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
  #81  
Old 04-21-2014, 2:39 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
That's why you have lawyers to see these things for you.
And the lawyers agree with me. There isn't really anything to be reheard, except for Peruta. The City and County are grasping at straws.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.

Last edited by Funtimes; 04-21-2014 at 2:56 PM..
  #82  
Old 04-21-2014, 2:42 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,109
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

"current requirements for "good cause" under California State law"

Gore sure likes to play word games eh?
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

  #83  
Old 04-21-2014, 3:52 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
And the lawyers agree with me. There isn't really anything to be reheard, except for Peruta. The City and County are grasping at straws.
Which lawyers were those again? The same ones that said Strict Scrutiny isn't appropriate for 2A violations?

Quote:
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.
This is the statement they agree with? It's hard to count how many ways in which it is wrong.

First, the lower court DID make a determination. It dismissed on MSJ. The determination was reversed by the 9th based on the holding by the Peruta panel. An attack on that reversal is an attack on Peruta. It's also critical to the government winning the case (attacking Peruta). Anyone, lawyer or not, who can't see that is blind or mentally handicapped. With Peruta as it stands much of Baker is a slam dunk, if your wonderful lawyers can figure out how to conform their case to Peruta, as Richards did (which they admittedly seem reticent to do, another fact which boggles my mind).
__________________
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.

Last edited by Tincon; 04-21-2014 at 3:54 PM..
  #84  
Old 04-21-2014, 6:27 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,304
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Interesting. I was not previously aware that the 9th entertains random pen-pals. (I agree that 'judicial economy' might best be served by not taking the case en banc. Whether that consideration should be paramount I cannot say.)
Judicial economy would be better served if Briefs were limited to 10 pages and panels consisted of a single judge and two law clerks.
  #85  
Old 04-21-2014, 6:37 PM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Commiefornia
Posts: 4,393
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayer View Post
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.
I was only referring to Yolo county.
__________________
*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*
  #86  
Old 04-21-2014, 6:54 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
Which lawyers were those again? The same ones that said Strict Scrutiny isn't appropriate for 2A violations?



This is the statement they agree with? It's hard to count how many ways in which it is wrong.

First, the lower court DID make a determination. It dismissed on MSJ. The determination was reversed by the 9th based on the holding by the Peruta panel. An attack on that reversal is an attack on Peruta. It's also critical to the government winning the case (attacking Peruta). Anyone, lawyer or not, who can't see that is blind or mentally handicapped. With Peruta as it stands much of Baker is a slam dunk, if your wonderful lawyers can figure out how to conform their case to Peruta, as Richards did (which they admittedly seem reticent to do, another fact which boggles my mind).

We are on a preliminary injunction, not a MSJ. All we have been directed to do is go back and have the lower court reassess some of the prongs that were previously tested. At this point, we technically haven't "won" anything yet.

The government can attack Peruta all they want, but if it stands - attacking my case will not matter. We will go back, and proceed onto the merits. I think the city and the state would have been better served trying to file as Amici / intervenors in the Peruta case for en banc.

If you don't mind also, check the attitude and talk to me like a regular person.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.

Last edited by Funtimes; 04-21-2014 at 6:58 PM..
  #87  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:15 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Which lawyers were those again? The same ones that said Strict Scrutiny isn't appropriate for 2A violations?
Are you claiming that they're wrong?

Consider this: "public safety" is certainly going to be considered a "compelling government interest".

Now, suppose the regulation in question bans all bear of firearms in public by anyone who is not a current or former member of law enforcement, with the latter group being required to have had at least 5 years of active service followed by honorable discharge. The court will be faced with two questions:

  1. Is the regulation "narrowly tailored"?
  2. Is the regulation the "least restrictive means"?

Some courts will certainly answer "yes" to the first question. After all, the regulation doesn't cover the entirety of the population, and the legislature determined that only active law enforcement officers or sufficiently experienced (and, thus, proven trustworthy) ex-LEOs are sufficiently trustworthy to carry in public (a "factual" determination that is not a matter of law). Indeed, let's presume for the moment that the legislature actually has valid data supporting that position.

That leaves the second question, which raises the question of how to make the above law any less restrictive than it is without detrimentally impacting the "compelling government interest" (public safety). Suppose the legislature has data showing that ex-LEOs who had been in service for less than 5 years are more likely to use firearms in the commission of crimes than those who had been in 5 years or longer. Certainly, data such as that would compel the court to declare that the regulation is the "least restrictive means" of achieving the "compelling government interest" of public safety at the desired level.


And just like that, we would have a regulation that violates the right and which passes "strict scrutiny".


ETA: I have another example for you. "National security" in the form of preventing violent overthrow of the government is also a "compelling government interest". Suppose, then, that the federal government passed a law forbidding all ownership of firearms by the citizenry, excepting law enforcement, for the purpose of preventing the possibility of successful violent overthrow of the government (surely a "national security" issue if there ever was one). The regulation would be as "narrowly tailored" as possible as only sufficient restriction on such ownership could achieve the "compelling government interest" here. The regulation would also be the "least restrictive means" since there is no way to effectively guarantee that the citizenry is prevented from succeeding in such an overthrow attempt except by disarming the citizenry (were this not the case, most despotic rulers would not bother with the step of disarming the citizenry). So: "compelling government interest": check. "Narrowly tailored": check. "Least restrictive means": check. And just like that, a complete prohibition passes "strict scrutiny".




Scrutiny places government interest equal to, if not above and beyond, the right in question. That is an invariant that applies to scrutiny of all forms. It therefore logically follows that there will be regulations and/or laws which violate the right and which manage to pass "strict scrutiny".


While scrutiny may be a valid analytical tool for examining other rights, it is generally, if not wholly, inappropriate for application to the right to keep and bear arms, precisely because the instruments central to the right are dangerous of necessity, and therefore the right automatically implicates public safety. That fact is inescapable.
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-21-2014 at 7:51 PM..
  #88  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:19 PM
pterrell's Avatar
pterrell pterrell is offline
Professional Beer Drinker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Everyone's Favorite Sandbox
Posts: 3,592
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Where are we at in the finalization process. I noticed OP hasn't updated in almost a month.
__________________
Quote:
Dear ISIS, Texas is not known for their gun free zones.


Patches sold here. I am not affiliated with this page in any way.
  #89  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:37 PM
madsend81 madsend81 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Lakewood
Posts: 911
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We are still waiting to hear if the AG, or others, will be granted intervenor status.
__________________
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.
  #90  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:41 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
While scrutiny may be a valid analytical tool for examining other rights, it is wholly inappropriate for application to the right to keep and bear arms, precisely because the instruments central to the right are dangerous of necessity, and therefore the right automatically implicates public safety. That fact is inescapable.
Well technically Beck conceded that intermediate scrutiny should apply, which is a lot worse than just saying strict scrutiny isn't the right test (I do agree with the latter, even if I don't think it is a particularly viable argument in court).
__________________
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.
  #91  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:49 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
We are on a preliminary injunction, not a MSJ. All we have been directed to do is go back and have the lower court reassess some of the prongs that were previously tested. At this point, we technically haven't "won" anything yet.
Right, your motion for Motion for Preliminary Injunction was denied, and doing so the court held:

a) that the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment extinguish at the threshold of the front door, may be limited to “exceptional cases” and/or may be left to the sole discretion of a government official;
b) that Hawaii does not prohibit the bearing of operational handguns within the confines of the home; and,
c) that due process protections are not offended where a state vests sole discretion in a government official to arbitrarily determine which citizens may exercise fundamental rights, without providing citizens any meaningful opportunity to be heard, without providing any reasons or justifications for the government official’s decision, and without affording aggrieved citizens any opportunity to seek review of that official’s decision.

That's from your appellate brief.

And if I'm being rude, it's because your case is a fly in the ointment, and it is terribly frustrating to read crap like this from lawyers that should not be involved in matters which are this important: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=857244

Quote:
The government can attack Peruta all they want, but if it stands - attacking my case will not matter.
This is wrong. If there was no intervention/en banc in Peruta (allowing Peruta to stand), attacking Baker en banc could result in Peruta being overruled, which would very much matter. Those are the stakes we are playing at here, and why Baker is such a potential problem. Now we have to allow the AG to intervene and hope we can stop her from being granted rehearing en banc or win the en banc. So thanks.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Tincon; 04-21-2014 at 7:54 PM..
  #92  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:52 PM
dca965's Avatar
dca965 dca965 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 818
iTrader: 1 / 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.
Rob- same here. When I posted this fact from Prieto's letter, Gene Hoffman said that in and of itself is illegal and asked that if we win and I reapply before the one year deadline per the letter, and am denied based on that alone, to let him/Calguns know.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by dca965 View Post
CA CCW 2013 | Applied in person 11/4 | App approved 12/10 | Interview 12/17 | Denial (GC) Ltr. 1/14 | AZ CCW 2014 | Applied via mail 03/20 | Entered by DPS 05/02 | Approved 5/10 | Received 5/16 | OR CHL 2014 | Applied in person 04/17 | Approved 4/30 | Received 5/9 | WA CPL 2014 | Applied in person 04/18 | Approved 6/9 | Received 6/12 | NV CFP 2014 | Applied 09/25 | Received 1/15 | UT CFP 2015 | Applied 11/26 | Received 1/16
  #93  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:52 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Well technically Beck conceded that intermediate scrutiny should apply, which is a lot worse than just saying strict scrutiny isn't the right test (I do agree with the latter, even if I don't think it is a particularly viable argument in court).
Oh. That context isn't one that was plain to me. Yeah, I agree, intermediate scrutiny is certainly not applicable, as the nature of the right here is such that intermediate scrutiny would nearly always disfavor the right.

The question is whether he conceded to intermediate scrutiny as a side effect (and, thus, almost certainly unintentionally), or if he explicitly conceded such. It sounds like the former. I don't have the full context in front of me. If you wouldn't mind, some links to that context would be helpful here...
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-21-2014 at 7:54 PM..
  #94  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:55 PM
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 kcbrown View Post
Consider this: "public safety" is certainly going to be considered a "compelling government interest".
Let's be more precise. The regulation must serve a compelling government interest, so it's not enough to say "public safety" is a "compelling government interest." Instead, bans targeting law abiding must be proven to serve the compelling government interest of public safety.

That's why we can have laws banning brandishing or carrying in one's hand, but we can't have laws banning safe carrying in public by ordinary law abiding people.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #95  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:56 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 kcbrown View Post
Oh. That context isn't one that was plain to me. Yeah, I agree, intermediate scrutiny is certainly not applicable, as the nature of the right here is such that intermediate scrutiny would nearly always disfavor the right.

The question is whether he conceded to intermediate scrutiny as a side effect (and, thus, almost certainly unintentionally), or if he explicitly conceded such. It sounds like the former. I don't have the full context in front of me. If you wouldn't mind, some links to that context would be helpful here...
I linked to it above. And not only is it certainly not applicable, an attorney for "our side" conceding it is downright treasonous. And it absolutely was explicit.
__________________
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.
  #96  
Old 04-21-2014, 7:58 PM
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 kcbrown View Post
...intermediate scrutiny is certainly not applicable, as the nature of the right here is such that intermediate scrutiny would nearly always disfavor the right.
To further that argument, all the recent circuit rulings against the right to carry were based on "intermediate scrutiny applied as rational basis" precisely because of the nature of the right in question, so if we are to get interest balancing based system, it must be strict scrutiny.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #97  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:01 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 IVC View Post
To further that argument, all the recent circuit rulings against the right to carry were based on "intermediate scrutiny applied as rational basis" precisely because of the nature of the right in question, so if we are to get interest balancing based system, it must be strict scrutiny.
I agree, and I don't think there is any other kind of scrutiny that can be applied to a fundamental right (if we are getting scrutiny). The only other treatment fundamental rights get is categorical, such as with the 5th and 6th Amendments. If those apply, they apply, period. I can see Heller implying as much, but no one important seems to agree with me.
__________________
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.
  #98  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:02 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 Tincon View Post
I linked to it above. And not only is it certainly not applicable, an attorney for "our side" conceding it is downright treasonous. And it absolutely was explicit.
True but the better arguments in Peruta and Richards will moot intermediate scrutiny claimed in Baker. AND Peruta is in the drivers seat.

In the end, not much harm done. If Peruta and Richards are overturned, Beck was right but not in a preferential way.
  #99  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:03 PM
dca965's Avatar
dca965 dca965 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 818
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayer View Post
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.
Just to be clear- you and others in SD Co. are at least having your apps held pending Peruta and it's resolution..... RobG , myself, and others in our county get a letter that starts: "Your request for issuance of a Concealed Weapons License from the Yolo County Sheriff's Department has been denied." And it ends with an invitation to reapply after one year of the date of the letter.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by dca965 View Post
CA CCW 2013 | Applied in person 11/4 | App approved 12/10 | Interview 12/17 | Denial (GC) Ltr. 1/14 | AZ CCW 2014 | Applied via mail 03/20 | Entered by DPS 05/02 | Approved 5/10 | Received 5/16 | OR CHL 2014 | Applied in person 04/17 | Approved 4/30 | Received 5/9 | WA CPL 2014 | Applied in person 04/18 | Approved 6/9 | Received 6/12 | NV CFP 2014 | Applied 09/25 | Received 1/15 | UT CFP 2015 | Applied 11/26 | Received 1/16
  #100  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:06 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 dca965 View Post
Just to be clear- you and others in SD Co. are at least having your apps held pending Peruta and it's resolution..... RobG , myself, and others in our county get a letter that starts: "Your request for issuance of a Concealed Weapons License from the Yolo County Sheriff's Department has been denied." And it ends with an invitation to reapply after one year of the date of the letter.
If Peruta and Richards prevail, they will have to let you re apply or face a civil lawsuit.
  #101  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:08 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 taperxz View Post
True but the better arguments in Peruta and Richards will moot intermediate scrutiny claimed in Baker. AND Peruta is in the drivers seat.
Yes it is, and it should be, but that doesn't excuse crap like Baker. I'll concede that sooner or later another case would have to come along which put Peruta in the same jeopardy it is in now, so we are probably better off, but I still don't like it.
__________________
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.
  #102  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:09 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Let's be more precise. The regulation must serve a compelling government interest,
My argument is predicated on the assumption that the legislature has managed to show precisely that.

Let me put it simply: suppose the antis were actually shown to be correct, and public carry as a right was actually shown to decrease "public safety". Would that be sufficient justification to dispense with the right?

The "strict scrutiny" answer is yes. But my answer is no. What we're talking about here is a Constitutionally-protected right. The authors of the Bill of Rights, and all who ratified it, explicitly decided that the benefits of exercise of the right outweigh the increased risks that accompany the exercise of the right.


Scrutiny is not a valid means of evaluating the right to keep and bear arms precisely because of the above. Scrutiny alone can be used as a means of effectively extinguishing the right even if the law in question is as "narrowly tailored" as possible. All it takes is the right law and the right justification. And even if the right is not extinguished, scrutiny can and thus will be used to infringe upon the right, when infringement of the right has been taken off the table by the 2nd Amendment's ratification.

When "scrutiny" and the 2nd Amendment collide, the 2nd Amendment must win. This is so because it is the 2nd Amendment, and not "scrutiny", which is encoded into the Constitution, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #103  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:15 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 Tincon View Post
Yes it is, and it should be, but that doesn't excuse crap like Baker. I'll concede that sooner or later another case would have to come along which put Peruta in the same jeopardy it is in now, so we are probably better off, but I still don't like it.
I know you don't like it. In time you will need to learn how to take a professional chill pill.

Youre dealing with the law that people will twist and turn and not always in your favor. A good lawyer brushes it off and rights the ship in their favor without letting anyone know they were concerned. Just another day at the office with nothing but confidence.
  #104  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:18 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I linked to it above. And not only is it certainly not applicable, an attorney for "our side" conceding it is downright treasonous. And it absolutely was explicit.
I see that it was.

Methinks it comes from a fundamental misunderstanding on his part of what scrutiny in the context of the right to keep and bear arms implies -- the context being that which I supplied in my original response to you here in this thread.

My hope is that he has learned from this and does not make that mistake again.

Some concessions may appear to be benign but will later turn out not to be. It is, therefore, best to not concede anything at all. I imagine there are all sorts of political considerations involved in that, but expect the general principle applies nonetheless.
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #105  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:20 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Just another day at the office with nothing but confidence.
If you and I were to meet, the resulting explosion would rip the fabric of the universe apart.

I think that meeting is something I would enjoy very much. I'm glad you're with 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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #106  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:26 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I agree, and I don't think there is any other kind of scrutiny that can be applied to a fundamental right (if we are getting scrutiny).
See my original reply to you (and, especially, my edit to it). I don't believe that even strict scrutiny is valid to apply to this right, given its fundamental nature and the explicit justification in the Constitution for it.


Quote:
The only other treatment fundamental rights get is categorical, such as with the 5th and 6th Amendments. If those apply, they apply, period. I can see Heller implying as much, but no one important seems to agree with me.
Sadly, I'm not important, but I fully agree with you on that. Indeed, I'm of the opinion that such is the proper framework for analyzing any Constitutional claim. Categorical-historical analysis goes right to the heart of what the authors of the Constitution and its amendments meant when they penned it. Words have intended meaning, and that meaning is the only one that matters, for words are the means by which ideas are communicated, and that conveyance is the very purpose of words. The Constitution embodies many ideas. To dispense with the historical and categorical approach is to dispense with the very ideas that the authors of the Constitution were trying to convey. And that is a wrong of monumental proportions, for it severs the ties between the Constitution and the republic that was built upon it, thus rendering the Constitution inconsequential.
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-21-2014 at 8:30 PM..
  #107  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:27 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 kcbrown View Post
If you and I were to meet, the resulting explosion would rip the fabric of the universe apart.

I think that meeting is something I would enjoy very much. I'm glad you're with us.
I wouldn't put to much into my insight. I'm kind of a hack. LOL
  #108  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:32 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I wouldn't put to much into my insight. I'm kind of a hack. LOL
Even if that were true, I'm still glad you're here. A force that has an equal counterbalancing force yields a steady trajectory, something that we all here have a keen interest in.
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #109  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:36 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 kcbrown View Post
Even if that were true, I'm still glad you're here. A force that has an equal counterbalancing force yields a steady trajectory, something that we all here have a keen interest in.
I thought you were at the CGF sponsored dinner, with Winkler in the city a couple years ago?
  #110  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:38 PM
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 kcbrown View Post
A force that has an equal counterbalancing force yields a steady trajectory, something that we all here have a keen interest in.
I didn't realize there was a meaning behind your negativity. I've always thought you actually enjoyed being a pessimist.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #111  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:43 PM
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 Tincon View Post
The only other treatment fundamental rights get is categorical, such as with the 5th and 6th Amendments. If those apply, they apply, period. I can see Heller implying as much, but no one important seems to agree with me.
Many agree, it's just that categorical analysis would pretty much strike down all the gun control laws and we would have a constitutional loaded open carry and no restrictions on barrel length or full auto.

Pragmatic approach is to chip away and get what we can while operating within the current reality. Sure we should aim for categorical analysis, but we cannot complain if we get interest balancing. It reminds me a lot of the issue of "voluntary taxes" - at some point one moves from being "right" to being a "tax protester."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #112  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:46 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I thought you were at the CGF sponsored dinner, with Winkler in the city a couple years ago?
I was, but my memory isn't worth crap, and I can't remember anyone there except a few of the usual suspects (e.g., Don Kilmer, Gene, Brandon).
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #113  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:48 PM
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 kcbrown View Post
Even if that were true, I'm still glad you're here. A force that has an equal counterbalancing force yields a steady trajectory, something that we all here have a keen interest in.
That's a very circular way of describing Newton's First Law of motion.
Given my username, how could I not notice?
__________________
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).
  #114  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:49 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 IVC View Post
Many agree, it's just that categorical analysis would pretty much strike down all the gun control laws and we would have a constitutional loaded open carry and no restrictions on barrel length or full auto.
Well no, Heller makes it clear that full auto is (at least potentially) outside the categorical protection of the Second Amendment (thanks to Gura throwing it under the bus). Only arms typically used by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes and which do not cause a reasonable panic in a normal person get 2A protection at all, per Heller. Also, "historical" regulations would stand. So not "all" gun laws would be struck down, we just don't have to argue about government purpose.
__________________
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.
  #115  
Old 04-21-2014, 8:55 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
I didn't realize there was a meaning behind your negativity. I've always thought you actually enjoyed being a pessimist.
No, I don't enjoy being a pessimist at all. I hold the views I do because the real world forces me to, not because I like them. It's a direct consequence of me being a realist to the greatest degree I can be. I suppose I could choose to be something other than a complete realist, but if I did that, I'd inevitably get something wrong as a result and bad things would ensue.

The whole point of being a realist is to make it possible to make accurate predictions, because accurate predictions are the only useful ones there are.


People might get the impression from the views I express here that I'm a depressed individual, but I'm really not. I use my views and the resulting predictions I can make to better my life to the degree I can, to make it more enjoyable.

Unfortunately, the degree to which I can make my life enjoyable has no effect on the fundamental essence of the real world, which is that it has evil (including all our deaths) baked into its very fabric at the most fundamental level. For what is chaos but evil by another name, and what is entropy but chaos? I do what I can to counteract that, but I will never avert my eyes from the truth before me no matter how unpalatable it may be. I try to have strength that way.
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #116  
Old 04-21-2014, 9:44 PM
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 kcbrown View Post
I hold the views I do because the real world forces me to, ...
That's a dead giveaway - you're a pessimist.

(I'm a scientist so I subscribe to finer points of differences between scepticism and pessimism.)
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #117  
Old 04-21-2014, 9:48 PM
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 Tincon View Post
Well no, Heller makes it clear that full auto is (at least potentially) outside the categorical protection of the Second Amendment (thanks to Gura throwing it under the bus).
We don't know yet. And we don't know whether Heller 5 would have been Heller 4 if Gura hadn't conceded some ground (by no means am I condoning it, just looking at it in retrospect.)

Also, look at the development of gay rights. They certainly threw under the bus the whole concept of "marriage" in the beginning. Full auto can, similarly, be back in play down the road.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #118  
Old 04-21-2014, 9:57 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 IVC View Post
We don't know yet. And we don't know whether Heller 5 would have been Heller 4 if Gura hadn't conceded some ground (by no means am I condoning it, just looking at it in retrospect.)

Also, look at the development of gay rights. They certainly threw under the bus the whole concept of "marriage" in the beginning. Full auto can, similarly, be back in play down the road.
Nonetheless, a categorical standard would not automatically admit full auto protection.
__________________
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.
  #119  
Old 04-21-2014, 10:10 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
That's a dead giveaway - you're a pessimist.

(I'm a scientist so I subscribe to finer points of differences between scepticism and pessimism.)
LOL!!

Well, I will certainly agree that I'm a pessimist by the "traditional" sense of the word (someone whose beliefs and prognostications are more negative than positive), but that's an artifact of the nature of the real world.

I'd also agree I'm something of a pessimist even by the "relative" sense of the word (if we define the real world itself to be the neutral point), since I do tend to err on the pessimistic side when given a choice of what direction to err. But then, I err on the pessimistic side only because pleasant surprises are easier to deal with than unpleasant ones. Were the reverse true, I'd tend to err on the side of optimism. But I'd much rather not err at all.

So regardless, it's really all pragmatic.
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #120  
Old 04-21-2014, 10:13 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 kcbrown View Post
LOL!!

Well, I will certainly agree that I'm a pessimist by the "traditional" sense of the word (someone whose beliefs and prognostications are more negative than positive), but that's an artifact of the nature of the real world.

I'd also agree I'm something of a pessimist even by the "relative" sense of the word (if we define the real world itself to be the neutral point), since I do tend to err on the pessimistic side when given a choice of what direction to err. But then, I err on the pessimistic side only because pleasant surprises are easier to deal with than unpleasant ones. Were the reverse true, I'd tend to err on the side of optimism. But I'd much rather not err at all.

So regardless, it's really all pragmatic.
That's being intellectually dishonest with ones self and for all intents and purposes, setting yourself up for a false positive.
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 7:58 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.