Radich et al v. Deleon Guerrero (Marianas handgun & carry ban challenge) 3/28/16 WIN

[Gray Peterson]

http://ia601401.us.archive.org/30/it...65.docket.html

The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands has a total handgun ban and carry ban (even inside the home), and prohibits the issuance of WIC licenses for self defense.

Ive been developing this case on and off for the last 5 years. Thanks to David Sigale and Dan Guidotti for taking this case, and SAF and NRA CRDF for funding it.

[CCWFacts]

That's amazing Gray! That's great! The CNMI is nothing like America but it happens to be in the 9th circuit. The CNMI: "Nukes, ok, but handguns, no."

In practice I would not carry a gun there no matter what the laws. I can outrun just about anyone who might be dangerous there.

[wolfwood]

Nice job Gray I know you've been pushing for this for a long time.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

http://ia601401.us.archive.org/30/it...65.docket.html

The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands has a total handgun ban and carry ban (even inside the home), and prohibits the issuance of WIC licenses for self defense.

Ive been developing this case on and off for the last 5 years. Thanks to David Sigale and Dan Guidotti for taking this case, and SAF and NRA CRDF for funding it.

If Peruta holds then this is a slam dunk on both the handgun and carry ban. If Peruta gets overturned en banc and then this case gets to them (total carry ban), I imagine the 9th is somewhat in a box.

[thorium]

Another Deleon?!

Coincidence? I think not!

[CG of MP]

Aside from helping the intra or inter curcuit splits, can anyone outline how this case willhelp as a whole in the US proper?

[teetsjones]

Are the Common Wealth's subject to SCOTUS rulings?
The reason I ask, is because SCOTUS has already confirmed to right to keep arms in the home specifically.

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by teetsjones

Are the Common Wealth's subject to SCOTUS rulings?
The reason I ask, is because SCOTUS has already confirmed to right to keep arms in the home specifically.

Of course it is. However you still have to have somebody go to Court to have a law ruled unconstituional.

[xaerorazor]

Good Luck on this suit.

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by CG of MP

Aside from helping the intra or inter curcuit splits, can anyone outline how this case willhelp as a whole in the US proper?

One of the plaintiffs was attacked in her own home while her husband was away, and sustained serious injuries. If it was well known that people can protect themselves in their own home, it might have prevented the home invasion in the first place from even occurring.

Individual rights means individual considerations, not collective considerations. Two people wanted handguns. One especially needed one 4 years ago. They resided in a place that banned handgun possession and bans carry in the home.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

One of the plaintiffs was attacked in her own home while her husband was away, and sustained serious injuries. If it was well known that people can protect themselves in their own home, it might have prevented the home invasion in the first place from even occurring.

Individual rights means individual considerations, not collective considerations. Two people wanted handguns. One especially needed one 4 years ago. They resided in a place that banned handgun possession and bans carry in the home.

It is going after public carry also, correct?

[thorium]

I applaud you & your backers for sticking up the rights of a small jurisdiction that might not otherwise have the means to strike down flagrant violations of the bill of rights

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by press1280

It is going after public carry also, correct?

In the Palmer/Moore/Shepard manner of attack, yes.

[wolfwood]

With this America Samoa becomes the last place in the United States to ban handguns inside the home.

[Noble Cause]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

http://ia601401.us.archive.org/30/it...65.docket.html

The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands has a total handgun ban and carry ban (even inside the home), and prohibits the issuance of WIC licenses for self defense.

Ive been developing this case on and off for the last 5 years. Thanks to David Sigale and Dan Guidotti for taking this case, and SAF and NRA CRDF for funding it.

Well, who would have thought a little known, tiny, (2010 population only
about 53,000) US Commonwealth, would be ground zero for a 2nd Amend case ?

Kudos for your "Outside the Box" thinking on this, Gray.

While reading up on the subject, I came across this (take note of the
last sentence ):

The CNMI has a United States district court which exercises jurisdiction over the District of the Northern Mariana Islands (DNMI), which is coterminous with the CNMI. The United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands was established by act of Congress in 1977 and began operations in January 1978. The court sits on the island of Saipan, but may sit other places within the Commonwealth. The district court has the same jurisdiction as all other United States district courts, including diversity jurisdiction and bankruptcy jurisdiction. Appeals are taken to the Ninth Circuit. The district court's local rules specifically require lawyers to wear shoes to court.[29]

Please Remember to wear your shoes to Court....


Noble

[teetsjones]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Of course it is. However you still have to have somebody go to Court to have a law ruled unconstituional.

That's what I don't understand, if SCOTUS already determined a ban on handguns in the home is unconstitutional, why is the handgun ban still standing?

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Noble Cause

Well, who would have thought a little known, tiny, (2010 population only
about 53,000) US Commonwealth, would be ground zero for a 2nd Amend case ?

Kudos for your "Outside the Box" thinking on this, Gray.

The thresh-hold legal question is whether or not RKBA applies to the territory. The answer to this is clearly yes under SCOTUS & 9th Circuit Precedent (look up territorial incorporation doctrine), considering that the CNMI & US specifically incorporated 2A into the Covenant that the rights that the territory must honor. Perhaps if Heller was decided previous to 1975 in favor of striking down of the handgun ban, the negotiators would have removed 2A's application. Changing it now would require the consent of both houses of Congress since it's part of Public Law, and I doubt there are the votes to do so.

While reading up on the subject, I came across this (take note of the
last sentence ):

Please Remember to wear your shoes to Court....

Noble

Marianas island culture is very interesting.

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by teetsjones

That's what I don't understand, if SCOTUS already determined a ban on handguns in the home is unconstitutional, why is the handgun ban still standing?

Our federal courts are not allowed to rule on a issue unless there is a case or contrerversy in front on them i.e. they can not issue advisory opinions. That means that even the most blatantly unconsituional law can not be struck down unless a person shows up to Court to challenge it.

So here the Supreme Court rules on a D.C. handgun law and finds a) the Second Amendment confers a individual right b) handguns are protected by the Second Amendment and c) a complete ban on handguns is unconstitutional. Thereby striking a law down the Washington D.C. law.


That is all Heller did. It simply is not within the Supreme Court's power or any other federal Court's power for that matter to strike down a law that is not in front of it. To do so would violate Article III of the United States Constitution.

Let's say every state in the Union had a complete handgun ban at the time Heller (let's forget about McDonald for the time being) was rendered, a individual suit would have to be brought against each one of those laws. The suit would end very quickly because the Supreme Court has already spoken on the exact same issue. However the Supreme Court had not spoken on that specific law so a suit does need to be brought.

Does this make sense to you?

As an aside that's why I filed Baker. The rest of the Country could go shall issue and if a suit to the Hawaii CCW law had not been brought Hawaii would have stayed may (or really no) issue. This case is a good illustration of that.

[crazyScott90]

I'm no lawyer but...with Heller and McDonald already well established, and the fact that there are now a couple of cases that cite Peruta as precedent, I wouldn't be surprised if you won this pretty quickly. Good on you for holding their feet to the fire.

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by teetsjones

That's what I don't understand, if SCOTUS already determined a ban on handguns in the home is unconstitutional, why is the handgun ban still standing?

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Our federal courts are not allowed to rule on a issue unless there is a case or contrerversy in front on them i.e. they can not issue advisory opinions. That means that even the most blatantly unconsituional law can not be struck down unless a person shows up to Court to challenge it.

So here the Supreme Court rules on a D.C. handgun law and finds a) the Second Amendment confers a individual right b) handguns are protected by the Second Amendment and c) a complete ban on handguns is unconstitutional. Thereby striking a law down the Washington D.C. law.


That is all Heller did. It simply is not within the Supreme Court's power or any other federal Court's power for that matter to strike down a law that is not in front of it. To do so would violate Article III of the United States Constitution.

Let's say every state in the Union had a complete handgun ban at the time Heller (let's forget about McDonald for the time being) was rendered, a individual suit would have to be brought against each one of those laws. The suit would end very quickly because the Supreme Court has already spoken on the exact same issue. However the Supreme Court had not spoken on that specific law so a suit does need to be brought.

Does this make sense to you?

As an aside that's why I filed Baker. The rest of the Country could go shall issue and if a suit to the Hawaii CCW law had not been brought Hawaii would have stayed may (or really no) issue. This case is a good illustration of that.

It is still standing because whatever legislative body makes the laws for that Island chain has chosen to ignore the Heller ruling and repeal its currently unconstitutional law......therefore they are getting sued!

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

http://ia601401.us.archive.org/30/it...65.docket.html

The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands has a total handgun ban and carry ban (even inside the home), and prohibits the issuance of WIC licenses for self defense.

Ive been developing this case on and off for the last 5 years. Thanks to David Sigale and Dan Guidotti for taking this case, and SAF and NRA CRDF for funding it.

You need a license for Women, Infants and Children?


The Raisuli

[gun toting monkeyboy]

Originally Posted by crazyScott90

Good on you for holding their feet to the fire.

Is that holding their feet to the fire with or without their shoes?

-Mb

Originally Posted by thorium

I applaud you & your backers for sticking up the rights of a small jurisdiction that might not otherwise have the means to strike down flagrant violations of the bill of rights

^^^ Ooohrah!

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli

You need a license for Women, Infants and Children?


The Raisuli

LOL...when I read the initials I thought the very same thing.
Does that mean I've been brainwashed by the liberal socialists?

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli

You need a license for Women, Infants and Children?


The Raisuli

It's shorthand for Weapons Identification Card.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by Paul S

LOL...when I read the initials I thought the very same thing.
Does that mean I've been brainwashed by the liberal socialists?

Along with me.

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

It's shorthand for Weapons Identification Card.

Oh.


The Raisuli

[Noble Cause]

Gray's case apparently is having an effect, local anti gun politician
voices his "concerns"...

For those of you just joining this thread... Quick explanation on "CNMI":
The Northern Mariana Islands, officially the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, is one of the five inhabited U.S. island territories. It is one of two territories with "Commonwealth" status; the other is Puerto Rico. (Wikipedia)

Anti-crime advocate opposes handgun legalization in NMI
Marianas Variety
Monday, December 22, 2014 00:00 By Junhan B. Todiño
http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-ne...ization-in-nmi

The CNMI, he said, has the best gun control in the U.S. “because we don’t allow handguns.”

But because of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the administration and the Legislature have already prepared a handgun legalization measure.

Noble

[RobertMW]

Originally Posted by Noble Cause

Anti-crime advocate opposes handgun legalization in NMI
Marianas Variety
Monday, December 22, 2014 00:00 By Junhan B. Todiño
http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-ne...ization-in-nmi

This explains a lot.

It would be “very scary,” he added

[Gray Peterson]

For some reason there has been a huge uptick in discussion of this issue on island media....

[Gray Peterson]

Radich Memorandum for MSJ

[CG of MP]

The Marianas Islands have previously played a pivotal role in the fall of an over-reaching government.

In the 1940s a country by the name of Japan was doing its best to usurp the liberties of those around it.

One of the three principal islands of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas is known as Tinian.

Tinian was taken from the Japanese by the Allies in August 1944 and one of the largest bases of air WWII was constructed there.

It is from Tinian Island that the 'Enola Gay' and 'Bocks Car' were loaded with the ordinance that condemned the Empire of Japan to its defeat.

If one looks closely enough, perhaps one can find a parallel.

Gray and his friends are about to wrest control of Tinian and the rest of the Marianas from the gun grabbers. After they win this case, I wonder if they have other 'ordinance' that they plan to load into court documents by which Tinian can again become a jumping off point to ensure American Freedoms...

Best of luck Gray!


A map that I own of Tinian which was captured by a US Soldier in WWII upon the defeat of the enemy in 1944.

[Mulay El Raisuli]

Originally Posted by Gray Peterson

Radich Memorandum for MSJ

Simple, basic, to the point.

I expect great things.


The Raisuli

[hornswaggled]

Good luck with your case, counselor!

[ke6guj]

https://www.saf.org/federal-judge-ru...n-violates-2a/

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today won a major victory when a federal judge for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) declared the commonwealth’s ban on handguns to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

CNMI is governed under “a Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America,” according to the ruling, written by Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona. She noted that several provisions of the Constitution are applicable to the Commonwealth through that Covenant, including the Second Amendment.

“This is a big win for the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Judge Manglona properly noted that because the CNMI Covenant applies both the Second Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as if CNMI were a state, then it is unconstitutional to ban handguns for self-defense in the home, or to restrict handgun possession to citizens but not lawful permanent residents.

[NorCalRT]

Great news!!!

[press1280]

Opinion here: http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.ne...anting-MSJ.pdf

[Noble Cause]

Originally Posted by press1280

Opinion here: http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.ne...anting-MSJ.pdf

Thx for posting.

I only had time for a cursory glance, but this caught my eye:
(Emphasis mine)

9. Defendant Deleon Guerrero, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
DPS, shall issue WICs to Plaintiffs, if he finds that they satisfy the
unchallenged provisions of the Weapons Control Act, no later than 30 days
after the issuance of this Decision and Order; and

10. Plaintiffs are awarded costs and fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988:
a. Plaintiffs shall submit their costs and fees to the Court no later than April 11, 2016, and
b. Defendants shall file their response, if any, no later than April 18, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2016.
______________________
RAMONA V.MANGLONA
Chief Judge

So is this another impediment the CNMI can invoke ?


Noble

[CCWFacts]

Great result, and my admiration to you Gray for your persistence in this fight.

Is this a final result, or is CNMI likely to appeal?

Handguns for self-defense are going to be a shocking cultural change there. The wife in this case had been badly beaten in her own home, something which is acceptable to the culture there. Handguns will be a shock and require some cultural adjustments.

[Ubermcoupe]

[baranski]

Great news. Good work seeing it through!!