Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-24-2013, 8:53 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation CCWs: status of federal civil lawsuits attacking May or No Issue CCW laws

From 2011 after we won McDonald (2010 June 28):



Compare that to (from Wikipedia):



Thus, the non-Shall Issue states fell into the following federal CAs:

CA1: MA and RI.
CA2: NY (and CT, but although it is not legislatively Shall Issue, it is judicially since the judges issue permits on a Shall Issue basis.)
CA3: DE and NJ
CA4: MD
CA7: IL
CA9: HI and CA
D.C. Cir.: Washington, D.C.

In CA1, May Issue was challenged in MA with Hightower and we lost (2011 Sept 29) and cert. was not requested by our side.

In CA2, May Issue was challenged in NY with Kachalsky and we lost (2012 Nov 27) and cert. was denied.
May Issue is being challenged with Garrett v. Cuomo/NY, filed by 8 plaintiffs, incl the Libertarian party, and represented by James Ostrowski, a Buffalo lawyer. The case is before U.S. District Judge Frank P. Geraci Jr.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1104646

In CA3, May Issue was challenged in NJ with Drake (SAF-ANJFRPC) and we lost (2013 July 31) and cert. was denied.

Pantano (attny Evan Nappen; ANJRPC) (NJ state case granted cert. 2013 July 19: requires NJ SC to interpret US Con BoR 2nd A, thus can be appealed to SCOTUS): challenge to NJ's "May Issue" law; we lost and NJ SC dismissed case (late May 2014). Israel Albert Almeida (attny Even Nappen; SAF) is a new case on same "justifiable need" issue at state appeals court.
http://www.evannappen.com/
http://www.anjrpc.org/
http://nj2as.com/

In CA4, May issue was challenged in MD with Woollard and we lost (2013 March 21) and cert. was denied.

In CA7, No Issue was challenged in IL with Shepard-Moore and we won (2012 Dec 11) and cert. was not requested by IL.

In CA9:

(1) We won Peruta (San Diego Co.) (NRA-CRPA) (2014 Feb 13). En banc orals were 2015 June 16. My guess: en banc decision before 2016 July 01.
(See: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/faq.php)
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000722
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/
http://ia601703.us.archive.org/11/it...71.docket.html
After Peruta and Richards finalized, Gene says we'll revisit CA parks carry lawsuit! See post #450 at: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...352748&page=12

(2) We won Richards (Yolo Co.) (CGF-SAF) (2014 March 05). En banc orals were 2015 June 16. My guess: decision before 2016 July 01.
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...chardsvprieto/
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Prieto

(3) We won PI in Baker (Honolulu) (2014 March 14), but since the basis of the win (Peruta) was taken en banc on 2015 March 26, it is in limbo.
http://michellawyers.com/baker-v-kealoha/
Related? http://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/

(4) McKay (Orange Co.) (CRPA). We requested a PI, but lost at DC. CA9 is reviewing that loss. Stayed pending a decision in Baker.
http://michellawyers.com/mckay-v-sheriff-hutchens/
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/a...concealed.html
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/c...-decision.html

(5) Scocca (Santa Clara Co.) (CGF): dismissed with leave to amend. It may be mooted once Peruta is final since Sheriff Smith will then accept mere "self-defense" for Good Cause.
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/sheriff/Pages/ccw.aspx
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...=352799&page=9

(6) Birdt (v. San Bernardino Co. SO): district/trial court; attacking GMC and standard of review/level of scrutiny; awaiting trial court judgment (my guess: before Oct)
http://michellawyers.com/birdt-v-san...fs-department/

(*) Radich et al v. Deleon Guerrero (Marianas handgun & carry ban challenge)
http://michellawyers.com/radich-v-de-leon-guerrero/
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=978948

(*) Nichols v. Harris/Brown et al.: Open Carry case; Nichols, who is not a lawyer, is appealing
http://michellawyers.com/nichols-v-harris/

In the D.C. Cir., No Issue was challenged in Washington, D.C. with Palmer (2009 Aug 06) (Gura & SAF) and we won (2014 July 26), and D.C. chose not to appeal it to the D.C. Circuit.
The follow up case, Wrenn, challenges the new May Issue law. We lost PI 2016 March 07 but will appeal.
http://michellawyers.com/wrenn-et-al...olumbia-et-al/

So, it looks like we have CA9 and D.C. Cir. as the circuits that have yet to have cert. requests re. RKBA in public denied. (CA1 as well.)

BOTTOM LINE: As of 2015 Sept 19, my guess is our best hope is Peruta is granted cert. (after a loss at CA9 en banc) for the 2016 - 2017 term (with decision before 2017 July 01). Even if granted cert. it is not a given that we'll win "strict scrutiny" as the standard of review.

The below is a CA counties Good Cause map.


*****

Other important non-CCW cases:
- Kolbe v Hogan (O’Malley) federal case: MD AWB) (NRA): to be heard by CA4 en banc
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1161365
www.MarylandShallIssue.org
- Fyock v. Sunnyvale (federal case: Sunnyvale's Measure C 10 rnd mag limit) (NRA): filed 2013 Dec. Request for PI was heard by CA9 judge on 2014 Nov 17. We lost PI on 2015 March 04.
http://michellawyers.com/fyock-v-sunnyvale/
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=867249
- Pena (federal case: CA handgun roster) (Kilmer-Gura-SAF-CGF): case dismissed (we lost) 2015 Feb 25; we appealed to CA9.
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/penavcid/
- Haynie (Kilmer-SAF-CGF) (federal case: challenging CA's AWB): appealing
http://michellawyers.com/haynie/
- Tyler v. Hillsdale Co SD (federal case: restoration of rts after federal mental illness disqualification, strict scrutiny): we won CA6 3 judge panel decision (2014 Dec); en banc orals 2015 Oct 14
http://michellawyers.com/tyler-v-hil...fs-department/
https://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court...111808837.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/ap...toughest-test/
- Lu (CA state case: LASO requiring CCW denial by PD): petition for writ of mandamus won on 2014 Jan 14 LA Co. is appealing.
http://michellawyers.com/lu-v-baca/
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=890429
Next we can enjoin San Mateo SO (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=877321 Posters have said CoCoCo requires PD first denial too. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...352744&page=12
- Heller II (federal case: challenging D.C.'s AWB, mag limit): we lost D.C. DC; awaiting D.C. Cir. decision re. cross MSJs (orals 2015 April 20)
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetracker/heller/

- NY nunchaku cases (Maloney (SJs denied, proceeding to trial), Nuccio):
http://michellawyers.com/maloney-v-rice/
http://michellawyers.com/nuccio-v-duve/
- Caetano: MA SC taser and public RKBA case; we won, new arms and newer versions of old "arms" have 2nd A protection; vacated & remanded to MA SC.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...s\14-10078.htm
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=980404
- Knife Rights' federal civil rights lawsuit against NYC:
http://www.kniferights.org/index.php...sk=view&id=235
http://www.kniferights.org/index.php...d=234&Itemid=1

Other Lost Cases:
- Cook v Hickenlooper (federal case: CO universal background ck and 15 rnd mag limit): lost for lack of standing at CA10
http://coloradoguncase.org/
- Bonidy (federal case: USPS parking lot carry) (Nat'l Assoc Gun Rts): we lost at CA10 (2015 June 26) and cert. was denied.
http://michellawyers.com/bonidy-v-usps-appeal/
- NYSRPA v. Cuomo (NY federal case: AWB & hicap ban): we lost at CA2 (2012 Nov 27) and cert. petition was withdrawn after Scalia died.
https://www.nysrpa.org/not-seeking-cert-in-nysrpa-case/
- Jackson (federal case: SF gun storage, strict scrutiny): we lost CA9 3 judge panel decision on PI on 2014 March 25, and rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied on 2014 July 17; cert. was denied on 2015 June 08. See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=955363
- NRA v. McCraw (federal case: TX limit on CCWs to those >21): we lost and cert. was denied.
- Embody (federal case: challenging TN requirement of a permit to carry and ban on long gun carry): we lost and cert. was denied on 2014 April 21.

Important threads:
- "Closest Place to SF to get a CCW" thread: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=12937319
- Where to live to get a CCW if you work in Ala or CoCoCo: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1087342
- CGF's 2013 state-wide survey of CA CCW issuance: http://calgunsfoundation.org/carry-i...eport-2013.pdf
- news article re. 2014 CA CCW stats: https://www.revealnews.org/article/w...san-francisco/
- news article re. 2015 CA CCW stats: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article73538112.html
- For status of Open Carry federal civil lawsuits, see: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=869265
- FRAP 35 CA9 local rules: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...3#post13678593
- CA9 en banc procedure flowchart: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=921476

Notes:
* CA9's Peruta panel released decision 9:00 am (PST) Thurs (2014 Feb 13); the en banc decision was announced ~1:00 pm Thurs (2015 March 26). Opinions will generally be displayed on this website by 10 a.m. Pacific Time and Memorandum Dispositions by 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time on the day of filing. https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/
* SCOTUS' lists w/Denials published 2:00 pm (PST) day of conference or 6:30 am (PST) next court day. Docket's updated later for Relists later. ("Breaking News" banner linked .pdf ~6:45 am on SCOTUSblog)
* If granted cert after 3rd Mon in Jan case will be heard at earliest the following Oct.
* Michel & Assoc Gun Case Tracker: http://michellawyers.com/firearm-lit...-case-tracker/
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 04-24-2016 at 2:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-24-2013, 4:02 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A lot of people on our side are depressed because SCOTUS didn't take a carry case last term. But if you look at my OP, you'll see only 1 of these cases, Kachalsky, asked for cert last year and it was not taken. In another, Hightower, for whatever reason, our side decided against asking cert.

For this upcoming term, we have asked for cert in Woollard, hopefully will have a chance to ask for cert in Drake, and maybe even in Richards and/or Peruta.

So, for me, I won't turn pessimistic unless come next 4th of July, SCOTUS hasn't taken ANY Carry case which asked for cert. This term, IMHO, will really tell us whether SCOTUS is going to amend the Constitution by their inaction on carry cases.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 08-24-2013 at 10:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-24-2013, 7:06 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

SCOTUS will take a bear arms outside the home case sometime in the close future. The Chief Justice said it himself, that they grant cert in cases where there has been the striking of a federal statute, and/or a circuit split.

Here, we have multiple circuits going one way, while one (CA7) has gone "our way". The Court would look very awkward if they didn't grant in any case, especially knowing that it has denied cert in at least 2 (putting Williams v. Maryland as well, into that category, but on the other hand, that was to the Supreme Court of Maryland).

It's a matter of when.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:36 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Update:

The OP has, "In CA3, May Issue was challenged in NJ w/Drake and we lost and we haven't asked for cert. yet."

Looks like there was an intermediate step that had not yet been taken: requesting rehearing by the panel or rehearing en banc. Either of those were requested on Aug 14 and both were denied on Aug 27. So, as of the latter date the 90 day clock started running on requesting cert. from SCOTUS.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-04-2013, 8:41 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,329
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

An important update to this thread would be the availability of the amicus brief from the NRA supporting cert in the Wollard case (thanks to Al Norris, who has probably also made it available here at CalGuns, but I can't find it here):

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...&postcount=303
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-15-2013, 5:57 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OP has been updated to reflect cert. denial in Woollard.

Next up is Drake, which has to ask for cert. by, IIRC, 2013 Nov 27.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 10-15-2013 at 6:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-31-2013, 2:42 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,711
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There is another CA1 case in the pipeline: http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/Da...aint-FINAL.pdf
Internet Archive: http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/Da...aint-FINAL.pdf

Looks like it's waiting for the District judge to rule.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-01-2013, 7:27 AM
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 press1280 View Post
There is another CA1 case in the pipeline: http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/Da...aint-FINAL.pdf
Internet Archive: http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/Da...aint-FINAL.pdf

Looks like it's waiting for the District judge to rule.
They have one plaintiff in that case with an LTC Class B and isn't seeking a Class A LTC. In Mass parlance, an Class B LTC only allows OC.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-12-2013, 9:55 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

revised the OP to update it w/latest info.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-11-2014, 5:12 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

There is some good language in the Morris decision (D. Idaho):
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=878227

Like Bonidy, the USG is the losing defendant in the district court. If the decision holds through the 9th Cir., there is a greater chance of cert being granted when the petitioner is the USG.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa 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).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-12-2014, 7:11 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
There is some good language in the Morris decision (D. Idaho):
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=878227

Like Bonidy, the USG is the losing defendant in the district court. If the decision holds through the 9th Cir., there is a greater chance of cert being granted when the petitioner is the USG.
Thx. If it goes to the 9th and our side prevails, I'll add it to my OP to monitor.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-31-2014, 8:48 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

NRA v. McGraw has the potential to do it, if the opinion relies on "2A bear" instead of only "equal protection."
That case is probably next in line from SCOTUS*.

* yada, yada disclaimer.

Edit: NRA v. Mc *C* raw. Its autocorrect's fault, and I'm sticking to that story.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa 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).

Last edited by fizux; 01-31-2014 at 10:47 AM.. Reason: blame shifting
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-31-2014, 10:29 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
NRA v. McGraw has the potential to do it, if the opinion relies on "2A bear" instead of only "equal protection."
That case is probably next in line from SCOTUS*.

* yada, yada disclaimer.
Thx, added it to my "important related cases" list below Concealed Carry list
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-21-2014, 8:42 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OP updated with latest info. re. Peruta
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-05-2014, 5:45 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Updated OP to reflect denial of cert. in Drake.

Next up will be Pantano (CA3 via the NJ state court), or Peruta (CA9) with Palmer (D.C.Cir.) bringing up the rear....
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-05-2014, 10:14 AM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

RI does have a shall issue law, it's just widely ignored, such a lawsuit would be ruled upon the operation of the law, not necessarily the constitutionality of the law.

We have 3 cases pending in the RI Supreme Court right now.

CT is shall issue more so than most shall issue states. CT has 11 disqualifiers.... MI has 47.

I've always said the CT classification is wrong. They do issue if you meet the criteria.

Also, American Samoa, Mariana's Islands are no-issue, and the Virgin Islands is still may-issue.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-05-2014, 11:46 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thx for all the additional info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
RI does have a shall issue law, it's just widely ignored, such a lawsuit would be ruled upon the operation of the law, not necessarily the constitutionality of the law.

We have 3 cases pending in the RI Supreme Court right now.
Plz post updates on these 3 cases (oral arguments, decisions) when they occur even though they can't directly help us (not being in fed ct and not using the US Con 2nd A).
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-05-2014, 11:47 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,268
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared1981 View Post
I've always said the CT classification is wrong. They do issue if you meet the criteria.
Yes, CT should definitely be in the shall-issue category. Same with RI.
__________________
NRA life member

Exposing Leftists
Zomblog
The future of California?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-05-2014, 11:49 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Yes, CT should definitely be in the shall-issue category. Same with RI.
And DE is supposed to be not far behind.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-05-2014, 3:55 PM
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 CCWFacts View Post
Yes, CT should definitely be in the shall-issue category. Same with RI.

RI is complicated. AG and local authorities issue permits but local authorities are shall issue, AG permits are May issue.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-05-2014, 9:36 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_j View Post
RI is complicated. AG and local authorities issue permits but local authorities are shall issue, AG permits are May issue.
My wonderful native state of Rhode Island....

RI has 3 cases pending in Supreme Court over town permits. It's not all over gun forums because the cases have to do with the operation of law, not the constitutionality of it.

My friends have town permits, one paved the way a decade ago with a lawsuit in Smithfield, RI.

I have an AG license from RI, they are hard to get but anyone who really wants one from a town can push the issue and obtain one.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-05-2014, 9:39 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 266
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Thx for all the additional info.


Plz post updates on these 3 cases (oral arguments, decisions) when they occur even though they can't directly help us (not being in fed ct and not using the US Con 2nd A).
They aren't going to help because no statute is being challenged or struck down, many chiefs just feel they can ignore the law.

We also have complicated issues over the Administrative Procedures Act being that the Supreme Court said to appeal gun permit denials straight to them and to skip over Superior Court.

I will post anything when they move along, they are in limbo right now for different reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-29-2014, 8:35 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

Pantano was DIG'ed.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=938940
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa 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).
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-29-2014, 9:11 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
Thx. OP updated.

Looks like Pantano will be appealing to SCOTUS first (my guess is cert. will be decided in "long conference" in late Sept), and then, Peruta (timing depends upon en banc appeal, which in turn decides upon intervenor request.... ); and then last is Palmer....
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-02-2014, 9:02 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Looks like Pantano will be appealing to SCOTUS first (my guess is cert. will be decided in "long conference" in late Sept), and then, Peruta (timing depends upon en banc appeal, which in turn decides upon intervenor request.... ); and then last is Palmer....
SCOTUS is out for summer.

I just cked http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx and it looks like Pantano (out of NJ), has NOT asked for cert. yet. I believe they have until Aug 28th to ask for cert.

Q: What is the deadline for submitting cert requests so they can be reviewed during the "long conference" (the last full week in Sept)?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-02-2014, 9:24 AM
ryan_j ryan_j is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sussex County, NJ
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't know the answer to your question, but I am positive that Evan will request cert. for Pantano. He's having his law seminar at Gun for Hire next week as well.

You might want to add this other NJ case to the list - "In the matter of I. Albert Almeida, permit to carry a handgun" or simply "Almeida." Albert Almeida is the plaintiff in this case and is a friend of mine. Almeida was denied at the NJ Superior Court, and Judge Conforti basically parrotted everything the county prosecutor said. However, Almeida is appealing and SAF has agreed to pick up the case.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-02-2014, 9:31 AM
ryan_j ryan_j is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sussex County, NJ
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

See attached. The prosecutor and judge basically said:

Having a handgun makes you more of a target
Your employment is voluntary, so get another job
Hire a security firm/bodyguard (who will have a gun?)

Almeida's threats that he received were very real. He would fit perfectly in the NJAC definition of justifiable need.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Almeida prosecutor statement and response sup ct.PDF (1.72 MB, 28 views)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-02-2014, 10:07 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 2,251
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

He definitely has good cause. Outside of maybe four or five counties in CA, I could see him qualifying for a permit.

"Get a new job"...these statists disgust me.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-02-2014, 10:14 AM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,578
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

These Maps are apples and oranges and as such they are making my head hurt.
__________________
Why is it the guys who really know how to fix this country's problems spend all their time fixing old cars?

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-04-2014, 4:08 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,711
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
SCOTUS is out for summer.

I just cked http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx and it looks like Pantano (out of NJ), has NOT asked for cert. yet. I believe they have until Aug 28th to ask for cert.

Q: What is the deadline for submitting cert requests so they can be reviewed during the "long conference" (the last full week in Sept)?
Once cert is requested, the other party usually has a month to reply, then the party requesting cert has 2 weeks or so for an optional reply. This is assuming everyone goes by that. While SCOTUS is out for the summer, many parties will also ask for the cert window to be extended. SCOTUS almost always allows this. The replying party (the state in this case) always ask for extensions too so my money is on Pantano NOT being at the long conference, but one of the next ones after.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-04-2014, 4:20 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,711
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
He definitely has good cause. Outside of maybe four or five counties in CA, I could see him qualifying for a permit.

"Get a new job"...these statists disgust me.
One thing the NJ courts are doing is really painting themselves into a corner each time they deny someone like Almeida. By telling people actually threatened or attacked to 1) Move (maybe out of state for that matter) 2) get another job 3) You're a bigger target by carrying 4) Hire armed security (AKA retired/off-duty cops), that essentially means no one outside the statutory exemptions can possibly qualify, since you can ALWAYS move, quit, or hire armed security.

But of course someone has to call them on it. The NJ courts won't and neither will CA3. That only leaves 1 court left.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-04-2014, 5:11 AM
epilepticninja's Avatar
epilepticninja epilepticninja is offline
misanthrope
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a van, down by the river...
Posts: 3,584
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

English, do you people speak it? Don't make me bring Tincon in here to translate all this mess.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-04-2014, 4:14 PM
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 582
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_j View Post
See attached. The prosecutor and judge basically said:

Having a handgun makes you more of a target
Your employment is voluntary, so get another job
Hire a security firm/bodyguard (who will have a gun?)

Almeida's threats that he received were very real. He would fit perfectly in the NJAC definition of justifiable need.
Thank you Ryan for the attached plea from Israel Almeida.

What kind of a planet do we live on?

Who are the savages that would not grant a request such as Almeida's?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-05-2014, 11:02 PM
CNC_Apps_Guy's Avatar
CNC_Apps_Guy CNC_Apps_Guy is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Inland Empire
Posts: 255
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

New Jersey.... What a joke of a state. Not many states are worse than Kommiefornia, NJ is one of them.
__________________
The screed above is my own personal optinion, not those of my employer, BSA, NRA, or anyone else for that matter.

BSA Scoutmaster
CGN Contributor
NRA Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. (paraphrased) - Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-06-2014, 11:52 AM
Helmut Shmacher Space Chimp's Avatar
Helmut Shmacher Space Chimp Helmut Shmacher Space Chimp is offline
Just a Guy
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The answer is clear for Cal. Take Harris to court.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-07-2014, 9:24 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_j View Post
You might want to add this other NJ case to the list - "In the matter of I. Albert Almeida, permit to carry a handgun" or simply "Almeida." Albert Almeida is the plaintiff in this case and is a friend of mine. Almeida was denied at the NJ Superior Court, and Judge Conforti basically parrotted everything the county prosecutor said. However, Almeida is appealing and SAF has agreed to pick up the case.
Thx for bringing this to my attention, but I'll wait until it's ready for the NJ SC before adding it. Until then it doesn't have a chance of getting into the fed ct system where it can then affect us in CA. (CGN wants 2nd A ct cases that cannot affect CA to be put into the National 2nd A RKBA forum, not the Litigation forum.)
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-07-2014, 9:33 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
English, do you people speak it? Don't make me bring Tincon in here to translate all this mess.
I just added a line of asterisks to divide the main text re. the Carry Cases from the supplemental info/resources.

I just added "BOTTOM LINE" to make it easier to find out where things stand.

There are only 5 federal CCW Carry Cases that are important now. (They're the ones w/info in red.) Of those 5, 2 of them (Richards and Baker), are dependent upon Peruta, so they're unimportant for now. We only need to watch Peruta, Pantano and Palmer (the 3 Ps), and since Palmer is still at the district (i.e., trial) court level, we can ignore that for a year or two until the D.C. appeals court rules on it. So, for the next year, as far as Carry Cases, you really need only concern yourself w/Peruta, Richards, and Baker (all in CA9 and all before the same panel), and Pantano (before SCOTUS).

ETA: changed my mind since Yolo Co and HI have asked en banc in their cases and CA AG Harris may be denied standing.

If anything changes, I'll update the OP of this thread.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 07-16-2014 at 4:17 PM.. Reason: best to follow 4 cases
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-26-2014, 6:42 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Updated OP re. district court win of MSJ in Palmer carry case in Wash D.C.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-27-2014, 10:07 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The cold, hard reality in "the morning after the night before"....

Of all the Carry Cases (3) we're watching (Palmer, Peruta, and Pantano), Palmer is the LEAST important win. Why? (1) D.C. had a total ban ("No Issue"/"No Carry"), on all (OC and CC) carry. This is what our side already prevailed against in CA7 w/Moore (IL case).

(2) This is just a trial/district court decision, not one of the sister federal appeals courts.

(3) Because this was a win against a total ban, the trial court did NOT have to, and thus did not offer, an opinion re. the level of scrutiny that applies to public carry. That is what we need and want. I think reasonably objective observers already knew that No Carry At All is unconstitutional. It is, after all, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protected by the 2nd A. (Limiting "bear" to inside the home is absurd.) Thus, even if Palmer gets to SCOTUS and we win there, they may not even deal with scrutiny (and if SCOTUS did, other courts could say that was dicta).

Similarly, I think most people would agree that Shall Issue is constitutional. (Except for the most radical on our side who say no state can require a permit to exercise a fundamental, enumerated right that "shall not be infringed" anywhere in the US.)

So, sure, Palmer is a GREAT win, like forcing SF to actually put in place a permitting process was a great win. ("Frickin' a! (SF/DC) has gotta start issuing permits!") But in actual or even legal effect, it is mostly symbolic. (ETA: Of course, finally getting a SCOTUS decision on public RKBA is a good thing.)

The real issue we need to get settled is whether May Issue is constitutional. Since May Issue is not black (No Issue) or white (Shall Issue), there can be as many shades of gray as there are legislatures, so that requires a decision, once and for all, re. standard of review/"scrutiny". For that we need a win from SCOTUS in a May Issue case. AFAIK, we only have 2 of those left in the pipeline: Pantano and Peruta. (If Kamie is allowed to intervene, but denied appeal by CA9, I don't see CA9 allowing appeal in either Richards or Baker re. the core of the Peruta holding (what's important to us), since those cases' holdings said, basically, "See Peruta.")

Pantano should be asking for cert. before the end of August.

If Kamie is denied standing, Peruta will not get to SCOTUS. (Gore said no more appealing on his part.)
If Kamie is permitted standing, but denied CA9 rehearing, it takes effect and Kamie has to decide whether to ask for cert. from SCOTUS for this coming 2014-2015 SCOTUS term.

Bottom line: the Palmer win is nice, but the real fight is still ahead of us. If SCOTUS denies cert. in Pantano and either Kamie is denied standing by CA9 or wins it, but loses appeal for rehearing and decides not to ask for cert., where are we??? We'll only have Palmer in the pipeline to SCOTUS and that would get us a public RKBA w/o a level of scrutiny!

If other May Issue or non-Carry cases get to SCOTUS later and win a level of scrutiny, that could be only a "inside the home" RKBA scrutiny from an Obama/Hillary packed Court....

Politics still matters, folks. We ALL NEED to ensure that pro-RKBAers hold the House and WIN the US Senate and WIN the presidency, even if that means abandoning your other political/legal issues. We NEED to get our full 2nd A rights established by SCOTUS before anything else! (Dems/Libertarians may have to suck it up and vote for and/or financially support Repubs around the nation.)

If we don't win this fight now, we may NEVER win our full RKBA.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 07-27-2014 at 4:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-27-2014, 10:44 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 2,251
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Politics still matters, folks. We ALL NEED to ensure that pro-RKBAers hold the House and WIN the US Senate and WIN the presidency, even if that means abandoning your other political/legal issues. We NEED to get our full 2nd A rights established by SCOTUS before anything else! (Dems/Libertarians may have to suck it up and vote for and/or financially support Repubs around the nation.)

If we don't win this fight now, we may NEVER win our full RKBA.
As a registered libertarian, I completely after. The chances of me voting red and blue after RKBA is settled is almost zero. This is a huge time for liberty and if we the people want to retain control we need to do everything in out power to fight authoritarian government.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:37 AM.




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