If CA9 hands the sheriffs a loss …
Sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The best place to file would be in a place where the a circuit court of appeal has already essentially ruled that OC is the right…. Take a guess where that would be …
Sure!
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 04-20-2013, 5:48 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,458
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Not unlicensed only. The idea is that we should challenge an open carry ban like Mulford and leverage a victory there to get the state to grant shall issue concealed carry. Let's look at the carry score card, we lost Richards and Peruta in the district courts and Richards is stalled in the 9th Circuit while the DC case has been stalled what 3-4 years waiting for a decision. We've been denied cert in kachalsky and you lost your case in Colorado - all cases asking for concealed carry permits. All that we are asking is that we get a open carry challenge going before someone else screws it up and forcloses that approach. If we get a win in Woollard or Moore that's wonderful and we can drop the Mulford challenge but if we don't even get cert it gives us something besides having to move to a free state because of years of being denied because we just might be asking the wrong questions.

Exactly!


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
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 3:11 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.