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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #441  
Old 07-28-2014, 11:54 AM
SWalt's Avatar
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG of MP View Post
Which brings up another point....
How is it that the States recognize each other's driver's licences, marital status, and so much more, but somehow get away with not recognizing CCW's
.

Would not the Comity Clause (which refers to Article IV, § 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the Privileges and Immunities Clause), which ensures that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” be aversly impacted by refusal to recognize another states ccw?

Has our side ever really fought for CCW reciprocity in a major way? has anyone challenged the failure to recognize via the comity clause?
The things you mention are accepted between the states by agreement or compact, not because the constitution which makes it so. 1 state does not have to accept another states definition of marriage. Nor does a state have to recognize another states drivers license. The reason drivers licenses are accepted is because of agreements from a long time ago, so its natural to assume its because of the constitution. In the case of marriage, it isn't a constitutional right but one regulated by the states. Hence, court battles concerning the definition of marriage in various states. LTC is the same, still dependent on the states.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
  #442  
Old 07-28-2014, 11:59 AM
SWalt's Avatar
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbrg View Post
It seems a little odd that Gura would show his hand publicly like this. But then, thinking conspiratorially, this statement must surely put doubts in the minds of any outside group that had been inclined to pile into vans and head out to the mall to celebrate.
Are you referring to "Immediate impact of Palmer v..." memo? That is from the DC Chief of Police, not Gura's take on the ruling.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
  #443  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:00 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 16,029
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbrg View Post
It seems a little odd that Gura would show his hand publicly like this.
It's not really "showing one's hand." More along the lines of stating the obvious...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #444  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:07 PM
Flintlock Tom's Avatar
Flintlock Tom Flintlock Tom is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Posts: 3,351
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Only 20 bucks to lube your gun with Liberal Tears!

Liberal Tears Gun Oil
__________________
"Everyone must determine for themselves what level of tyranny they are willing to tolerate.
I let my 03 FFL expire in 2013 and my CA residency in 2015."
  #445  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:12 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 16,029
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq View Post
Indeed it is. Do we think this could have some bearing on CCW reciprocity?
Not directly. "CCW reciprocity" is a legislative fix, not judicial.

That said, anything "non-resident" is a big deal because it chips away at the tight local control antis desperately seek to facilitate local infringement.

One particularly interesting aspect of "non-residency" is citizens who have *no residence* in any of the states. That's not just a problem for "carry," but also for purchasing guns across the state lines. For example, imagine if the federal law on interstate sales was stricken down. We could purchase guns in any state - drive to AZ, do the background check, cash-and-carry, etc.

That's some very interesting "unintended consequences" right there...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #446  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:24 PM
riftol riftol is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 518
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG of MP View Post
Which brings up another point....
How is it that the States recognize each other's driver's licences, marital status, and so much more, but somehow get away with not recognizing CCW's.

Would not the Comity Clause (which refers to Article IV, § 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (also known as the Privileges and Immunities Clause), which ensures that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” be aversly impacted by refusal to recognize another states ccw?

Has our side ever really fought for CCW reciprocity in a major way? has anyone challenged the failure to recognize via the comity clause?

Comity is not an inexorable command.





Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n
(1939)


3. The nature of the federal union of States, to which are reserved some of the attributes of sovereignty, precludes resort to the full faith and credit clause as a means for compelling a State to substitute the statutes of other States for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate. P. 306 U. S. 501.


4. The full faith and credit clause does not require a State to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another State, even though that statute is of controlling force in the courts of its enactment with respect to the same persons and events -- at least in the absence of action by Congress prescribing the extra-state effect to be given state statutes. P. 306 U. S. 502.

5. This Court must determine for itself how far the full faith and credit clause compels the qualification or denial of rights asserted under the laws of one State -- that of the forum -- by the statute of another State. P. 306 U. S. 502.

Last edited by riftol; 07-28-2014 at 12:29 PM..
  #447  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:32 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 Wolverine View Post
Be careful. The federal Gun Free School Zone Act still applies. Without a "license" from the state in which the school zone is located you can still be pinched for carrying near a school. Since non-residents can not get a "license" issued by DC and there is probably no place in DC that is not within 1000' of a school, there is no way out of that one. So, although the DC police are barred from arresting you simply for carrying (as of now), they can still call Holder and he will prosecute you for violating the federal GFSZ.
Of course. My post was by no means meant to be comprehensive.
  #448  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:36 PM
lasbrg's Avatar
lasbrg lasbrg is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange County, NC
Posts: 4,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWalt View Post
Are you referring to "Immediate impact of Palmer v..." memo?
No. Him saying that he would accept a short, temporary stay.

Gura saying this actually makes more sense to me then him actually agreeing to a stay, since the effect may be that some people get arrested who thought that they were acting in a constitutionally-protected way.
  #449  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:37 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 CZ man in LA View Post
I think the more confusing aspects are that there are states such as UT where non-resident CCWs are issued. Is there such a thing called non-resident drivers licenses (don't have a residential address in a certain state but still can apply for a drivers license in that state)? What if you're a resident of CA, hold a non-resident CCW from UT, which you can't use in CA but is reciprocally ok in 31 states, hold in DC?
I know Florida used to issue them. But since a driver license is much more than just a permit to drive, states have basically restricted you to one license from your state only. A driver license is essentially your proof of residence in your state. A concealed carry permit, not so much.
  #450  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:45 PM
SWalt's Avatar
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbrg View Post
No. Him saying that he would accept a short, temporary stay.

Gura saying this actually makes more sense to me then him actually agreeing to a stay, since the effect may be that some people get arrested who thought that they were acting in a constitutionally-protected way.
Gotcha.....sorry, my bad.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
  #451  
Old 07-28-2014, 12:53 PM
lasbrg's Avatar
lasbrg lasbrg is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange County, NC
Posts: 4,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWalt View Post
Gotcha.....sorry, my bad.
No problem, I didn't quote or highlight anything so my mistake. But what do you think of a possible stay? I don't see why there is any good reason to go backwards. These jurisdictions have only themselves to blame for ignoring the Constitution for as long as they have.
  #452  
Old 07-28-2014, 1:01 PM
stag1500's Avatar
stag1500 stag1500 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 665
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The question is whether or not Kennedy cares enough to finally take a stand and defend the decision he sided with originally.
That's my biggest concern as well. If SCOTUS ever does grant cert in a carry case, will Kennedy side with us or go the other way. I'd almost prefer that the Federal government resolve this issue through the legislature once we get a 2nd Amendment friendly president.
__________________
Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. -Ayn Rand
  #453  
Old 07-28-2014, 1:08 PM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmc View Post
Pretty similar, and since SCOTUS has tacitly endorsed Maryland's licensing system (which does allow nonresidents to apply, although the chance of a nonresident actually getting a Maryland LTC is pretty small) DC may end up with a similar system.

BTW according to the article in the Washington Post on this, none of the defendants have been (I believe the term was) "constructively notified", so the ruling won't go into effect until that happens ie don't expect to see anyone carrying legally in DC over the weekend. My bet is "constructive notification" will occur simultaneously with a stay pending appeal or implementation of a Maryland style licensing system.
Half right - DC has asked for a stay pending appeal, but according to the Washington Post as of 4:00 PM today no ruling has been issued, and it's unclear when Judge Scullin will issue a ruling in response to DC's request.

How long did it take Judge Legg to stay his ruling in Woollard? It seemed like it was pretty quick, but I don't remember how quick.
  #454  
Old 07-28-2014, 1:10 PM
riftol riftol is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 518
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWalt View Post
In the case of marriage, it isn't a constitutional right but one regulated by the states.
Though marriage is subject to state regulation, under the principle of substantive due process, marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.


Meyer v. State of Nebraska (1923)


The problem for our determination is whether the statute, as construed and applied, unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment. "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty...guaranteed [by the Fourteenth Amendment] the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual...to marry...as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.



Loving v. Virginia
(1967)
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom...is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry,...resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

Last edited by riftol; 07-28-2014 at 1:15 PM..
  #455  
Old 07-28-2014, 1:12 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,236
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag1500 View Post
That's my biggest concern as well. If SCOTUS ever does grant cert in a carry case, will Kennedy side with us or go the other way. I'd almost prefer that the Federal government resolve this issue through the legislature once we get a 2nd Amendment friendly president.
I think legislative action is bound to happen at some point. When all walks of life are on insisting on having something, it won't go away. Drugs are a great example of that, although for other reasons. The pro2A lobby is so big that a court ruling will only set us back. We can still pass a law making shall issue the law of the land. If SCOTUS takes the case and doesn't rule with us it will be a big bummer but eventually we will prevail. The trick is to not lose hope and passion for our rights. We must stay vocal, keep donating, take new people to the range, etc. Even a bumper sticker on a car has some impact on normalizing the people to the idea of firearms ownership.
  #456  
Old 07-28-2014, 1:30 PM
lasbrg's Avatar
lasbrg lasbrg is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange County, NC
Posts: 4,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's a funny story.

Computer glitch caused odd Saturday release of D.C. guns ruling
  #457  
Old 07-28-2014, 1:33 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,896
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmc View Post
Half right - DC has asked for a stay pending appeal, but according to the Washington Post as of 4:00 PM today no ruling has been issued, and it's unclear when Judge Scullin will issue a ruling in response to DC's request.

How long did it take Judge Legg to stay his ruling in Woollard? It seemed like it was pretty quick, but I don't remember how quick.
DC HAS had 4 years to contemplate this possible outcome and has done nothing. Let them scramble to comply. Meanwhile we accumulate data on benefits of near-constitutional carry in DC.
__________________
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
  #458  
Old 07-28-2014, 1:40 PM
lasbrg's Avatar
lasbrg lasbrg is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange County, NC
Posts: 4,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
DC HAS had 4 years to contemplate this possible outcome and has done nothing. Let them scramble to comply. Meanwhile we accumulate data on benefits of near-constitutional carry in DC.
+1.

New WaPo article: Five things to know about the D.C. handgun ruling

Quote:
...

[3] I live in another state, where I can legally carry a gun. Can I bring it to Washington?

Yes, now you can. In a memo to all officers on Sunday night, the D.C. police department announced that it would not arrest people who are following the laws of their own state if they bring a gun to the District. That means that if you live in a state where you don’t need a license to carry a gun, now you don’t need one to carry that gun in Washington either. D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray (D) has asked non-residents not to bring guns to the city, but right now, there isn’t much he can do about it.

...
  #459  
Old 07-28-2014, 1:46 PM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
DC HAS had 4 years to contemplate this possible outcome and has done nothing. Let them scramble to comply. Meanwhile we accumulate data on benefits of near-constitutional carry in DC.
I don't disagree, but the same question could have been asked in Maryland on the Woollard case. The stay was pretty quick, and we all know the rest of the story where SCOTUS ended up tacitly endorsing Maryland's may issue licensing system. Only difference is de facto vs de jure.
  #460  
Old 07-28-2014, 1:54 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 16,029
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag1500 View Post
That's my biggest concern as well. If SCOTUS ever does grant cert in a carry case, will Kennedy side with us or go the other way. I'd almost prefer that the Federal government resolve this issue through the legislature once we get a 2nd Amendment friendly president.
Kennedy will have hard time going against us if he is deciding on a *total carry ban* such as addressed in Palmer. To do so he would have to invalidate Heller, which in turn would completely undermine the SCOTUS as an institution.

A more significant threat would be if a case such as Peruta came to SCOTUS and the court upheld "may issue" with the "heightened risk good cause" as an allowable regulation. This would in turn allow a virtual no-issue in any state that desired so.

While it would still be hard to get around Heller and allow a virtual no-issue, particularly after the great analysis in Peruta explaining why no-issue in a may-issue jurisdiction is a no-go, it's a distinct possibility.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #461  
Old 07-28-2014, 2:26 PM
desert dog's Avatar
desert dog desert dog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 786
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A stay, an appeal, and another ruling could sit in limbo for years.
  #462  
Old 07-28-2014, 2:28 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,945
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
A modified version of this assumption is more likely.

Peruta panel is in no hurry to issue a ruling since their decision is being incorporated into jurisprudence left and right.
That is the most interesting and tantalizing explanation of the delay I've yet seen. I like it.

However, there's a problem with it, an implication that you might not have thought of: it implies that the panel expects their decision to be overturned through en banc proceedings, or are fearful that it'll be overturned at SCOTUS.

That said, it's also possible that they're just acting prudently here as regards the effects of their jurisprudence, that they're making sure the impact of their decision is maximized before allowing the next steps to be taken.


Yes, most interesting indeed...
__________________
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.
  #463  
Old 07-28-2014, 2:32 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,100
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by desert dog View Post
A stay, an appeal, and another ruling could sit in limbo for years.
Not in a case like this with an all out ban. This case is beyond ground breaking. It doesn't really allow the courts to do much other than to accept what was ruled on or continue with an all out ban.
  #464  
Old 07-28-2014, 2:32 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,896
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
"SCOTUS ended up tacitly endorsing Maryland's may issue licensing system."
A cert petition denial is not an indication if the court's opinion as to merits.
__________________
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
  #465  
Old 07-28-2014, 2:51 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmc View Post
Half right - DC has asked for a stay pending appeal, but according to the Washington Post as of 4:00 PM today no ruling has been issued, and it's unclear when Judge Scullin will issue a ruling in response to DC's request.

How long did it take Judge Legg to stay his ruling in Woollard? It seemed like it was pretty quick, but I don't remember how quick.
Maybe they should take as long to issue a ruling on the stay as it took them to issue the Palmer ruling in the first place.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
  #466  
Old 07-28-2014, 3:05 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,896
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
Maybe they should take as long to issue a ruling on the stay as it took them to issue the Palmer ruling in the first place.
Hell yes. Let them sweat while waiting for their stay. Even A few weeks of watching them squirm would be very entertaining.
__________________
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
  #467  
Old 07-28-2014, 3:41 PM
SWalt's Avatar
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,155
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riftol View Post
Though marriage is subject to state regulation, under the principle of substantive due process, marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.


Meyer v. State of Nebraska (1923)


The problem for our determination is whether the statute, as construed and applied, unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment. "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty...guaranteed [by the Fourteenth Amendment] the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual...to marry...as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.



Loving v. Virginia
(1967)
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom...is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry,...resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
Without getting into further discussion of controversies of Marriage, and irrelevant discussion on this thread of those controversies, I won't further discuss this. But....

US vs Windsor - Syllabus

Quote:
2.DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13–26.
(a)By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being with in the authority and realm of the separate States....

...

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,”Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,”Ohio ex rel. Popovici v.Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383–384. Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-307_6j37.pdf

I will only add my understanding, DOMA was ruled unconstitutional only because DOMA set up a scheme where NY's definition of marriage was excluded and resulted in unequal treatment of 1 class of people (married) by the Federal government. NY's definition is entirely up to NY to decide. I could be wrong, IANAL, but to not thread jack, I won't discuss it further.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by SWalt; 07-28-2014 at 3:44 PM..
  #468  
Old 07-28-2014, 4:01 PM
lasbrg's Avatar
lasbrg lasbrg is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange County, NC
Posts: 4,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default



0:04 "... But before the change can take place ..." Oops.



Last edited by lasbrg; 07-28-2014 at 4:05 PM..
  #469  
Old 07-28-2014, 4:03 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
First, D.C. can simply pass a restrictive may-issue licensing law, in which case we’ll have to start all over again.

Maybe not. The Decision states that the law is struck down until a Constitutionally acceptable replacement law is in place. I presume that the guy who will rate the Constitutionality of the replacement law is Judge Scullin. The same guy who did NOT grant a delay in the first place. Given the character of the Decision, I don't see him accepting "may issue" as being Constitutional.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Second, if D.C. chooses to appeal instead, we can expect Palmer to be overturned and for the Supreme Court to subsequently ignore it.

Ah, that's the kcbrown spirit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
I heard there was something going on in San Diego. The vast expanse of the Internet has been oddly silent except for something about a place called Hall H.

Yes, I felt a fair to moderate disturbance in the Force.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GoZoner View Post
It's a tactic from the DC Police Chief; the soon the she issues the order, then the soon she can start hoping for a shooting somewhere, anywhere in DC...

That Lanier could be thinking this would not surprise me at all. And, I suppose it's possible (conspiracy hats on, please) that Scullin has this in mind also. After all, a week of big shoot-outs in the nation's Capitol would certainly damage our efforts, wouldn't it?

BUT, what if DC experiences a drop in crime, the likes they've never seen before? Wouldn't that be something?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantedamean View Post
To answer the post I actually quoted, from what everyone has been saying your home state is what matters. So if you're from california but you have a CCW in Arizona it's still a no go. Which I find I runic because that is enforcing a law that they ruled unconstitutional, a little counter intuitive. I have a feeling there's more to that than we're having repeated to us.



If I'm understanding it correctly then you will be charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon in DC, because some citizens are more equal than others. It's very counter to their ruling, I find it odd.

We can't Open Carry (w/o a license) in all parts of the PRK, but there SOME places where we can. So, if I were to go to DC, I could Open Carry, right?


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
  #470  
Old 07-28-2014, 4:44 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,236
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Not to mention congress has to approve all laws passed in DC. They will not allow may issue scheme with the current political make up.
  #471  
Old 07-28-2014, 4:44 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
We can't Open Carry (w/o a license) in all parts of the PRK, but there SOME places where we can. So, if I were to go to DC, I could Open Carry, right?


The Raisuli
That seems to be the case at least for now. But you may not, according to this, possess any ammunition.

https://twitter.com/EmilyMiller

Quote:
Keep in mind-- the law that only registered DC gun owners can posess ammunition is still in effect.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
  #472  
Old 07-28-2014, 4:44 PM
lasbrg's Avatar
lasbrg lasbrg is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Orange County, NC
Posts: 4,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From the Washington Times.

Quote:
EDITORIAL: A right recognized
The Second Amendment applies to the District, too


Thugs in the nation’s capital might think twice now before preying on a nighttime stroller — or a stroller in midafternoon, for that matter — in the belief that the prey won’t shoot back. The good guys can now defend themselves.

That’s the promise in an order issued last week by U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. forbidding the D.C. government and Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier to enforce laws prohibiting the carrying of handguns for self-defense.

Technically, the D.C. ordinance already allows carrying a gun with a permit, it’s just that the District makes sure nobody has one. The city council repealed the police chief’s authority to issue permits in 2008. This ban obviously infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but in Washington the powers that be think they have the right not to enforce laws they don’t like.

Judge Scullin, a former federal prosecutor appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, took his cue from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago that applied the Second Amendment to the states and from the Heller v. D.C. ruling in 2008 striking down the District’s prohibition on “keeping” a gun in a home. He logically reasoned that the “bearing” of arms must also be allowed. Even the left’s favorite collection of activist judges, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in California, recognized in February that San Diego’s system of issuing concealed-carry permits only to celebrities and wealthy political donors violates the Constitution. ...
The article continues here.
  #473  
Old 07-28-2014, 4:46 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,756
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
That seems to be the case at least for now. But you may not, according to this, possess any ammunition.

https://twitter.com/EmilyMiller
that doesn't seem to jive with the notice the DC chief put out.

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploa.../07-137-14.pdf
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
  #474  
Old 07-28-2014, 4:51 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
that doesn't seem to jive with the notice the DC chief put out.

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploa.../07-137-14.pdf
Agreed. Looks like that tweet is wrong.


ETA: On second thought. Perhaps they are both right. The law is still in effect, they just aren't enforcing it.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler

Last edited by dustoff31; 07-28-2014 at 4:56 PM..
  #475  
Old 07-28-2014, 5:04 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,945
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman
Second, if D.C. chooses to appeal instead, we can expect Palmer to be overturned and for the Supreme Court to subsequently ignore it.
Ah, that's the kcbrown spirit.
Heh.

Actually, if Palmer gets to SCOTUS (especially as a result of the DC circuit court upholding the district court's decision), then I think there's a very decent chance (in the 50% range) that SCOTUS will grant cert to it, much higher than for anything else. I expect Kennedy will not sit still for a total ban on "bear", just as he didn't sit still for a total ban on "keep". Even so, I think those odds are quite a lot lower than they were for Heller, simply because the scope is public and not private, and I expect that will give Kennedy great pause (remember, my operating hypothesis is that Sandy Hook had a substantially detrimental effect on his support of the right).


I'll be frank. I expected Palmer to be a doorstop for the next few decades. That we got a decision at all changes my view significantly. The odds of an eventual victory just went up by a significant amount, assuming the rate of progress accelerates to the point where a circuit court decision will be announced in a year or two (longer than that, and we'll probably lose one of the Heller 5, and it'll almost certainly be game over at that point).

This is more of a litmus test for the judiciary than most cases. That is so because this is a total statutory ban on carry in public. If we get an unfavorable panel draw in the DC circuit, then this case will be the litmus test for the judicial integrity of the panel members. They must uphold the district court's decision in order to maintain their judicial integrity. To do anything else is to utterly ignore Supreme Court precedence (which in and of itself has proven to be all too commonplace) as well as their own, in favor of their own prejudices. If the panel overturns the district court's decision, we'll know that they have absolutely no judicial integrity whatsoever.

The same is true of the en banc prospects for Peruta, really, but the difference there is that the 9th Circuit has no real jurisprudence of its own to go against, so the 9th Circuit's action there will be more of a reflection of its general stance on the issue, while "only" moderately reflecting their judicial integrity (or lack thereof).


Yeah. Things just got a lot more interesting.
__________________
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.
  #476  
Old 07-28-2014, 5:09 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 18,100
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Heh.

Actually, if Palmer gets to SCOTUS (especially as a result of the DC circuit court upholding the district court's decision), then I think there's a very decent chance (in the 50% range) that SCOTUS will grant cert to it, much higher than for anything else. I expect Kennedy will not sit still for a total ban on "bear", just as he didn't sit still for a total ban on "keep". Even so, I think those odds are quite a lot lower than they were for Heller, simply because the scope is public and not private, and I expect that will give Kennedy great pause (remember, my operating hypothesis is that Sandy Hook had a substantially detrimental effect on his support of the right).


I'll be frank. I expected Palmer to be a doorstop for the next few decades. That we got a decision at all changes my view significantly. The odds of an eventual victory just went up by a significant amount, assuming the rate of progress accelerates to the point where a circuit court decision will be announced in a year or two (longer than that, and we'll probably lose one of the Heller 5, and it'll almost certainly be game over at that point).

This is more of a litmus test for the judiciary than most cases. That is so because this is a total statutory ban on carry in public. If we get an unfavorable panel draw in the DC circuit, then this case will be the litmus test for the judicial integrity of the panel members. They must uphold the district court's decision in order to maintain their judicial integrity. To do anything else is to utterly ignore Supreme Court precedence (which in and of itself has proven to be all too commonplace) as well as their own, in favor of their own prejudices. If the panel overturns the district court's decision, we'll know that they have absolutely no judicial integrity whatsoever.

The same is true of the en banc prospects for Peruta, really, but the difference there is that the 9th Circuit has no real jurisprudence of its own to go against, so the 9th Circuit's action there will be more of a reflection of its general stance on the issue, while "only" moderately reflecting their judicial integrity (or lack thereof).


Yeah. Things just got a lot more interesting.
Stay negative. Its working.
  #477  
Old 07-28-2014, 5:31 PM
Dirtbozz's Avatar
Dirtbozz Dirtbozz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Stay negative. Its working.
__________________
"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
  #478  
Old 07-28-2014, 5:42 PM
RSC's Avatar
RSC RSC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: OC
Posts: 92
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Please!
__________________
Niven's law #4:
F x S = k. The product of Freedom and Security is a constant. To gain more freedom of thought and/or action, you must give up some security, and vice versa.
  #479  
Old 07-28-2014, 5:50 PM
thayne thayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,289
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Stay negative. Its working.
Right???? Kcbrown being positive might jinx us!
__________________
Quote:
"It wasn't a failure of laws," said Amanda Wilcox, who along with her husband, Nick, lobbies for the California chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "I just don't see how our gun laws could have stopped something like that."

Last edited by thayne; 07-28-2014 at 5:52 PM..
  #480  
Old 07-28-2014, 6:19 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,945
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Stay negative. Its working.
Well, if you insist....


I said my outlook changed substantially. In this case, it changes from one that says we're very likely (to the point of near-certainty) to lose to one that says that we're more likely than not to lose. The odds of winning have, in my opinion, gotten a lot closer to 50% than they were before, but they still remain below 50%.

Everything depends on the timing, and time is not on our side here. If we get a hostile panel at the DC circuit court, which is slightly less likely than not as long as the senior judges are in the drawing, and substantially more likely than not if they're not in the drawing, then they are very likely to sit on the case for a very long time. Time for the Heller 5 is running out, and I still believe that it's highly likely that we'll wind up with a Democrat president in 2016 because I see no real evidence that the Republican Party has learned a damned thing from the last couple of Presidential elections. The only way I see the Republicans winning the Presidency is if they field someone like Rand Paul, and I just don't see that happening.

Worst of all, even if we win Palmer at SCOTUS, and even if SCOTUS issues a Heller-like decision, lower courts are still going to play games with carry in public, if only because they know that time for the Heller 5 is short. I mean, when you have courts like the NY district court playing games with Heller in Osterweil v Bartlett, for "keep" in the home where the impact of upholding the right to both government and public is minimized, you know you're going to see widespread and substantially in-your-face judicial rebellion among the lower courts for "bear" in public, which is what scares the antis the most. They will treat anything that isn't an outright statutory prohibition as "Constitutional".

No, to really win this, we're going to have to get Peruta to SCOTUS and win it there and get another "may-issue" carry case to SCOTUS and win that as well, because only then will it be clear to the lower courts that SCOTUS is willing to back its initial words with deeds, and that resistance is futile. The apathy of SCOTUS as regards the 2nd Amendment has thus far emboldened those who sit on the lower courts to utterly ignore the right whenever they want to. We got very, very lucky with Peruta. The problem with luck is that it is guaranteed to run out.


The real question is whether or not Kennedy will take enough of a stand to allow SCOTUS to grant cert to Peruta. I'm highly skeptical of that. My predictive hypothesis forces me to conclude that SCOTUS will pass on Peruta, despite the nature of the decision and its reliance on the text and methods of Heller. But if SCOTUS does take Peruta, then it is my belief it will uphold (or reinstate) the current decision, as long as we don't lose any of the Heller 5.




Better?
__________________
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; 07-28-2014 at 8:18 PM..
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 7:40 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical