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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-19-2014, 7:37 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
I'm just going with the legal definition. It hasn't been withdrawn (by grant of en banc) or overruled (by SCOTUS or 9CA en banc), so it remains controlling precedent. As of today, you would have a valid claim under 42 USC § 1983 (assuming all other criteria were satisfied) for willful deprivation of your civil rights; however, if the case is stayed pending SCOTUS' decision in Drake *after* the grant of an en banc petition, then you would not be able to rely upon Peruta as "good law." (note that is exactly what happened in Nordyke when McDonald was granted certiorari.)
Correct.

The mandate in Peruta was stayed on Feb 28th, but the Peruta opinion was subsequently used by the Ninth Circuit to decide the Richards (March 5th) and Baker (March 14th) cases.

Peruta is "good law" in the entire 9th Circuit right now.

"Gentlemen, start your lawsuits!"
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 04-19-2014 at 8:47 AM..
  #42  
Old 04-19-2014, 8:38 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,951
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_j View Post
Incorrect. It can be petitioned to SCOTUS. Would they want to? Probably not. Given that they got Heller and McDonald out of SCOTUS their goal is to keep it out of there for as long as possible.
I'm not so sure. Kamila Harris might be compelled to seek cert if en banc is denied. If Peruta stands, she's done. It's all on her shoulders, politically, since she failed to intervene in the beginning. She does have aspirations for higher office, you know. I think the dynamics are slightly different than with Moore v. Madigan. Lisa Madigan had a powerful daddy in the Illionois Legislature to guide her through the mine-field there.
__________________
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
  #43  
Old 04-19-2014, 10:27 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 514
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I'm not so sure. Kamila Harris might be compelled to seek cert if en banc is denied. If Peruta stands, she's done. It's all on her shoulders, politically, since she failed to intervene in the beginning. She does have aspirations for higher office, you know. I think the dynamics are slightly different than with Moore v. Madigan. Lisa Madigan had a powerful daddy in the Illionois Legislature to guide her through the mine-field there.
How so? She has a perfect opportunity to blame 'activist judges' Besides, she can lead the fight to GMC next with an instruction that all Sheriffs shall pursue a rigorous, in-depth determination of the GMC of each and every CCW applicant. All the way back to the womb.
  #44  
Old 04-19-2014, 11:36 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,951
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
How so? She has a perfect opportunity to blame 'activist judges' Besides, she can lead the fight to GMC next with an instruction that all Sheriffs shall pursue a rigorous, in-depth determination of the GMC of each and every CCW applicant. All the way back to the womb.
Just as I stated:
Quote:
It's all on her shoulders, politically, since she failed to intervene in the beginning.
Not only that, she not only sat on her hands, she argued against CA & the AG being included in one of theses suits (Either Prieto or was it Richards?)

I believe M&A have the details on their website and included the specific details of her argument to exclude her from one of the suits (in one of M&A's responses/filings to the court) which came back to bit her in the azz.

There's no doubt though, that she'll try to do what you suggest anyway, mainly to cover her screw-up and give her political cover.
__________________
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; 04-19-2014 at 11:39 AM..
  #45  
Old 04-19-2014, 12:17 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 514
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Just as I stated:

…snip...

There's no doubt though, that she'll try to do what you suggest anyway, mainly to cover her screw-up and give her political cover.
And her constituents will by-and-large, give her the pass.
  #46  
Old 04-19-2014, 12:39 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 Southwest Chuck View Post
Just as I stated:

Not only that, she not only sat on her hands, she argued against CA & the AG being included in one of theses suits (Either Prieto or was it Richards?)

I believe M&A have the details on their website and included the specific details of her argument to exclude her from one of the suits (in one of M&A's responses/filings to the court) which came back to bit her in the azz.

There's no doubt though, that she'll try to do what you suggest anyway, mainly to cover her screw-up and give her political cover.
Yes, and the Richards counsel in their filing against en banc review went into further detail to the entire 9th Circuit, plus the Peruta/Richards panel.

I'm not surprised, at all, that the decision to allow the CA AG to intervene seems to be dragging on after a Drake cert decision to grant/deny. If the game is to get Peruta standing as law of land in the 9th Circuit for as long as possible, then knowing how Drake is granted cert or not would inform Judge O'Scannlain's arguments to the active voter judges arguments that his decision should not be taken en banc in Richards/Baker.

What to say is fully dependent on if SCOTUS takes or doesn't take Drake. If they don't take it, O'Scannlain can say "Hey, since there's a clear split here and SCOTUS didn't take it the other case, so our superiors clearly want these series of cases, let Prieto and Kealoha take the Richards case to SCOTUS as a governmental defendant like what happened in Heller" (The case would be styled Prieto v. Richards).

If Drake is taken, O'Scannlain can say "Hey, SCOTUS has taken up Drake. Why do duplicative work and release a decision possibly against it three months before SCOTUS makes a ruling likely overruling us".

Either way you can expect O'Scannlain to argue the legal correctness of the ruling. The point is to make the vote call fall short of 14 votes for yes.
  #47  
Old 04-20-2014, 6:16 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
Not only that, she not only sat on her hands, she argued against CA & the AG being included in one of theses suits (Either Prieto or was it Richards?)
I think she 12(b)(6)'ed her way out of Mehl, arguing the policy is the sheriff's problem, not CAAG. I'm glad Gorski was finally able to contribute something to the cause.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
  #48  
Old 04-20-2014, 8:27 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
If the game is to get Peruta standing as law of land in the 9th Circuit for as long as possible, then knowing how Drake is granted cert or not would inform Judge O'Scannlain's arguments to the active voter judges arguments that his decision should not be taken en banc in Richards/Baker.

What to say is fully dependent on if SCOTUS takes or doesn't take Drake. If they don't take it, O'Scannlain can say "Hey, since there's a clear split here and SCOTUS didn't take it the other case, so our superiors clearly want these series of cases, let Prieto and Kealoha take the Richards case to SCOTUS as a governmental defendant like what happened in Heller" (The case would be styled Prieto v. Richards).

If Drake is taken, O'Scannlain can say "Hey, SCOTUS has taken up Drake. Why do duplicative work and release a decision possibly against it three months before SCOTUS makes a ruling likely overruling us".

Either way you can expect O'Scannlain to argue the legal correctness of the ruling. The point is to make the vote call fall short of 14 votes for yes.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
  #49  
Old 04-20-2014, 9:35 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,067
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

In the meantime, those impatient souls that filled CCW permits with the SDSD are all getting administrative 'rejection' letters sent out.

Some say no big deal, but I'm not so sure. I am waiting as I don't want any type or sort of rejection for any reason on my record, period.

I've waited 40 years, what's a few more?
  #50  
Old 04-20-2014, 11:07 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
In the meantime, those impatient souls that filled CCW permits with the SDSD are all getting administrative 'rejection' letters sent out.

Some say no big deal, but I'm not so sure. I am waiting as I don't want any type or sort of rejection for any reason on my record, period.

I've waited 40 years, what's a few more?
Why do you not want a rejection "on your record?" And what does that mean anyway? It isn't on your rap sheet or anything. It's the same as being administratively denied a permit to march on a specific date. If you won't apply until the good cause requirement is gone then the denial has even less effect since it cannot be even considered once we have shall issue. Even if we don't end up with shall issue and you later want to apply with elevated cause it won't effect whether the new good cause is adequate.
  #51  
Old 04-20-2014, 2:09 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,588
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
In the meantime, those impatient souls that filled CCW permits with the SDSD are all getting administrative 'rejection' letters sent out.

Some say no big deal, but I'm not so sure. I am waiting as I don't want any type or sort of rejection for any reason on my record, period.

I've waited 40 years, what's a few more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Why do you not want a rejection "on your record?" And what does that mean anyway? It isn't on your rap sheet or anything. It's the same as being administratively denied a permit to march on a specific date. If you won't apply until the good cause requirement is gone then the denial has even less effect since it cannot be even considered once we have shall issue. Even if we don't end up with shall issue and you later want to apply with elevated cause it won't effect whether the new good cause is adequate.
Don't embellish the scenario jimi Jah! They're not getting rejection letters and to say so is a lie. They are being held in suspense pending a Peruta finality.

To say otherwise is a flat out lie.

A denial for a CCW is not a strike against you if you decide to apply with another agency if you were to move. Issuing Sheriffs know the drill if you came from a hostile county.
  #52  
Old 04-20-2014, 2:36 PM
glock_this's Avatar
glock_this glock_this is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 8,358
iTrader: 48 / 98%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Don't embellish the scenario jimi Jah! They're not getting rejection letters and to say so is a lie. They are being held in suspense pending a Peruta finality.

To say otherwise is a flat out lie.

A denial for a CCW is not a strike against you if you decide to apply with another agency if you were to move. Issuing Sheriffs know the drill if you came from a hostile county.
I think you need to slow your roll a bit. People all over this forum mix words and don't pick the exact proper terms. You see it all day long. All though your point is right you're jumping down his throat like he is purposely lying & spreading FUD. Over responses like this are worse than the offense.

Finally:
1. I've seen no actual proof - just assumptions & claims as though it is fact - that a previous denail is no big deal & will not hurt you in any way. So, why is the question even asked and on the form? If a BG check will reveal it, why is that question specifically asked?

2. How do you have any idea or knowledge about what other sheriff's know or dont know or how they will act?
__________________
10 +1 in the chamber

WTS: Gun stuff & things WTB: HK SP30K 9mm
  #53  
Old 04-20-2014, 4:02 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,588
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glock_this View Post
I think you need to slow your roll a bit. People all over this forum mix words and don't pick the exact proper terms. You see it all day long. All though your point is right you're jumping down his throat like he is purposely lying & spreading FUD. Over responses like this are worse than the offense.

Finally:
1. I've seen no actual proof - just assumptions & claims as though it is fact - that a previous denail is no big deal & will not hurt you in any way. So, why is the question even asked and on the form? If a BG check will reveal it, why is that question specifically asked?

2. How do you have any idea or knowledge about what other sheriff's know or dont know or how they will act?
That's because it was already mentioned to him in another thread that SD and other counties are issuing the same type of letter or are asked if they want their app to be held pending Peruta or not. He WAS told.

Not to mention that others mentioned that a denial is not a black mark in light of the situation and conditions in CA

Last edited by taperxz; 04-20-2014 at 4:05 PM..
  #54  
Old 04-20-2014, 7:09 PM
CG of MP's Avatar
CG of MP CG of MP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 681
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
A denial for a CCW is not a strike against you if you decide to apply with another agency if you were to move.
I am not so sure denial is not a strike against you... If that were the case then why ask Question 2 on page 3: http://www.co.merced.ca.us/documents...t/CCWAPP_1.PDF

I suspect that a denial DOES in fact cock some eyebrows when you apply in more than a couple of counties - cops look for patterns and like to dig.. They're funny that way
__________________
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda vs. Arizona
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...
District of Columbia vs. Heller
  #55  
Old 04-20-2014, 7:20 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,588
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG of MP View Post
I am not so sure denial is not a strike against you... If that were the case then why ask Question 2 on page 3: http://www.co.merced.ca.us/documents...t/CCWAPP_1.PDF

I suspect that a denial DOES in fact cock some eyebrows when you apply in more than a couple of counties - cops look for patterns and like to dig.. They're funny that way
Some Sheriffs know the climate and are happy to issue to a non prohibited person who was denied in a hostile county
  #56  
Old 04-20-2014, 7:33 PM
CG of MP's Avatar
CG of MP CG of MP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 681
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Some Sheriffs know the climate and are happy to issue to a non prohibited person who was denied in a hostile county
*GRIN* Very true that! But most of us do not live where either there is snow that is 10 feet deep until June or where the sheep and tumbleweeds outnumber humans 30 to 1 :-) :-)
__________________
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda vs. Arizona
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...
District of Columbia vs. Heller
  #57  
Old 04-20-2014, 7:57 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,588
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG of MP View Post
*GRIN* Very true that! But most of us do not live where either there is snow that is 10 feet deep until June or where the sheep and tumbleweeds outnumber humans 30 to 1 :-) :-)
You leave my sheep out of it!
  #58  
Old 04-20-2014, 8:28 PM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Commiefornia
Posts: 4,393
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

While a denial may not be a "black mark" against you, if you are in Yolo county like I am and are denied, you cannot reapply for a year. So holding off until a positive decision is made seems to be a good idea.
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Riptide Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain*
  #59  
Old 04-20-2014, 8:39 PM
kwyjeboe's Avatar
kwyjeboe kwyjeboe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: san diego
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How much longer is this going to take?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
  #60  
Old 04-20-2014, 8:50 PM
CG of MP's Avatar
CG of MP CG of MP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 681
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You leave my sheep out of it!
Okay pappy! ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-mziCsj8Fw ) ;-)
__________________
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda vs. Arizona
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes...
District of Columbia vs. Heller
  #61  
Old 04-20-2014, 9:28 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
While a denial may not be a "black mark" against you, if you are in Yolo county like I am and are denied, you cannot reapply for a year. So holding off until a positive decision is made seems to be a good idea.
Is there some statutory basis for this?
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
  #62  
Old 04-20-2014, 9:35 PM
glock_this's Avatar
glock_this glock_this is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 8,358
iTrader: 48 / 98%
Default

Here is another reason why a denial should/could be a concern...

You get denied for "self defense", you apply again later when/if things change or you have a different reason, they ask the question on the form, you answer, they bring it up in the interview and the next thing you know you are elaborating, maybe say a few things about the politics of it - as that's human nature - and soon after you get a denial under moral character because you shot your mouth off all because you got asked to explain your previous denial.

Anyway... so many people are irritated by certain sheriffs decisions, we see odd improprieties by government officials & people in power but yet somehow people just want to believe these same people just couldn't possibly find a way to twist a previous denial into another denial. Because yeah, in that situation they would/could never do such a thing huh?
__________________
10 +1 in the chamber

WTS: Gun stuff & things WTB: HK SP30K 9mm
  #63  
Old 04-20-2014, 9:42 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glock_this View Post
You get denied for "self defense", you apply again later when/if things change or you have a different reason, they ask the question on the form, you answer, they bring it up in the interview and the next thing you know you are elaborating, maybe say a few things about the politics of it - as that's human nature - and soon after you get a denial under moral character because you shot your mouth off all because you got asked to explain your previous denial.
Oh, in that case, I agree; if you are unable to control yourself in a professional environment regarding self-defense etc. I would strongly recommend you not apply.
  #64  
Old 04-20-2014, 9:50 PM
glock_this's Avatar
glock_this glock_this is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 8,358
iTrader: 48 / 98%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
Oh, in that case, I agree; if you are unable to control yourself in a professional environment regarding self-defense etc. I would strongly recommend you not apply.
The point was a previous denial opens the door to a conversation that some will inevitably blow & thus jeopardize your chance. So it's a legit scenario where a previous denial could cause issues. No previous denial, no box checked on the form, no conversation.

Ones political view on the politics of CCW issuing should not preclude a person from a CCW. But the mere conversation can doom some people as their disdain will creep through & then the interviewer digs deeper.
__________________
10 +1 in the chamber

WTS: Gun stuff & things WTB: HK SP30K 9mm
  #65  
Old 04-20-2014, 10:12 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think this is an issue of making an mountain out of a molehill.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
  #66  
Old 04-20-2014, 10:12 PM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 20,475
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG of MP View Post
One of my favorite shows!
__________________
•=iii=<(
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
No more stupid threads. you have my word
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
Rule 1 I'll admit I'm a jerk when I post stupid thread.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher View Post
I'll do the picking.. Name wise .. if you don't mind...
Helmut Shmacher- Formerly lugerdevil666
  #67  
Old 04-20-2014, 11:31 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glock_this View Post
The point was a previous denial opens the door to a conversation that some will inevitably blow & thus jeopardize your chance. So it's a legit scenario where a previous denial could cause issues. No previous denial, no box checked on the form, no conversation.
I understand and agree with you. If you are the kind of guy who can't keep his yap shut when it's important please do not apply. However; if you can keep your cool when someone asks the difficult question "why were you denied a license to carry?" then go ahead and apply. I am certain that "I thought self-defense was adequate good cause due to the courts at that time." would satisfy anyone without being political. But, if one is unable to limit their answer to something non-confrontational and apolitical then by all means please don't apply.
  #68  
Old 04-21-2014, 6:56 AM
Nopal Nopal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,074
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
I understand and agree with you. If you are the kind of guy who can't keep his yap shut when it's important please do not apply. However; if you can keep your cool when someone asks the difficult question "why were you denied a license to carry?" then go ahead and apply. I am certain that "I thought self-defense was adequate good cause due to the courts at that time." would satisfy anyone without being political. But, if one is unable to limit their answer to something non-confrontational and apolitical then by all means please don't apply.
Your advice is practical given the sad state of affairs in this state, but why should we have to? It's hard to believe that our political inclinations (or lack thereof) are determinants into how or why we are granted/denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Since when did it become acceptable in this supposedly-free country of ours to be denied our right to self defense by saying something that a sheriff may find personally disagreeable?

The bottom line is that, as long as sheriffs have any amount of discretion regarding this matter, there will be abuses, which is why even with Drake and Peruta there is still a long way to go before we get shall issue.

As far as previous denials, how do you know that in fact, a previous denial won't affect you? Someone I know got approved by a certain agency but she felt she wasn't comfortable with the idea of carrying just yet (she is a recent convert from the other side) so she called the agency who approved her and asked to cancel the process, for now. The deputy that took her call told her that it was a wise decision not to get a permit if she didn't feel comfortable carrying, and that a note would be put in her case file stating that she was "in good standing" so that her cancellation wouldn't count against her if she chose to reapply. That, to me, is a pretty clear indication of previous denials likely counting against you.
  #69  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:46 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,067
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nopal View Post
The bottom line is that, as long as sheriffs have any amount of discretion regarding this matter, there will be abuses, which is why even with Drake and Peruta there is still a long way to go before we get shall issue.
This is why I will wait. I don't trust the SDSD, period.
  #70  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:24 AM
glock_this's Avatar
glock_this glock_this is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 8,358
iTrader: 48 / 98%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusrn View Post
Glock-this

Slow your roll. Taperxz is correct.
Just calm down. There is no down side to being denied.
I had a sworn desk rat deputy gaurantee that I would be treated like felon by the DOJ and was asked to throw my application in the trash. I did not. Peruta did not.
I have have had 6 yrs of LTC since then and I have had the 9th circuit side in my favor. Don't snivel, don't whimper on the internet. Other people read this site. I'm quessing your a grow man. It is unseemly.

Hold fast and wait.
Did you read my entire post specific to Taperxz? I suspect not, as you would have seen that I agreed with his point, "All though your point is right".

But I felt Taperxz was wrong on jumping on the guy so hard "you're jumping down his throat like he is purposely lying & spreading FUD."

And the scenario I go on to give as just as valid a scenario happening so anyone elses who says it won't matter.

Now.. outside of those points I could pick up on that you were trying to say, your post is otherwise so poorly written, I am not exactly sure what the rest of your rant is even saying. But either way, classic Calguns hypocrisy of the guy complaining about the guy complaining and telling him to stop complaining while he complains.
__________________
10 +1 in the chamber

WTS: Gun stuff & things WTB: HK SP30K 9mm
  #71  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:30 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,690
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You leave my sheep out of it!
Don't worry. The rest of us are only interested in them as a food source...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #72  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:54 AM
tamalpias tamalpias is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,709
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zokoz View Post
I found this interesting reading. It is a letter to Sheriffs and Chiefs on what is going on with Peruta.

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://..._Tn8DfNbae06cA
the guy is obviously trolling for business.
__________________
  #73  
Old 04-21-2014, 9:14 AM
urquhart's Avatar
urquhart urquhart is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 46
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

This is on Michel and Lawyers tracker. It gives an good explanation of the state of the decision.
http://michellawyers.com/2014/nra-vi...rnia-ccw-case/
  #74  
Old 04-21-2014, 9:57 AM
Bhart356 Bhart356 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by urquhart View Post
This is on Michel and Lawyers tracker. It gives an good explanation of the state of the decision.
http://michellawyers.com/2014/nra-vi...rnia-ccw-case/
I agree this is a nicely written article that provides Michel & Associates point of view on many of the issues discussed in this forum.

It appears as though M&A is conceding Kamala Harris's standing in the case, and fully expects Peruta to be heard en banc. They also fully expect the losing side to petition the Supreme Court. None of that is outside of the mainstream discussions in this forum. I'm sure others will find insight into M&A's thinking as they review the article.

M&A also sets expectations for a very extended timeline before the case is finalized. This becomes apparent as they explain the various stages of the en blanc process.

Of some interest (recent posts above), M&A provides assurance that denial of a permit cannot legally be used against anyone applying in the future.

Thanks urquhart!
  #75  
Old 04-21-2014, 10:28 AM
ryan_j ryan_j is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sussex County, NJ
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhart356 View Post
It appears as though M&A is conceding Kamala Harris's standing in the case, and fully expects Peruta to be heard en banc. They also fully expect the losing side to petition the Supreme Court. None of that is outside of the mainstream discussions in this forum. I'm sure others will find insight into M&A's thinking as they review the article.
From what I see, M&A is saying that petitions for rehearing en banc are certain, but actual rehearing en banc is an unknown, but it seems somewhat likely.
  #76  
Old 04-21-2014, 10:52 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Don't worry. The rest of us are only interested in them as a food source...
I would recommend treading carefully. The sheep dog it's very friendly, but only while Taper is with you

Last edited by dantodd; 04-21-2014 at 12:52 PM..
  #77  
Old 04-21-2014, 12:41 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Petitions for en banc review have already been filed in Baker and Richards, so there is really no point in denying intervenor status in Peruta so an en banc petition can be considered in that case.

If the court grants intervenor status in Peruta, the petition to actually rehear the case on banc will be heavily opposed, the same as in Richards/Baker.

If the court wants to consider a carry case en banc, it is going to.

Allowing the AG to intervene assures that if a case is taken en banc, it will be Peruta – the case litigated by Michel/Clement that best argued the theories adopted by the ninth circuit that resulted in the published opinion. That is the case that should go en banc if any do, and the court having discretion to allow the AG in ensures this. The Richards and Baker cases may also join them in going en banc, but Peruta will absolutely be one of the cases that goes on banc, if not the sole case, and rightfully so.

It has nothing to do with incorrect claim that the validity of a state statute is being called into question, as Gene incorrectly speculated.

If a case goes en banc, it will be Peruta (and could be joined by Richards/Baker). Gene previously (falsely) asserted that the reason the Peruta opposition was styled the way it was, was because the argument that the validity of state statute was being called into question was, as he put it, “too cute.” And that Michel/Clement were “finally coming around to what [Gene] had been arguing all along.” That claim is WAY off the mark, and pretty silly.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
  #78  
Old 04-21-2014, 12:45 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Petitions for en banc review have already been filed in Baker and Richards, so there is really no point in denying intervenor status in Peruta so an en banc petition can be considered in that case.

If the court grants intervenor status in Peruta, the petition to actually rehear the case on banc will be heavily opposed, the same as in Richards/Baker.

If the court wants to consider a carry case en banc, it is going to.

Allowing the AG to intervene assures that if a case is taken en banc, it will be Peruta – the case litigated by Michel/Clement that best argued the theories adopted by the ninth circuit that resulted in the published opinion. That is the case that should go en banc if any do, and the court having discretion to allow the AG in ensures this. The Richards and Baker cases may also join them in going en banc, but Peruta will absolutely be one of the cases that goes on banc, if not the sole case, and rightfully so.

It has nothing to do with incorrect claim that the validity of a state statute is being called into question, as Gene incorrectly speculated.

If a case goes en banc, it will be Peruta (and could be joined by Richards/Baker). Gene previously (falsely) asserted that the reason the Peruta opposition was styled the way it was, was because the argument that the validity of state statute was being called into question was, as he put it, “too cute.” And that Michel/Clement were “finally coming around to what [Gene] had been arguing all along.” That claim is WAY off the mark, and pretty silly.

I don't see why the city would even request en-banc in my case. It's reversed and remanded to the district court to proceed in light of another case; not sure what there is to rehear lol. The lower court hasn't even heard it yet to make a determination on anything.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
  #79  
Old 04-21-2014, 12:48 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
I don't see why the city would even request en-banc in my case. It's reversed and remanded to the district court to proceed in light of another case; not sure what there is to rehear lol. The lower court hasn't even heard it yet to make a determination on anything.
That's why you have lawyers to see these things for you.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
  #80  
Old 04-21-2014, 12:56 PM
bassplayer bassplayer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 171
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
While a denial may not be a "black mark" against you, if you are in Yolo county like I am and are denied, you cannot reapply for a year. So holding off until a positive decision is made seems to be a good idea.
Having been a recipient of one of those letters, it does NOT say "denied." The text says:

"Your application has been reviewed and does not meet the current requirements for "good cause" under California State law. The recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion of Peruta v. County of San Diego has not yet become final. Therefore, rather than deny your application for CCW permit under existing law, the San Diego County Sheriff's Department will hold your application in abeyance until such time as the case is finished being adjudicated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

For further updates, please visit the Sheriff's website at http://www.sdsheriff.net/licensing/ccw.html"

I am filing my copy away as I want a record of what they are doing with my application.

FWIW, I am the manager for admin support services in another part of the County and doing refunds is a royal pain where it hurts. Just doing the paperwork for the refund can take up to 1/2 hour per refund, so I can certainly empathize with their decision not to get the $$ up front. Luckily, the only part of the paperwork I have to do is sign off on it but I have to have staff to do the work!

Dan K.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:12 AM.




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