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
  #161  
Old 04-23-2014, 3:37 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,685
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capoward View Post
Sorry for the disjointedness of my reasoning and questions. Am I totally out in left field? Or is Peruta ripe for a denial of both the Brady and the CA AG intervener requests?
You are very close. Everything you said is correct, but you didn't address the other side of the argument.

It all hinges upon whether the court will see the ruling as invalidating the state's "may issue" law by introducing a "virtual shall issue," or as just a mandate for a sheriff to accept a specific type of "good cause" while leaving the "may issue" intact.

There has been a lot of discussion on this topic and it is better not to reintroduce it, just reminding you that it comes down to how the court will see the case.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #162  
Old 04-23-2014, 4:09 PM
capoward capoward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sun City
Posts: 144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I understand that the plaintiffs aren’t opposing intervener status for the CA AG. And I understand that the core of Peruta – lacking a favorable decision in Drake by SCOTUS – will be challenged in banc in the near future – but…

The 9th Cir. is fully aware that they allowed a private party to intervene as the state agent in defense of a state law and were ultimately spanked by SCOTUS for doing so.
The 9th Cir. is fully aware that the CA AG, based upon multiple judicial filings by the CA AG, that the CA AG is a state agent in defense of the state law governing concealed carry but is not a state agent in defense of the discretionary decision making processes of the state agent tasked by law to issue concealed carry permits. Therefore to grant intervener status to the CA AG would be to so as a private party.
In the Prop 8 case, the proposition committee, the group who financed the entire Prop 8 campaign, requested intervener status in defense of the law and was granted so up through the CA Supreme Court. They were also granted intervener status in defense of Prop 8 by the 9th Cir. through the petition to SCOTUS who rejected the petition stating that no private party had standing to intervene in defense of the law.
So…if a private party has no standing with SCOTUS to defend a state law how could a private party have standing with SCOTUS to defend a discretionary decision?

Also, if the CA AG has the lawful ability to appeal a denial of intervener status in Peruta to SCOTUS, would the 9th Cir. likely hear any Peruta related cases while the SCOTUS petition was pending?

Just wondering…
  #163  
Old 04-23-2014, 4:47 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,230
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I remember hearing in the oral arguments, A Judge asked the SD attorney: "Heller said that self defense is the core right of the 2nd, and you don't accept that as good cause." She said: "We think we should still regulate who gets a permit".
  #164  
Old 04-23-2014, 4:51 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,891
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Forgive a question based on ignorance...but why is "the central holding of Peruta" necessarily destined to be subjected to an en banc vote?

Even if they decide Kamala can intervene, isn't getting an en band review a separate issue? Doesn't review en band become less likely as time goes by (unless dark powers are conspiring to keep the panel ruling "dead" for as long as possible)?

I don't want to do a lot of mental masturbation on what the timeline might be. I've seen enough (the M&A flowchart made my eyeballs bleed) to low that no one can know. I'm just trying to understand why en band is such a surety.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
  #165  
Old 04-23-2014, 5:18 PM
capoward capoward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sun City
Posts: 144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm thinking the perception is that 9th Cir. is that it's comprised of 2/3s being Democrat Presidential appointments with only 1/3 being Republican Presidential appointments any en banc panel could easily be stacked against the Peruta decision should the Chief Judge decide to do so.

Personally I’m not sure that the entire appellant panel isn’t closer to 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 – progressive, middle of the road, and conservative so unless a judge has demonstrated an anti-gun bias in their rulings it’d be hard say any selected panel would not follow the decision making process of the Peruta three and determine that they properly did their work and uphold the decision. I also think there's likely 50% of the 9th Cir. who would prefer to not have to make a decision regarding Peruta period and where that 50% falls from is anyone's guess...

My primary concern is if the CA AG will be acting as a private party vs being either the plaintiff or defendant is that the Peruta will be held in abeyance only to have SCOTUS again spank the 9th Cir. for allowing such to take place – some years from now. Just would make zero sense…

Last edited by capoward; 04-23-2014 at 5:43 PM.. Reason: Added an additional thought...
  #166  
Old 04-23-2014, 8:10 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,685
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by capoward View Post
I understand that the plaintiffs aren’t opposing intervener status for the CA AG.
There are several different grounds for becoming an intervenor and the plaintiffs are opposing the ones that don't apply, while allowing court to decide on the ones that are gray area.

Again, it all comes down to what the case is all about - AG will NOT get the intervenor status as a private party, only as the protector of a state law, should the court determine that it's the state law that is being challenged. Since plaintiffs cannot force the court to see it one way or the other, they are leaving it to the court's discretion. It would come down to discretion regardless - if the court determined that it was about a state law, they would grant the status over plaintiff's objections anyway.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #167  
Old 04-23-2014, 8:14 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,685
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Forgive a question based on ignorance...but why is "the central holding of Peruta" necessarily destined to be subjected to an en banc vote?
That's the pessimist talk on these boards. In reality, we don't know whether AG will get her status, we don't know whether the court will take anything en banc and we certainly don't know the outcome.

There is also an unpleasant fact that if the AG is granted the intervenor status on the grounds of defending a state law, then Thomas' dissent that the question in front of the panel was "just about concealed carry, not the whole carry scheme" becomes moot. An en banc granted to AG would necessarily have to address the whole law, not just the issuance policy.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #168  
Old 04-23-2014, 8:23 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
That's the pessimist talk on these boards. In reality, we don't know whether AG will get her status, we don't know whether the court will take anything en banc and we certainly don't know the outcome.

There is also an unpleasant fact that if the AG is granted the intervenor status on the grounds of defending a state law, then Thomas' dissent that the question in front of the panel was "just about concealed carry, not the whole carry scheme" becomes moot. An en banc granted to AG would necessarily have to address the whole law, not just the issuance policy.
Welcome to the facial briar patch, Ms. Harris...

-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.
  #169  
Old 04-23-2014, 9:19 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 wildhawker View Post
Welcome to the facial briar patch, Ms. Harris...

-BC
I was wondering when someone would jump in and say that.
  #170  
Old 04-23-2014, 9:52 PM
capoward capoward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sun City
Posts: 144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

IVC I understand what you’re saying. And I think we’re on the same page… State law being challenged equals approval of the CA AG intervener request whereas zero challenge of any aspect of the underlying state law equals denial of the CA AG intervener request.

Also noted your further comments to Drivedabizness… Very interesting…
  #171  
Old 04-28-2014, 1:00 PM
capoward capoward is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sun City
Posts: 144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Another delay by SCOTUS on initial Drake decision.

it time for the 9th Cir. to move forward in Peruta by deciding the intervener petitions?
  #172  
Old 04-28-2014, 1:12 PM
FlyNShoot's Avatar
FlyNShoot FlyNShoot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 216
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

No, Peruta is waiting for Drake. Which is waiting for Peruta.
And so on...
And so on...

And we remain unarmed while Yee moves another BB bill.
  #173  
Old 04-28-2014, 1:31 PM
gun toting monkeyboy's Avatar
gun toting monkeyboy gun toting monkeyboy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Diego (more or less)
Posts: 6,699
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyNShoot View Post
No, Peruta is waiting for Drake. Which is waiting for Peruta.
And so on...
And so on...

And we remain unarmed while Yee moves another BB bill.
Ummm... Yee is going to jail, and is currently on suspension. Methinks he won't be proposing any new bills in the foreseeable future.

-Mb
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplinker View Post
It's OK not to post when you have no clue what you're talking about.
  #174  
Old 04-28-2014, 1:39 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 FlyNShoot View Post
And we remain unarmed while Yee moves another BB bill.
The only thing Yee is moving any time soon are his bowels.
He is not likely to introduce anything but FEAR into those he once called colleagues.
IMO
__________________
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
  #175  
Old 04-28-2014, 3:10 PM
FlyNShoot's Avatar
FlyNShoot FlyNShoot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 216
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

If only that were true...but it is not.

AB 47 (Yee): Bans firearms that use bullet buttons. One of his henchmen will continue to move that bill forward. So the beating goes on.
  #176  
Old 04-28-2014, 3:13 PM
FlyNShoot's Avatar
FlyNShoot FlyNShoot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 216
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Oops. SB 47
  #177  
Old 04-28-2014, 3:35 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 FlyNShoot View Post
Oops. SB 47
That Bill is dead.
__________________
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.
  #178  
Old 04-28-2014, 3:51 PM
FlyNShoot's Avatar
FlyNShoot FlyNShoot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Corpus Christi, Texas
Posts: 216
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Yup. I see that now on CA Leginfo site "hearing postponed" as of Aug 2013. I went by the CAL-FFL alert message that it was still active. SMH
  #179  
Old 04-28-2014, 7:09 PM
Hylas Hylas is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 457
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

So is there a deadline for the 9th to respond on if there granting intervenor status or not?
  #180  
Old 04-28-2014, 7:26 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 Hylas View Post
So is there a deadline for the 9th to respond on if there granting intervenor status or not?
Nope.
  #181  
Old 04-28-2014, 7:48 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,183
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hylas View Post
So is there a deadline for the 9th to respond on if there granting intervenor status or not?
How naive.
Deadlines are what courts impose on parties, not upon themselves....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
  #182  
Old 04-28-2014, 8:04 PM
NorCalAthlete's Avatar
NorCalAthlete NorCalAthlete is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 1,668
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

What time limit ARE we waiting on? I'm confused as to mandated times vs delays vs petitions vs….bleh. Couldn't keep up with this thread during mid terms and now I'm completely lost.
__________________
You Are All Ambassadors, Whether You Like It Or Not

We are currently preparing students for jobs that don't yet exist...using technologies that haven't been invented...in order to solve problems we don't even know are problems yet.

Pain is the hardest lesson to forget.

Trust me, I'm with the government.

Bureaucracy is the epoxy that lubricates the gears of progress.
  #183  
Old 04-28-2014, 8:17 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 514
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
How naive.
Deadlines are what courts impose on parties, not upon themselves....
^^^ This.
  #184  
Old 04-28-2014, 8:26 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 NorCalAthlete View Post
What time limit ARE we waiting on? I'm confused as to mandated times vs delays vs petitions vs….bleh. Couldn't keep up with this thread during mid terms and now I'm completely lost.
We are waiting on the court to decide if AG Harris has a fight to pick up where Gore decided to leave the case as a loss. She has asked for an en banc review already.

If the court permits her to intervene they will issue a deadline (21 says I believe) for the Paris to brief on the petition for an en banc review. Then we will wait again for the court to rule on their own timeline.
  #185  
Old 05-04-2014, 6:30 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just reread the Peruta decision. It really is chock full of substantive and pithy arguments. As I posted elsewhere earlier, I would not want to be a judge trying to assail that mountain of cogent arguments. A person could really look stupid trying. A judge taking on Peruta en banc is a glutton for punishment.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
  #186  
Old 05-04-2014, 6:51 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,981
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
A judge taking on Peruta en banc is a glutton for punishment.
Or maybe just an anti. I suspect we'll all be reminded of just how many of them there are in the 9th once Peruta (or Baker or Richards) goes en banc.
__________________
  #187  
Old 05-05-2014, 5:36 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,981
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Well, if the 9th was waiting for SCOTUS, now that Drake has been denied, Peruta can move forward.

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen, as we spin the wheel of civil rights
__________________
  #188  
Old 05-05-2014, 5:57 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,183
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Back to the drudge work of pushing more and more CA counties, one by one, into issuing CCWs while we wait (my guess: 1.5 months to 1.5 years!) for Peruta to be finalized (assuming no cert).
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
  #189  
Old 06-09-2014, 9:24 PM
44.shooter.lb 44.shooter.lb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has it been two weeks yet?
  #190  
Old 06-09-2014, 9:46 PM
Baja Jones's Avatar
Baja Jones Baja Jones is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 223
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Jeepers Mr Wilson
  #191  
Old 06-10-2014, 2:48 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 44.shooter.lb View Post
Has it been two weeks yet?
We are still waiting on the court to rule on A.G. Harris' petition to intervene.
  #192  
Old 06-10-2014, 12:42 PM
44.shooter.lb 44.shooter.lb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44.shooter.lb View Post
Has it been two weeks yet?
Yeah - that was sarcasm there...you know "two weeks" standard answer - we're stiill.....uh, waiting (a lot longer than two weeks) - ?? - never mind.

You guys are way too serious sometimes....

Why don't those other two dudes start arguing again? That makes the day go by faster.

Last edited by 44.shooter.lb; 06-10-2014 at 12:45 PM..
  #193  
Old 06-10-2014, 6:20 PM
ryan_j ryan_j is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sussex County, NJ
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They're in the other thread
  #194  
Old 06-10-2014, 7:08 PM
Dirtbozz's Avatar
Dirtbozz Dirtbozz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 307
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_j View Post
They're in the other thread
And it is best that they stay there.
__________________
"A FREE PEOPLE OUGHT NOT ONLY BE ARMED AND DISCIPLINED, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT ARMS AND AMMUNITION TO MAINTAIN A STATUS OF INDEPENDENCE FROM ANY WHO MIGHT ATTEMPT TO ABUSE THEM, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT."

- GEORGE WASHINGTON
  #195  
Old 06-10-2014, 7:43 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,180
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
We are still waiting on the court to rule on A.G. Harris' petition to intervene.
IIRC that she has no standing in the case since the state was not part of the case. but we know that she dam well wont let people in this state get CCW's for just using "self defense" as a good cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyNShoot View Post
Oops. SB 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
That Bill is dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyNShoot View Post
If only that were true...but it is not.

AB 47 (Yee): Bans firearms that use bullet buttons. One of his henchmen will continue to move that bill forward. So the beating goes on.
they will try to get that one through until it passes and signed.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.

Last edited by chris; 06-10-2014 at 7:45 PM..
  #196  
Old 06-10-2014, 9:09 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,593
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
IIRC that she has no standing in the case since the state was not part of the case.
If the case is challenging a statute, she may have standing. If it's challenging only the sheriff's application of the statute, she doesn't have standing. You could argue that, even with the Peruta ruling, the sheriff still has GC discretion, because even under Peruta, if I put my GC as "I want to carry a gun so I can brandish it at people who take my parking space", the sheriff can say "no way". That means the sheriff is still exercising discretion and testing for good cause, so the statute is not challenged.

You could also say that the Peruta ruling means that, even though there still is a good cause requirement, the application is so flimsy that it is essentially meaningless. The GC requirement is still there but has become a nullity in practice.

Both ideas make sense to me and I think reasonable people could take either of those two interpretations. If the later is correct, KH has a good argument for intervening.

I personally hope she does intervene, is denied en banc, and asks for cert.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
  #197  
Old 06-11-2014, 12:12 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
If the case is challenging a statute, she may have standing. If it's challenging only the sheriff's application of the statute, she doesn't have standing. You could argue that, even with the Peruta ruling, the sheriff still has GC discretion, because even under Peruta, if I put my GC as "I want to carry a gun so I can brandish it at people who take my parking space", the sheriff can say "no way". That means the sheriff is still exercising discretion and testing for good cause, so the statute is not challenged.

You could also say that the Peruta ruling means that, even though there still is a good cause requirement, the application is so flimsy that it is essentially meaningless. The GC requirement is still there but has become a nullity in practice.

Both ideas make sense to me and I think reasonable people could take either of those two interpretations. If the later is correct, KH has a good argument for intervening.

I personally hope she does intervene, is denied en banc, and asks for cert.
It just seems flat out wrong that you can argue throughout the whole proceedings that it's the sheriff's policy alone that's at stake (and even did this in several other related cases as well), then when things don't go your way all of a sudden you should be allowed back in. Total BS, although letting her in may be the only way for the case to get to SCOTUS.
  #198  
Old 06-11-2014, 12:38 AM
TeddyBallgame's Avatar
TeddyBallgame TeddyBallgame is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Under the Dome
Posts: 5,745
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
IIRC that she has no standing in the case since the state was not part of the case. but we know that she dam well wont let people in this state get CCW's for just using "self defense" as a good cause.
there are already Sheriff's in this State issuing CCW's for that very reason...she doesn't seem to be stopping them...not only do i feel she doesn't have standing, but, her position at the AG is a statewide position...she shouldn't get to pick and choose which counties can use it and which counties can't
  #199  
Old 06-11-2014, 9:09 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,685
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
IIRC that she has no standing in the case since the state was not part of the case. but we know that she dam well wont let people in this state get CCW's for just using "self defense" as a good cause.
There are three tightly related cases: Peruta, Richards and Baker. The last two simply said "see Peruta."

The tricky part is that in Peruta there was a problem with notification of AG, while AG actively argued *against* being on the case in Richards. Being two different cases (albeit with the identical outcome,) what AG did in one is not directly applicable to the other. At least not completely.

Somewhat of a mess, so we have to wait and see...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #200  
Old 06-11-2014, 9:17 AM
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
The tricky part is that in Peruta there was a problem with notification of AG
No, there wasn't.
__________________
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.
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 9:30 PM.




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.