PDA

View Full Version : Richards v. Prieto MSJ Oral Arguments re. Shall Issue


Pages : [1] 2

Paladin
03-10-2011, 1:02 PM
Let's use this thread for updates & discussion re. the oral arguments about the MSJs for the Richards case.

ETA: original thread re this case can be found at:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=384146

Paladin
03-10-2011, 1:07 PM
Calguns Foundation's twitter updates can be found at:
http://twitter.com/@calgunsfdn

Coded-Dude
03-10-2011, 1:08 PM
In session.

sighere
03-10-2011, 1:11 PM
All rise!

M. D. Van Norman
03-10-2011, 1:11 PM
The case is Richards v. Prieto.

yellowfin
03-10-2011, 1:12 PM
Having Twitter on your phone to monitor a court case over 2500 miles away while waiting in the checkout line at the grocery store is rather cool, I must say.

Paladin
03-10-2011, 1:14 PM
The case is Richards v. Prieto.
Haven't had lunch yet and it shows!

Thx, I'll edit the OP title.

M. D. Van Norman
03-10-2011, 1:17 PM
Eat a sandwich and take a nap. :D

Paladin
03-10-2011, 1:18 PM
All rise!Are you in the court room or are you just trying to get a rise out of us?

Paladin
03-10-2011, 1:21 PM
Eat a sandwich and take a nap. :D

I'm just about to go offline for 15 to get a sandwich (really), but I'll be back even though I know nothing is likely to be decided today. Just gotta hear what does happen!!!

I'll be looking forward to this summer like I haven't looked for to one since high school.

ripcurlksm
03-10-2011, 1:23 PM
this is great, tuning in to twitter... i wish there was live audio

n2k
03-10-2011, 1:24 PM
I love technology.

Do we know who is manning the twitter box?

bigtoe416
03-10-2011, 1:24 PM
If anybody else is having the problem where the html twitter feed isn't updating much, you can watch the rss feed here: http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/62087386.rss

ripcurlksm
03-10-2011, 1:29 PM
I love technology.

I agree but in comparison these Twitter updates aren't much different than a telegraph circa 1800's. Just a series of short messages :sleeping:

plug a computer into the mixing board for the microphones and send it to a media server for internet broadcast. that would be a good start :D

n2k
03-10-2011, 1:31 PM
I agree, but I guess we will have to take what they allow

ripcurlksm
03-10-2011, 1:38 PM
Question guys who are the speakers?

Yolo is the plaintiff
J England is the judge
AG is the attorney general, im assuming arguing for Yolo?
Loughner is ???

Gray Peterson
03-10-2011, 1:39 PM
AG is Alan Gura. Loughner refers to Jared Loughner, the Tuscon shooter...

beenawhile
03-10-2011, 1:40 PM
AG ... Alan Gura?

n2k
03-10-2011, 1:41 PM
AG = :gura:

ripcurlksm
03-10-2011, 1:42 PM
ohh crap, duhh = awesome

bigtoe416
03-10-2011, 1:43 PM
Here's the entire twitter coverage:

In session.
Oral argument starts with a question from Judge England regarding the interpretation of Heller. How does an ability to carry come out?
AG asserts no right to bear in Yolo. Judge England asks why the County doesn't allow the right to bear by allowing the right to keep.
Judge seems focused on the concealed nature of carry in California.
Are you arguing that a local agency can't regulate? They can, but the process has to be compliant with constitutional safeguards.
Asking Yolo: does Heller hold a right to carry a concealed weapon? No.
Yolo: Concealed regulations are constitutional, but that means that the ban on loaded open carry is unconstitutional.
Is it possible that Prieto is applying the law in an unconstitutional manner?
AG: Sacramento can apply this statute Constitutionally?
Yolo has distinct from Sacramento...
Edit "has distinct problems from Sacramento" they have less officers and more crime apparently.
Yolo, first amendment framework doesn't apply, AG: courts are using the 1A, McDonald held that the 2A is not an inferior right
One thing Yolo has in common with Sacramento and all Counties is that the 14A and the 2A applies
J. England says, not a right to have any firearm, any place. AG: we don't disagree
J England, isn't an entire ban on concealed be considered a reasonable regulation. Loughner - what if there were 5 CCWers there?
AG: the state made a decision to not allow loaded open carry. Prieto is bound by that.
J England: It only held in the home. AG that's my case and we only challenged in the home
AG we concede you can ban concealed carry. We concede you can require permits. However, that assumes loaded open carry.
Yolo: No court has held that there isn't a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon.
AG: Once there is a license regime it has to be constitutional.
Yolo: Peruta should show our policy is legit.
Judge England: Southern district isn't binding. I have a 12050 permit from Sacramento County. This case will be decided on it's merits.
Case submitted.

M. D. Van Norman
03-10-2011, 1:43 PM
Judge England: Southern district isn’t binding. I have a 12050 permit from Sacramento County. This case will be decided on its merits.

:eek::thumbsup:

n2k
03-10-2011, 1:45 PM
From the second to last tweet.....

Did the Judge say that he was carrying??


Edit: Looks like he did. :)

Crom
03-10-2011, 1:51 PM
Very interesting comments/arguments. I don't want to speculate too much but maybe Judge England feels that the Peruta court got it wrong. And the case should be decided on the merits. That's the job of the court. :)

meaty-btz
03-10-2011, 1:53 PM
Am I reading that last lines right? Holy..... WIN?!?!?!?

BigDogatPlay
03-10-2011, 1:55 PM
Copying myself from the other thread.......

Yolo: Peruta should show our policy is legit.
Judge England: Southern district isn't binding.

That right there is exceptionally encouraging. If Judge England is not going to allow Peruta to make his decision for him, I consider that a win for us right there.

Awaiting more expert analysis......

joefreas
03-10-2011, 1:55 PM
What does "case submitted" mean? Submitted for what?

Glock22Fan
03-10-2011, 1:56 PM
Will a decision here that clashes with Peruta automatically be referred upwards? Or is it a question whether the county wishes to appeal or not?

Nick Justice
03-10-2011, 1:59 PM
"Case Submitted" means that the judge has read and heard all the arguments he wants to hear, and will go into his chambers and issue a decision at a later date.

Crom
03-10-2011, 2:00 PM
What does "case submitted" mean? Submitted for what?

Submitted for a decision by the court.

He will render a written decision, and we will win or loose. He will use all of the filings (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.docket.html) in the case to assist him in that written decision.

Liberty1
03-10-2011, 2:00 PM
ENGLAND: Southern District is not binding. :)

joefreas
03-10-2011, 2:01 PM
Thanks. Any idea on how long that takes? Is it same day or weeks?

eville
03-10-2011, 2:04 PM
Thanks. Any idea on how long that takes? Is it same day or weeks?

:twoweeks:

ke6guj
03-10-2011, 2:04 PM
Thanks. Any idea on how long that takes? Is it same day or weeks?

no set time. Judge could have ruled from the bench if he wanted to, or may sit on it for months.

Glock22Fan
03-10-2011, 2:05 PM
Yolo: Concealed regulations are constitutional, but that means that the ban on loaded open carry is unconstitutional.


Is Yolo advocating LOC?

Nick Justice
03-10-2011, 2:05 PM
Thanks. Any idea on how long that takes? Is it same day or weeks?

Usually a few weeks at least. The judge has a time limit to issue his ruling, but I can't recall right now how much time he has.

Luieburger
03-10-2011, 2:05 PM
So I guess we can update Richards v. Prieto to "waiting" status now? http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Litigation_Past_and_Present

That table is getting awfully yellow. Time for some news to pop.

BigFatGuy
03-10-2011, 2:06 PM
AG we concede you can ban concealed carry. We concede you can require permits. However, that assumes loaded open carry.

rrrrrrrgghh....hopefully this is just a stepping stone?

safewaysecurity
03-10-2011, 2:07 PM
I changed my mind based on his final comments I think we will actually win this one.

Paladin
03-10-2011, 2:07 PM
Are Yolo advocating LOC?Perhaps. But, to me, it seems like Gura's counter -- that the state has chosen to ban LOC but issue CCWs -- is to give the judge an easy out: Rather than overturn state law and policy preferring CCWing to LOCing, just force Yolo (and local gov'ts) to accept SD as GC. That would be a lot less disruptive of the legal and political landscapes.

yakmon
03-10-2011, 2:10 PM
:twoweeks:

Uriah02
03-10-2011, 2:10 PM
Is that it or is it still going? What's the next step?

Nick Justice
03-10-2011, 2:11 PM
Perhaps. But, to me, it seems like Gura's counter -- that the state has chosen to ban LOC and issue CCWs -- is to give the judge an easy out: Rather than overturn state law and policy preferring CCWing to LOCing, just force Yolo (local gov'ts) to accept SD as GC.

I'm Sorry, but what do "SD" and "GC" stand for?

Coded-Dude
03-10-2011, 2:11 PM
self defense and good cause.

Nick Justice
03-10-2011, 2:12 PM
self defense and good cause.

OK! Thanks!

joefreas
03-10-2011, 2:14 PM
I changed my mind based on his final comments I think we will actually win this one.

The last few lines look very promising! :D

Crom
03-10-2011, 2:15 PM
Will a decision here that clashes with Peruta automatically be referred upwards? Or is it a question whether the county wishes to appeal or not?

It depends on the scope of his ruling. We'll have to wait and see.

Are Yolo advocating LOC?

Not really. They are arguing anything that wins the lawsuit for them. The goal is to not loose the case. They don't care how they win.

Perhaps. But, to me, it seems like Gura's counter -- that the state has chosen to ban LOC and issue CCWs -- is to give the judge an easy out: Rather than overturn state law and policy preferring CCWing to LOCing, just force Yolo (local gov'ts) to accept SD as GC.

Right. In California the only legal manner to carry loaded is concealed with a license. The uncontrolled discretion granted to the sheriffs is unconstitutional.

Nick Justice
03-10-2011, 2:19 PM
The last few lines look very promising! :D

Well, I don't want to be a wet blanket but Boxer and Feinstien had 12050 permits too...

And it will probably be his research attorney that writes the opinion, not the judge himself. He may say: " I want [insert name here] to win. Write up a ruling."

MonsterMan
03-10-2011, 2:20 PM
Does a win for us only affect Yolo or is this good for all of CA?

Dreaded Claymore
03-10-2011, 2:23 PM
Does a win for us only affect Yolo or is this good for all of CA?

I suspect it has to get appealed or otherwise referred upwards in order to affect all of California.

eville
03-10-2011, 2:24 PM
Does a win for us only affect Yolo or is this good for all of CA?

I'm no expect but I have to think a win will set "good precedent"

Coded-Dude
03-10-2011, 2:26 PM
wouldn't it at least be binding in the entire eastern district(unless/until otherwise appealed/overturned)?

Kharn
03-10-2011, 2:26 PM
AG in legal circles means attorney general, I was trying to figure out why a CA AG would be arguing many of our points and no one from our side speaking. Gotta love CGN and the random acronyms...

dantodd
03-10-2011, 2:27 PM
By saying that Richards should go after the LOC ban it sounds like Yolo county is conceding that a right to bear exists outside the home AND that UOC is not an adequate expression of 2a to meet Heller.

Those sound more promising than an admission by Judge England that he had a 12050 license

Nick Justice
03-10-2011, 2:33 PM
If we get a split of authority (same/similar facts, but two different legal conclusions, like what could happen here with this case and the San Diego one) the situation should be ready for appellate review. Appellate courts hate having contradicting opinions within the same district. Creates confusion. Especially in light of the Second Amd now being incorporated, and in light of California's firearm preemption policy.

Blackhawk556
03-10-2011, 2:35 PM
Now the long wait for the decision. I hope we don't have to wait 4-6 months

Glock22Fan
03-10-2011, 2:36 PM
By saying that Richards should go after the LOC ban it sounds like Yolo county is conceding that a right to bear exists outside the home AND that UOC is not an adequate expression of 2a to meet Heller.

Those sound more promising than an admission by Judge England that he had a 12050 license

That seemed to be what they were saying. Rather like Peruta but going a little further - perhaps because they saw the flaw in Peruta. At least, though, the Judge admitted he had a CCW. Most hypocrits would try to keep it a little quieter, I think.

HowardW56
03-10-2011, 2:38 PM
I wish I could have been there...

The running commentary is great, but you can tell more about the judge by watching and listening....

N6ATF
03-10-2011, 2:47 PM
Why even bring up LOC? There's a snowball's chance in hell that England is going to summarily rule the ban on urban LOC unconstitutional and leave Prieto without the possibility of appeal, with zero argument allowed from the State.

Legal masturbation at its finest...

dantodd
03-10-2011, 2:47 PM
That seemed to be what they were saying. Rather like Peruta but going a little further - perhaps because they saw the flaw in Peruta. At least, though, the Judge admitted he had a CCW. Most hypocrits would try to keep it a little quieter, I think.

While it does seem like that, their briefs and other statements suggest they are still relying on Peruta. They really screwed that one up imo.

The judge may have made the statement about his ccw because he knew that cgf and billy jack both regularly pull prar data.

Southwest Chuck
03-10-2011, 2:50 PM
Please explain or opine.
I understand that if a circuit split occurs, (9th vs 7th) then SCOTUS usually intervenes and decides the issue assuming an appeal gets to them. When you have a split between Districts, within the same circuit, then that circuit's court of appeals would decide the issue on appeal (the 9th in this case), correct?

What if Judge Englands decision goes our way, but only affects Yolo county and not the rest of the state and Yolo decides not to appeal. Does that mean We would have VSI in Yolo but nowhere else, and San Diego's policy would stand? It would seem to my legally un-educated brain, the such a ruling would in and of itself be a violation of the Equal Protection clause, no? Would the Peruta appeal be a vehicle for deciding a possible split between districts? Or, is there a basis for him to throw out that section of 12050 and remove the discretion aspect of the law out, even though it wasn't directly attacked or asked for?

And finally, what are the real options for the judge in a favorable ruling. In other words, what COULD he rule and what likely-hood would he rule that way or in any other given way? I can see the Judge now sitting in his chambers and thinking....http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/thinking.gif

dantodd
03-10-2011, 2:59 PM
Why even bring up LOC? There's a snowball's chance in hell that England is going to summarily rule the ban on urban LOC unconstitutional and leave Prieto without the possibility of appeal, with zero argument allowed from the State.


What he seems to be arguing, contradicting his briefs and other statements, is that a right to carry a loaded firearm exists. The cases cited in Heller all held concealed bans legal where open carry exists. Yolo seems to be arguing that this represents some judicial preference for open carry, therefore any challenge should be sharing loaded open carry ban. Gura, rightly, the fact that OC was legal in the cited cases was a coincidence of the laws in question and not a constitutional preference for open carry.

dantodd
03-10-2011, 3:04 PM
Well, I don't want to be a wet blanket but Boxer and Feinstien had 12050 permits too...

And it will probably be his research attorney that writes the opinion, not the judge himself. He may say: " I want [insert name here] to win. Write up a ruling."

You should read his opinion the last time this panel heard the case.

press1280
03-10-2011, 3:05 PM
Why even bring up LOC? There's a snowball's chance in hell that England is going to summarily rule the ban on urban LOC unconstitutional and leave Prieto without the possibility of appeal, with zero argument allowed from the State.

Legal masturbation at its finest...

I suspect Richards wasn't pushing for LOC(only CCW), so the judge essentially can't give him LOC, so that's why the county is pushing that angle. They're saying ,"Hey we think LOC is constitutional but you'll need to take that up with the state, not with us."

Dirtbozz
03-10-2011, 3:05 PM
I'm Sorry, but what do "SD" and "GC" stand for?

Another good example of acronyms waisting the time of others. :D

J.D.Allen
03-10-2011, 3:07 PM
Seems to me perhaps Yolo was arguing for LOC because they know that either there's no way in hell the Judge will overturn state law in this regard or if he does GFSZ's and private businesses will regulate it out of existence. Thereby preserving their precious monopoly on CCW...

Anchors
03-10-2011, 3:07 PM
Perhaps. But, to me, it seems like Gura's counter -- that the state has chosen to ban LOC but issue CCWs -- is to give the judge an easy out: Rather than overturn state law and policy preferring CCWing to LOCing, just force Yolo (and local gov'ts) to accept SD as GC. That would be a lot less disruptive of the legal and political landscapes.
True.
AG in legal circles means attorney general, I was trying to figure out why a CA AG would be arguing many of our points and no one from our side speaking. Gotta love CGN and the random acronyms...
I was totally in the same boat on the first read.
Then I had that "Ah ha" moment.
By saying that Richards should go after the LOC ban it sounds like Yolo county is conceding that a right to bear exists outside the home AND that UOC is not an adequate expression of 2a to meet Heller.

Those sound more promising than an admission by Judge England that he had a 12050 license

Yeah.
I also think that they were just trying to say anything to win. They know the judge probably won't throw out the ban on LOC all together, so they are just using it as a talking point. They probably want the judge to say "may-issue is Constitutional, no opinion on LOC".



I LOVE this part:
Judge England: Southern district isn't binding. I have a 12050 permit from Sacramento County. This case will be decided on it's merits.
Case submitted.
If we win, that is sig worthy.

Liberty1
03-10-2011, 3:12 PM
We have a better chance here then in Peruta IMO.

England has a 12050 license and I'm sure he has a DMV license too. If the state is going to regulate concealed carry and ban LOC, all we are asking is that licensing be handled fairly like DMV's. We are only asking for a policy change and not challenging the law (as much as I look forward to 12031's downfall however...)

Plus we are dealing with a Fundamental Right. Glad to see that the judge values his self defense needs and got his Sac. concealed license (the only way under CA law to carry a loaded firearm ready for immediate conflict in cities in counties > 200,000 pop.).

Coded-Dude
03-10-2011, 3:19 PM
so if we didn't have Peruta would we have a better chance of winning? I think the the irrational decision may have helped this case some.

bruss01
03-10-2011, 3:22 PM
Why even bring up LOC? There's a snowball's chance in hell that England is going to summarily rule the ban on urban LOC unconstitutional and leave Prieto without the possibility of appeal, with zero argument allowed from the State.

Legal masturbation at its finest...

You're not understanding, friend...

If I get the gist of it correctly, here's how it plays out.

Heller said the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, protected by the 2A and 14th... That is settled hash.

Now, California can offer two ways to bear a functional firearm.

They can allow loaded open carry, or loaded concealed carry.

If they allow (everyone) to loaded open carry, then they can have a concealed carry permit system in which the Sheriff has the ability to deny the permit for lack of good cause. After all, if you have the option to LOC, then it's just a matter of your preference to CCW. No right is denied.

If they DON'T allow loaded open carry, then giving the Sheriff the ability to arbitrarily deny for lack of GC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why? Because they just boxed you into a dead end. LOC denied by law, CCW denied by Sheriff. Your right to bear arms is effectively DENIED.

And CA has decided to outlaw loaded open carry... thus...

Are you ready for it?

Allowing Sheriff's to deny CCW permits by stating that "self defense is not good enough cause" is unconstitutional.

So because LOC is illegal, then arbitrary CCW permit denial based on insufficient GC is equally illegal. You cannot deny both ways of carrying. See Heller and McDonald.

We win. Case closed.

Liberty1
03-10-2011, 3:27 PM
At this point Richards is more helpful to Peruta then other way round. PERUTA is one step ahead in the court appeals process. Judge England is known for his very indepth civil rights decisions. I just hope it doesn't take over three months to opine.

dantodd
03-10-2011, 3:28 PM
so if we didn't have Peruta would we have a better chance of winning? I think the the irrational decision may have helped this case some.

Peruta is not binding so judge England can rule differently. The problem is that if we do win here it only directly effects the Eastern district and any case in other districts will be harder rop win since there are opposing rulings in similar cases within the circuit. This probably means we won't see any meaningful reform outside of the Eastern district until we win in appellate court our SCOTUS.

rodeoflyer
03-10-2011, 3:33 PM
Judge England: Southern district isn't binding. I have a 12050 permit from Sacramento County. This case will be decided on it's merits.

Boom! Winning!

:kest:

DeanW66
03-10-2011, 3:34 PM
AG in legal circles means attorney general, I was trying to figure out why a CA AG would be arguing many of our points and no one from our side speaking. Gotta love CGN and the random acronyms...

Not at all random; Fully explained in post #17 in the thread:
AG is Alan Gura.

Falconis
03-10-2011, 3:36 PM
My questions is would the requirement for insurance(like the DMV does) be valid even though 2A is a fundamental right?

Liberty1
03-10-2011, 3:38 PM
I suspect Richards wasn't pushing for LOC(only CCW), so the judge essentially can't give him LOC, so that's why the county is pushing that angle. They're saying ,"Hey we think LOC is constitutional but you'll need to take that up with the state, not with us."

Yes Yolo is saying challenge state law not our policy and this is the wrong case please moot for lack of a claim.

I doubt Yolo has stopped arresting for 12031 and 626.9 to avoid the consequenses of their current pleadings. :p

Connor P Price
03-10-2011, 3:39 PM
Boy did I ever pick the wrong day to get swamped at work right around 2o clock. I could barely keep up with the tweets!

I feel like this one is looking better at this point than I expected it to, but as is usually the case it's just one more step along a long hard road.

Big thanks to everyone involved!

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Liberty1
03-10-2011, 3:40 PM
My questions is would the requirement for insurance(like the DMV does) be valid even though 2A is a fundamental right?

There is no such law but if there were that would be a future case.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-10-2011, 3:41 PM
My questions is would the requirement for insurance(like the DMV does) be valid even though 2A is a fundamental right?

No, driving is a privilege, not a right, like the 2A is.

stix213
03-10-2011, 3:42 PM
so if we didn't have Peruta would we have a better chance of winning? I think the the irrational decision may have helped this case some.

The benefit I see is that since Peruta was such a bad decision, it was a poor choice for Yolo to base their defense on it so much. With the judge outright saying Peruta isn't binding, that sounds to me like he is tossing out at least half of the arguments Yolo has made (at least what I have read in writing) as irrelevant.

As of now I'm expecting a win here.

Grakken
03-10-2011, 3:46 PM
If they (the state) were smart, they would open up LOC. Businesses in this state would be putting up signs like crazy "No guns allowed"...school zone crap and everything else will essentially make it useless..unless you like taking long walks on the street and not go inside any buildings. I would much rather CCW than LOC. You are a walking target when you LOC/UOC anyways.

Soldier415
03-10-2011, 3:46 PM
I have been working waaay too much. So behind on the current cases.

Anchors
03-10-2011, 3:56 PM
If they (the state) were smart, they would open up LOC. Businesses in this state would be putting up signs like crazy "No guns allowed"...school zone crap and everything else will essentially make it useless..unless you like taking long walks on the street and not go inside any buildings. I would much rather CCW than LOC. You are a walking target when you LOC/UOC anyways.

Don't give them any ideas.
I also feared that if LOC was the only method, businesses would just regulate by denying everyone.
Is GFSZ still an issue with legal LOC? (I always forget CA has a GFSZ of it's own).

CSDGuy
03-10-2011, 3:58 PM
If they (the state) were smart, they would open up LOC. Businesses in this state would be putting up signs like crazy "No guns allowed"...school zone crap and everything else will essentially make it useless..unless you like taking long walks on the street and not go inside any buildings. I would much rather CCW than LOC. You are a walking target when you LOC/UOC anyways.
The State DID open up LOC... only in Counties with a population <200,000... and made that license valid ONLY in that County. I doubt they'll "want" to extend that any further... especially since just last session they passed a bill that solidified the LOC license exemption to JUST the county of issuance.

Mute
03-10-2011, 4:02 PM
I like the direction this appears to be heading.

Liberty1
03-10-2011, 4:04 PM
...You are a walking target when you LOC/UOC anyways.

'Walking target' is not proven even for UOC except for unlawful police detentions/searches. Otherwise, it's a baseless fear. What is more an element of reality is carry at a place of employment would be nearly prohibited by employers under a LOC only state regimine.

As for shopping, the free LOC states don't seem to have a real problem with it. I LOC in AZ while shopping with little difficulty in most national chain and mom and pop stores who want the business.

For your consideration...http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

BigFatGuy
03-10-2011, 4:25 PM
As for shopping, the free LOC states don't seem to have a real problem with it.

But AZ isn't full of soccer moms who will organize themselves to place frantic "man with gun" calls outside of every supermarket they want to "make safe from those crazy gun people" and police who will be more then happy to slap citizens into handcuffs.

LOC will be a first step for CA, but it's not a "win".

Ironically, while I'm certain that giving up CCW would not make LOC more likely, I'll bet you dimes to doughnuts that getting LOC would make CCW nearly impossible.

ohsmily
03-10-2011, 4:27 PM
You're not understanding, friend...

If I get the gist of it correctly, here's how it plays out.

Heller said the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, protected by the 2A and 14th... That is settled hash.

Now, California can offer two ways to bear a functional firearm.

They can allow loaded open carry, or loaded concealed carry.

If they allow (everyone) to loaded open carry, then they can have a concealed carry permit system in which the Sheriff has the ability to deny the permit for lack of good cause. After all, if you have the option to LOC, then it's just a matter of your preference to CCW. No right is denied.

If they DON'T allow loaded open carry, then giving the Sheriff the ability to arbitrarily deny for lack of GC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why? Because they just boxed you into a dead end. LOC denied by law, CCW denied by Sheriff. Your right to bear arms is effectively DENIED.

And CA has decided to outlaw loaded open carry... thus...

Are you ready for it?

Allowing Sheriff's to deny CCW permits by stating that "self defense is not good enough cause" is unconstitutional.

So because LOC is illegal, then arbitrary CCW permit denial based on insufficient GC is equally illegal. You cannot deny both ways of carrying. See Heller and McDonald.

We win. Case closed.

Judge Englund was having a difficult time understanding what you wrote above. He seemed to get it toward the end. However, in my opinion we are going to be the appealing party in this matter.

While you can't necessarily determine the ruling on a case based on the approach by the judge and questioning, I believe the judge will come down against us. His demeanor did not give me a confidence.

Liberty1
03-10-2011, 4:37 PM
...in my opinion we are going to be the appealing party in this matter...I believe the judge will come down against us. His demeanor did not give me a confidence.

That will put us on equal footing with Peruta and put Alan in a seat at the Appeals table...that much closer to the 5 of 9 - not such a bad thing.

ohsmily
03-10-2011, 4:42 PM
That will put us on equal footing with Peruta and put Alan in a seat at the Appeals table...that much closer to the 5 of 9 - not such a bad thing.

Absolutely. Due to that procedural issue you just mentioned, this case is really a win/win at this point. If we win...great....if not, and we appeal --> possible consolidation with Peruta.

Window_Seat
03-10-2011, 4:56 PM
Yes Yolo is saying challenge state law not our policy and this is the wrong case please moot for lack of a claim.
...

And this is why we have 1983, yes? Does Yolo not understand that?

But AZ isn't full of soccer moms who will organize themselves to place frantic "man with gun" calls outside of every supermarket they want to "make safe from those crazy gun people" and police who will be more then happy to slap citizens into handcuffs.

It would happen, and continue to happen because those soccer moms are able & allowed to remain anonymous. Force them to identify themselves, and the non-legit MWAG calls will virtually end.

LOC will be a first step for CA, but it's not a "win".

Ironically, while I'm certain that giving up CCW would not make LOC more likely, I'll bet you dimes to doughnuts that getting LOC would make CCW nearly impossible.

BION, I like LOC better than CCW, but I wouldn't want LOC right now because it would become a free for all to abuse in any way that they can. The way we can start is by doing what I suggest below, otherwise it will be worse than it is for UOC because we will be detained at GP and knocked to the concrete just because they can. I want both forms of carry to be considered a protected activity. Right now, neither form of carry is protected, except for the fact that 2A is incorporated as against the States, but this state still doesn't recognize that.

If they (the state) were smart, they would open up LOC. Businesses in this state would be putting up signs like crazy "No guns allowed"...school zone crap and everything else will essentially make it useless..unless you like taking long walks on the street and not go inside any buildings. I would much rather CCW than LOC. You are a walking target when you LOC/UOC anyways.

This is why I keep saying "CHALLENGE the businesses that post these policies, while challenging §626.9" If one is going to run a business and can't handle what they consider unintended consequences, they had better think twice about opening up a business.

Erik.

HowardW56
03-10-2011, 5:04 PM
It bothers me that we haven't heard from Gene or Brandon here.....

wildhawker
03-10-2011, 5:06 PM
First, this case isn't about "virtual shall issue" as the thread title represents incorrectly. We seek nothing less than the acknowledgment of the fundamental right to bear arms outside the home.

It's clear that this case wasn't a priority for the judge. I'm not convinced the crux of the constitutional argument will be considered in the decision, but I leave open the possibility that I'm wrong.

-BC

Paladin
03-10-2011, 5:10 PM
So, let's make a list of possible outcomes:

(1) Peruta was rightly decided: UOC is good enough for SD, CCWs still require arbitrary (and capriciously applied) GC.

Next step: appeal Richards and join w/Peruta in front of the 9th Circuit. Outcome of that maybe either #2 or #3 below.

(2) UOC is not good enough for SD (per Heller), Peruta was wrongly decided, (insert legal mumbo jumbo here), therefore LOC is legal unless you are legally disqualified from owning a firearm, and CCWs still require arbitrary (and capriciously applied) GC.

Next step: follow in OH's footsteps to force the state legislature to pass Shall Issue while simultaneously appealing and continuing the fight against the GC requirement. (You just know the UOCers are hoping this is the outcome. :D) We end up winning both LOC and Shall Issue CCWs.

(3) Peruta was wrongly decided, UOC insufficient for SD per Heller, state has banned LOC for all practical purposes, thus boxing our allowable RKBA for SD in public to CCWs, which are being denied by local gov'ts for SD as GC. Court states SD is sufficient GC per Heller. We win "virtual" Shall Issue.

Next step: Richards helps us in our appeal of Peruta.
How do we get LOC too?

*****

Are there any other possible outcomes or Next Steps that I've missed?

Paladin
03-10-2011, 5:13 PM
First, this case isn't about "virtual shall issue" as the thread title represents incorrectly. We seek nothing less than the acknowledgment of the fundamental right to bear arms outside the home.If we win, how will we exercise our new found RKBA outside the home: LOC or CC or both? If LOC, w/ or w/o a permit? If CC, w/ or w/o a permit? Or, if LOC w/o permit, then CC w/? Or, if LOC w/permit, then CC w/o?

yakmon
03-10-2011, 5:15 PM
Here's the entire twitter coverage:

In session.
Oral argument starts with a question from Judge England regarding the interpretation of Heller. How does an ability to carry come out?
:gura: asserts no right to bear in Yolo. Judge England asks why the County doesn't allow the right to bear by allowing the right to keep.
Judge seems focused on the concealed nature of carry in California.
Are you arguing that a local agency can't regulate? They can, but the process has to be compliant with constitutional safeguards.
Asking Yolo: does Heller hold a right to carry a concealed weapon? No.
Yolo: Concealed regulations are constitutional, but that means that the ban on loaded open carry is unconstitutional.
Is it possible that Prieto is applying the law in an unconstitutional manner?
:gura: : Sacramento can apply this statute Constitutionally?
Yolo has distinct from Sacramento...
Edit "has distinct problems from Sacramento" they have less officers and more crime apparently.
Yolo, first amendment framework doesn't apply, AG: courts are using the 1A, McDonald held that the 2A is not an inferior right
One thing Yolo has in common with Sacramento and all Counties is that the 14A and the 2A applies
J. England says, not a right to have any firearm, any place. AG: we don't disagree
J England, isn't an entire ban on concealed be considered a reasonable regulation. Loughner - what if there were 5 CCWers there?
AG: the state made a decision to not allow loaded open carry. Prieto is bound by that.
J England: It only held in the home. AG that's my case and we only challenged in the home
:gura: we concede you can ban concealed carry. We concede you can require permits. However, that assumes loaded open carry.
Yolo: No court has held that there isn't a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon.
:gura: Once there is a license regime it has to be constitutional.
Yolo: Peruta should show our policy is legit.
Judge England: Southern district isn't binding. I have a 12050 permit from Sacramento County. This case will be decided on it's merits.
Case submitted.

fixed!

Paladin
03-10-2011, 5:32 PM
First, this case isn't about "virtual shall issue" as the thread title represents incorrectly. We seek nothing less than the acknowledgment of the fundamental right to bear arms outside the home.Just let me know what you think would be a more accurate title, and I'm happy to edit it.

N6ATF
03-10-2011, 5:36 PM
You're not understanding, friend...

If I get the gist of it correctly, here's how it plays out.

Heller said the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, protected by the 2A and 14th... That is settled hash.

Now, California can offer two ways to bear a functional firearm.

They can allow loaded open carry, or loaded concealed carry.

If they allow (everyone) to loaded open carry, then they can have a concealed carry permit system in which the Sheriff has the ability to deny the permit for lack of good cause. After all, if you have the option to LOC, then it's just a matter of your preference to CCW. No right is denied.

If they DON'T allow loaded open carry, then giving the Sheriff the ability to arbitrarily deny for lack of GC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why? Because they just boxed you into a dead end. LOC denied by law, CCW denied by Sheriff. Your right to bear arms is effectively DENIED.

And CA has decided to outlaw loaded open carry... thus...

Are you ready for it?

Allowing Sheriff's to deny CCW permits by stating that "self defense is not good enough cause" is unconstitutional.

So because LOC is illegal, then arbitrary CCW permit denial based on insufficient GC is equally illegal. You cannot deny both ways of carrying. See Heller and McDonald.

We win. Case closed.

I already got it, but too many lawyers and judges act like they don't. Which is why this is not a 100% lock at the district, or even appellate, level.

But AZ isn't full of soccer moms who will organize themselves to place frantic "man with gun" calls outside of every supermarket they want to "make safe from those crazy gun people" and police who will be more then happy to slap citizens into handcuffs.

You said the magic words... In CA, since the government is run by Brady Campaign members (criminals, who we misogynistically euphamise as "soccer moms"), they get medals every time they harass a civil gun owner.

AZ, I'll bet, actually prosecutes people for abuse of the 911 system and making false police reports. It is far from a criminals' paradise, which is why smart criminals move to CA.

Glock22Fan
03-10-2011, 5:45 PM
You said the magic words... In CA, since the government is run by Brady Campaign members (criminals, who we misogynistically euphamise as "soccer moms"), they get medals every time they harass a civil gun owner.


For one moment, I thought you were recommending that we euthanize them.

OTOH . . . .:D

J.D.Allen
03-10-2011, 5:48 PM
You are a walking target when you LOC/UOC anyways.

Proof please.

navyinrwanda
03-10-2011, 5:51 PM
If we win, how will we exercise our new found RKBA outside the home: LOC or CC or both? If LOC, w/ or w/o a permit? If CC, w/ or w/o a permit? Or, if LOC w/o permit, then CC w/? Or, if LOC w/permit, then CC w/o?

The relief sought in this case is:

Strike the “good moral character” and “good cause” provisions of PC § 12050 as unconstitutional on their face, and as applied to bar applicants who are otherwise legally qualified to possess firearms and who assert self-defense as their “good cause” for seeking a handgun carry permit;
Permanently enjoin Yolo County from from enforcing the “good moral character” and “good cause” requirements of PC § 12050 against handgun carry permit applicants who seek a permit for self-defense (and are otherwise qualified to obtain a handgun carry permit).

So exercise of carry outside of the home would be via a California permit issued by the sheriff under authority granted by PC § 12050.

Blackhawk556
03-10-2011, 5:57 PM
that's what everyone was saying after the SD case and look what happen. I wouldn't get too excited yet. since they judge said he has a ccw, i hope he doesn't think only he and his peers should have one.
I changed my mind based on his final comments I think we will actually win this one.

I wish it could be this easy:(
You're not understanding, friend...

If I get the gist of it correctly, here's how it plays out.

Heller said the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, protected by the 2A and 14th... That is settled hash.

Now, California can offer two ways to bear a functional firearm.

They can allow loaded open carry, or loaded concealed carry.

If they allow (everyone) to loaded open carry, then they can have a concealed carry permit system in which the Sheriff has the ability to deny the permit for lack of good cause. After all, if you have the option to LOC, then it's just a matter of your preference to CCW. No right is denied.

If they DON'T allow loaded open carry, then giving the Sheriff the ability to arbitrarily deny for lack of GC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why? Because they just boxed you into a dead end. LOC denied by law, CCW denied by Sheriff. Your right to bear arms is effectively DENIED.

And CA has decided to outlaw loaded open carry... thus...

Are you ready for it?

Allowing Sheriff's to deny CCW permits by stating that "self defense is not good enough cause" is unconstitutional.

So because LOC is illegal, then arbitrary CCW permit denial based on insufficient GC is equally illegal. You cannot deny both ways of carrying. See Heller and McDonald.

We win. Case closed.

I sure hope so
The benefit I see is that since Peruta was such a bad decision, it was a poor choice for Yolo to base their defense on it so much. With the judge outright saying Peruta isn't binding, that sounds to me like he is tossing out at least half of the arguments Yolo has made (at least what I have read in writing) as irrelevant.

As of now I'm expecting a win here.

I think allowing only LOC and not ccw would be bad. I can see a rise in stolen weapons
If they (the state) were smart, they would open up LOC. Businesses in this state would be putting up signs like crazy "No guns allowed"...school zone crap and everything else will essentially make it useless..unless you like taking long walks on the street and not go inside any buildings. I would much rather CCW than LOC. You are a walking target when you LOC/UOC anyways.

this
But AZ isn't full of soccer moms who will organize themselves to place frantic "man with gun" calls outside of every supermarket they want to "make safe from those crazy gun people" and police who will be more then happy to slap citizens into handcuffs.

LOC will be a first step for CA, but it's not a "win".

Ironically, while I'm certain that giving up CCW would not make LOC more likely, I'll bet you dimes to doughnuts that getting LOC would make CCW nearly impossible.

:gura:
That will put us on equal footing with Peruta and put Alan in a seat at the Appeals table...that much closer to the 5 of 9 - not such a bad thing.

diginit
03-10-2011, 5:59 PM
The relief sought in this case is:

Strike the “good moral character” and “good cause” provisions of PC § 12050 as unconstitutional on their face, and as applied to bar applicants who are otherwise legally qualified to possess firearms and who assert self-defense as their “good cause” for seeking a handgun carry permit;
Permanently enjoin Yolo County from from enforcing the “good moral character” and “good cause” requirements of PC § 12050 against handgun carry permit applicants who seek a permit for self-defense (and are otherwise qualified to obtain a handgun carry permit).
So exercise of carry outside of the home would be via a California permit issued by the sheriff under authority granted by PC § 12050.

What about the rest of Ca.? Yolo is not the only county that needs reform.

Coded-Dude
03-10-2011, 6:03 PM
Yolo is merely a bump in the road for the Steam Roller that is the pro-gun movement. the end goal is common sense carry for all

navyinrwanda
03-10-2011, 6:03 PM
What about the rest of Ca.? Yolo is not the only county that needs reform.

A favorable Ninth Circuit decision would be required to force compliance throughout California. But a strong decision in this case would go a long ways towards convincing all but the most intransigent jurisdictions to shape-up.

diginit
03-10-2011, 6:06 PM
:cheers2::79:

navyinrwanda
03-10-2011, 6:10 PM
While you can't necessarily determine the ruling on a case based on the approach by the judge and questioning, I believe the judge will come down against us. His demeanor did not give me a confidence.
His questioning certainly makes predictions tough. But not all judges begin to focus on a case until all the pleadings are final and/or at the final hearing... so it's possible that England's “confusion” may have been due to unfamiliarity with the issues – or he could simply have been arguing Yolo's case in anticipation of a ruling against them.

Anchors
03-10-2011, 6:11 PM
For one moment, I thought you were recommending that we euthanize them.

OTOH . . . .:D

:rofl2:

Grakken
03-10-2011, 6:19 PM
I should have ended my " You are a target if you LOC/UOC" comment with a "IMHO". Lets not debate it anymore (because it will go nowhere). Apologies.

J.D.Allen
03-10-2011, 6:21 PM
that's what everyone was saying after the SD case and look what happen. I wouldn't get too excited yet. since they judge said he has a ccw, i hope he doesn't think only he and his peers should have one.

Exactly what I was thinking when I read those comments.

I think allowing only LOC and not ccw would be bad. I can see a rise in stolen weapons

What??? Oh good grief! Please tell me you're joking.

J.D.Allen
03-10-2011, 6:22 PM
I should have ended my " You are a target if you LOC/UOC" comment with a "IMHO". Lets not debate it anymore (because it will go nowhere). Apologies.

Cool. Agreed.

N6ATF
03-10-2011, 6:23 PM
For one moment, I thought you were recommending that we euthanize them.

OTOH . . . .:D

That would be letting them off easy... life in a hard labor camp in the desert or arctic, more like it.

Grakken
03-10-2011, 6:25 PM
As for shopping, the free LOC states don't seem to have a real problem with it. I LOC in AZ while shopping with little difficulty in most national chain and mom and pop stores who want the business.

For your consideration...http://www.usacarry.com/forums/open-carry-discussion/7230-open-carry-argument.html

I care not for what the free people in Arizona do (other than setting a fine example for the rest of the states), I don't live there, don't really want to either (San Diego Weather > Arizona). Their overall mentality is obviously not like ours, or we wouldnt be having this convo. People don't bat an eye too much over there regarding guns. Here, you can't walk down the street with a can of Raid exposed without some roach calling the cops.

Thanks for the link though. Will read it soon.

diginit
03-10-2011, 6:27 PM
That would be letting them off easy... life in a hard labor camp in the desert or arctic, more like it.

Wow. So harsh. I was thinking a kennel would suffice. ;)

Paladin
03-10-2011, 6:36 PM
The relief sought in this case is:

Strike the “good moral character” and “good cause” provisions of PC § 12050 as unconstitutional on their face, and as applied to bar applicants who are otherwise legally qualified to possess firearms and who assert self-defense as their “good cause” for seeking a handgun carry permit;
Permanently enjoin Yolo County from from enforcing the “good moral character” and “good cause” requirements of PC § 12050 against handgun carry permit applicants who seek a permit for self-defense (and are otherwise qualified to obtain a handgun carry permit).

So exercise of carry outside of the home would be via a California permit issued by the sheriff under authority granted by PC § 12050.Okay, going by what you wrote, if I understand it correctly, the GMC and GC parts of the law get constructively stricken. IOW, they remain part of the statute until the law is repealed/amended/whatever, but they are legally void due to unconstitutionality. Thus, what is left is a Shall Issue permit system. So I'll edit the title of this thread to remove "virtual."

If wildhawker says, "Wrong again, Paladin. After Gura argues Richards before SCOTUS we'll end up with Constitutional Carry!" I will be MORE THAN HAPPY to edit it again. :D

scarville
03-10-2011, 6:44 PM
Don't give them any ideas.
I also feared that if LOC was the only method, businesses would just regulate by denying everyone.
Is GFSZ still an issue with legal LOC? (I always forget CA has a GFSZ of it's own).
Everyone here seems to think "we" can win on the one or the other argument but I still think the legislature can screw over gun owners. The ace up their sleeve is that they have to give one or the other but not both. Imagine the courts say, No LOC means you have to let them have a CCW. The sheriff asks for a stay (or whatever it is called in legalese) until he can appeal. The legislature then passes a shall issue LOC bill with some "reasonable" requirement (translation: BOHICA!) and reinstates may issue CCW but with greatly expand privileges.

Now we have to fight crap like the GFSZ while carrying openly and the CCW holders may actually fight us because they do not want to risk their new perquisites. I know the common wisdom is the anti will not yield strategically but politickians have been using this kind of a strategy since before Rome was young.

diginit
03-10-2011, 6:47 PM
As far as UOC and LOC goes, I haven't been hasseled yet. But I don't UOC for display or to make a point. My local liqour store owner looked at me funny the first time. Hasn't blinked since. The gas station attendant, She doesn't seem to care either. Most seem to think I am a cop or realize I am not a threat. I had one guy in a store once say that I'd better not let a cop see that. I just explained that it was legal to UOC. He was curious.
If someone tried to steal it, I also carry pepper spray, Or I could just pistol whip the thief. If LOC is adopted, Fine, But to get a 12050 permit with SD as a valid reason would be ideal. With so many ignorant flower sniffers and rose colored glasses wearing people basking in the sunshine without a care in the world. Concealed is better.

dantodd
03-10-2011, 6:47 PM
I think allowing only LOC and not ccw would be bad. I can see a rise in stolen weapons


That would explain why police only carry concealed. Oh wait...

Well it must explain why so many cops lose their weapons to theft. Oh wait...

Well surely it is why so many are stolen in open carry states. Oh wait...

It must explain the rash of thefts from UOCers in CA. Oh wait...

diginit
03-10-2011, 6:51 PM
Okay, going by what you wrote, if I understand it correctly, the GMC and GC parts of the law get constructively stricken. IOW, they remain part of the statute until the law is repealed/amended/whatever, but they are legally void due to unconstitutionality. Thus, what is left is a Shall Issue permit system. So I'll edit the title of this thread to remove "virtual."

I was thinking the same thing. Or that things may just stay as they are. But optimisim and hope over rides that thought.

J.D.Allen
03-10-2011, 6:51 PM
That would explain why police only carry concealed. Oh wait...

Well it must explain why so many cops lose their weapons to theft. Oh wait...

Well surely it is why so many are stolen in open carry states. Oh wait...

It must explain the rash of thefts from UOCers in CA. Oh wait...

It must also explain why no LEO's ever OC while not on duty and while in plain clothes. Oh wait...

navyinrwanda
03-10-2011, 6:53 PM
Okay, going by what you wrote, if I understand it correctly, the GMC and GC parts of the law get constructively stricken. IOW, they remain part of the statute until the law is repealed/amended/whatever, but they are legally void due to unconstitutionality. Thus, what is left is a Shall Issue permit system. So I'll edit the title of this thread to remove "virtual."

If wildhawker says, "Wrong again, Paladin. After Gura argues Richards before SCOTUS we'll end up with Constitutional Carry!" I will be MORE THAN HAPPY to edit it again. :D
It'd still be a permit system, so “shall issue unless otherwise prohibited” would be an accurate description of the result of a win. But any decision granting relief must explicitly acknowledge that there is a right to armed (with a functional firearm) self-defense outside of one's home, subject to reasonable time, place and manner regulation.

Note that the judge explicitly asked Gura if restricting carry to inside the home was a permissible TPM regulation and he quoted several occurrences of the phrase “inside the home” from the Heller decision as support. Gura's response re: Heller was his case and he only challenged in-the-home regulations seemed persuasive.

J.D.Allen
03-10-2011, 6:55 PM
I care not for what the free people in Arizona do (other than setting a fine example for the rest of the states), I don't live there, don't really want to either (San Diego Weather > Arizona). Their overall mentality is obviously not like ours, or we wouldnt be having this convo. People don't bat an eye too much over there regarding guns. Here, you can't walk down the street with a can of Raid exposed without some roach calling the cops.

Thanks for the link though. Will read it soon.

I totally agree with you about the difference in the culture regarding exposed guns in AZ and CA. It's night and day. So if a ton of people started carrying exposed weapons in CA it would be a big deal. A big, sky is falling, freaking out deal...at first.

Wanna know why the culture is so different in AZ? It's because people are used to seeing people carrying exposed weapons and NOT committing crimes with them. Wanna know how they got used to it?

I'll give you a hint: it wasn't because people refused to OC for fear of scaring others...

Connor P Price
03-10-2011, 7:03 PM
All the LOC speculation in this thread seems a tad premature. It was mentioned today, however its important to remember that it isn't precisely the issue at hand in this case, and therefore is not at all a likely outcome.

If for some strange reason (probably taking a few additional steps from here) we ended up with LOC in CA, I don't look at that as a bad thing at all. As long as CA gun owners get out there and LOC on a daily basis, eventually we'd probably end up with Shall Issue CCW anyway because the general populace just doesn't want to see us all walking around with guns on our hips.

diginit
03-10-2011, 7:04 PM
I totally agree with you about the difference in the culture regarding exposed guns in AZ and CA. It's night and day. So if a ton of people started carrying exposed weapons in CA it would be a big deal. A big, sky is falling, freaking out deal...at first.

Wanna know why the culture is so different in AZ? It's because people are used to seeing people carrying exposed weapons and NOT committing crimes with them. Wanna know how they got used to it?

I'll give you a hint: it wasn't because people refused to OC for fear of scaring others...

Thanks JD, Input from a state that has already gone through this "change" is invaluable.

navyinrwanda
03-10-2011, 7:08 PM
All the LOC speculation in this thread seems a tad premature. It was mentioned today, however its important to remember that it isn't precisely the issue at hand in this case, and therefore is not at all a likely outcome.

Indeed.

Loaded open carry (licensed or otherwise) would most likely require a fairly major change in litigation strategy, somewhat akin to starting over from the beginning...

diginit
03-10-2011, 7:16 PM
Indeed.

Loaded open carry (licensed or otherwise) would most likely require a fairly major change in litigation strategy, somewhat akin to starting over from the beginning...

So the public would have to be reinformed opposite of the medias' interpitation that guns are bad. We on this forum know that guns save lives. The media owned public doesn't. But it's funny that on all my jobs as a remodel carpenter, Homeowners seem to agree with my views of firearms after they get to know me. Even if they don't own one. We DO have a chance. Providing this goes our way. Then the media would have no choice but to finally, actually tell the truth about firearms in the hands of the public. IMHO

Connor P Price
03-10-2011, 7:25 PM
Then the media would have no choice but to finally, actually tell the truth about firearms in the hands of the public. IMHO

Don't get to excited, the media does what is profitable and that's all. If the truth about firearms becomes profitable then they will tell it. If lies under the guise of statistics remain profitable, they'll stick with the status quo.

diginit
03-10-2011, 7:32 PM
Don't get to excited, the media does what is profitable and that's all. If the truth about firearms becomes profitable then they will tell it. If lies under the guise of statistics remain profitable, they'll stick with the status quo.

Mods...CG needs to buy airtime on Ch 2 during the 7:00 news. Hint, Hint. :D Just kidding, I know you are putting donations and time to good use. THANK YOU! But if you ever have the inclination...Put it on the air for everyone to see!

navyinrwanda
03-10-2011, 7:33 PM
To the best of my knowledge, no one in California is currently (via litigation) asking for loaded open carry.

And in the courts, one rarely gets something that hasn't been specifically demanded.

Connor P Price
03-10-2011, 7:41 PM
Mods...CG needs to buy airtime on Ch 2 during the 7:00 news. Hint, Hint. :D Just kidding, I know you are putting donations and time to good use. THANK YOU! But if you ever have the inclination...Put it on the air for everyone to see!

They've gotten out there with some fairly mainstream media before when they did the posters. Its all a matter of strategic timing. I certainly wouldn't mind my donations going to fund that.

diginit
03-10-2011, 7:55 PM
To the best of my knowledge, no one in California is currently (via litigation) asking for loaded open carry.

And in the courts, one rarely gets something that hasn't been specifically demanded.

As I understand, In order to be constitionally valid, We must either have a CCW system whereas anyone that is legally allowed to own a firearm is permited to carry it concealed, loaded and ready for self defence. After jumping through hoops and paying $ for the right.
Or have a system where any citizen, that is not a prohibited person, is allowed to carry a loaded firearm openly after jumping and giving money to the state. One or the other. This case is the prerunner and can lead to Ca. eventually being admitted to the other free states. My layman interpitation. Right or wrong? I'm new at this...

Connor P Price
03-10-2011, 8:03 PM
As I understand, In order to be constitionally valid, We must either have a CCW system whereas anyone that is legally allowed to own a firearm is permited to carry it concealed, loaded and ready for self defence. After jumping through hoops and paying $ for the right.
Or have a system where any citizen, that is not a prohibited person, is allowed to carry a loaded firearm openly after jumping and giving money to the state. One or the other. This case is the prerunner and can lead to Ca. eventually being admitted to the other free states. My layman interpitation. Right or wrong? I'm new at this...

As a general rule of thumb throughout the nation, you're right. One or the other must be recognized. However it is generally understood that judges should decide in the most narrow respect possible on cases they are given. They are supposed to decided on the case, and only the case presented. They are not legislators and should not be making new laws entirely.

I believe that's what NavyinRwanda was getting at. Judges generally shouldn't decide on anything they don't have to within the narrow confines of the particular case at hand.

safewaysecurity
03-10-2011, 8:08 PM
I feel that if we win that we can expect the state legislature to start passing laws that heavily restrict our right to carry. Everything from WHERE we can carry ( I expect a ban on schools, courthouses, bars and restaurants, airports, school zones, state government buildings ect ) also the requirements to obtain a carry permit ( more training, certain guns only, longer waiting periods for permits, lowering the amount of time before you need to renew, referalls from a certain amount of people, psychological evaluation, ) of course most of the restriction would be found unconstitutional but they are not going to go down without making our lives hell imo.

E Pluribus Unum
03-10-2011, 8:14 PM
And now... the ever-present "2 weeks" wait begins....

CCWFacts
03-10-2011, 8:31 PM
And now... the ever-present "2 weeks" wait begins....

Much more than that. Whatever the ruling is, it's likely that the losing side will appeal it, and (IANAL) I assume the ruling will be stayed during appeals. Going through the 9th Circuit, and then (possibly) to SCOTUS could take years. How long has Nordyke (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Nordyke_v._King) been going now? How long is Palmer vs. DC (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Palmer_v._District_of_Columbia) taking?

Spooled Up
03-10-2011, 8:41 PM
It must also explain why no LEO's ever OC while not on duty and while in plain clothes. Oh wait...

They cant LOC if not in uniform with a badge. That part is covered under the BSIS.

hoffmang
03-10-2011, 9:00 PM
His honor spent a lot of time on the concealed supposed argument. Towards the end it did seem that he finally understood that it is the state scheme that dictates the manner - not the request of the plaintiffs.

Things I liked: UOC didn't seem to be taken seriously as the right to bear arms by this court.

Things I didn't like: The court seemed willing to seriously consider that bear arms only happened inside the home - which is such an ironic turnabout from the old anti-gun line...

-Gene

Connor P Price
03-10-2011, 9:04 PM
Things I didn't like: The court seemed willing to seriously consider that bear arms only happened inside the home - which is such an ironic turnabout from the old anti-gun line...

-Gene

If only our founders had been more specific... maybe they could have specified that there is a difference between one keeping (having) and bearing (carrying on ones person.) That would make it so much easier to understand...

RobG
03-10-2011, 9:05 PM
His honor spent a lot of time on the concealed supposed argument. Towards the end it did seem that he finally understood that it is the state scheme that dictates the manner - not the request of the plaintiffs.

Things I liked: UOC didn't seem to be taken seriously as the right to bear arms by this court.

Things I didn't like: The court seemed willing to seriously consider that bear arms only happened inside the home - which is such an ironic turnabout from the old anti-gun line...

-Gene

"Bear" inside the home seems like a ridiculous assertion. In ones home you can carry your firearm in any manner you desire. "Bearing" in any manner inside ones home is not regulated so why would it even come up?

N6ATF
03-10-2011, 9:12 PM
All the LOC speculation in this thread seems a tad premature. It was mentioned today, however its important to remember that it isn't precisely the issue at hand in this case, and therefore is not at all a likely outcome.

If for some strange reason (probably taking a few additional steps from here) we ended up with LOC in CA, I don't look at that as a bad thing at all. As long as CA gun owners get out there and LOC on a daily basis, eventually we'd probably end up with Shall Issue CCW anyway because the general populace just doesn't want to see us all walking around with guns on our hips.

It damn well hypothetically better end up in Constitutional Carry because I'm not paying more than a penny to put a jacket on.

They cant LOC if not in uniform with a badge. That part is covered under the BSIS.

BSIS doesn't cover LEOs unless the LEOs are doing security or investigative services.

Connor P Price
03-10-2011, 9:16 PM
It damn well hypothetically better end up in Constitutional Carry because I'm not paying more than a penny to put a jacket on.

I don't disagree with you, that's certainly the way it should be, but that's a step to be taken much further down the road we're headed.

E Pluribus Unum
03-10-2011, 9:21 PM
If only our founders had been more specific... maybe they could have specified that there is a difference between one keeping (having) and bearing (carrying on ones person.) That would make it so much easier to understand...

How much more specific does one need to be?


the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

How much more specific does it need to be? If anything, the text was TOO LONG. It's all the extra stuff around it that the antis have used for years to circumvent it.

The problem is that the SCOTUS has ruled that the "Shall not be infringed" is assumed... that ALL amendments should have the "shall not be infringed" implied.

It is my opinion that the original framers put "shall not be infringed" in there on purpose... that there is NO reasonable restriction on the second amendment. It's the only place in the whole document where that phrase appears; it must mean something.

Glock22Fan
03-10-2011, 9:21 PM
I totally agree with you about the difference in the culture regarding exposed guns in AZ and CA. It's night and day. So if a ton of people started carrying exposed weapons in CA it would be a big deal. A big, sky is falling, freaking out deal...at first.

Wanna know why the culture is so different in AZ? It's because people are used to seeing people carrying exposed weapons and NOT committing crimes with them. Wanna know how they got used to it?

I'll give you a hint: it wasn't because people refused to OC for fear of scaring others...

This argument reminds me of the old story about the tourist in Cornwall (a big tourist area in England) who asks the way to a certain destination. The local yokel thinks about it for a while and then says "Arhhh, but if I were going there, I certainly wouldn't start from here."

Arizona and California are two different places to start from. The same tactics are not necessarily appropriate.

Purple K
03-10-2011, 9:33 PM
"Bear" inside the home seems like a ridiculous assertion. In ones home you can carry your firearm in any manner you desire. "Bearing" in any manner inside ones home is not regulated so why would it even come up?

I'm glad that AG was given the opportunity to state.... "Hunting doesn't happen in the home, target shooting doesn't happen in the home....."

N6ATF
03-10-2011, 9:34 PM
How much more specific does one need to be?

How much more specific does it need to be? If anything, the text was TOO LONG. It's all the extra stuff around it that the antis have used for years to circumvent it.

More for the "How would you rewrite the 2A" thread...

"The free shall have arms, he who interferes shall die where he stands."

I'm glad that AG was given the opportunity to state.... "Hunting doesn't happen in the home, target shooting doesn't happen in the home....."

Unless you're really poor (hunting) or really rich (target shooting).

Connor P Price
03-10-2011, 10:50 PM
How much more specific does one need to be?


Read a bit of sarcasm into my post. Then you'll see what i meant.

Anchors
03-11-2011, 4:31 AM
As far as UOC and LOC goes, I haven't been hasseled yet. But I don't UOC for display or to make a point. My local liqour store owner looked at me funny the first time. Hasn't blinked since. The gas station attendant, She doesn't seem to care either. Most seem to think I am a cop or realize I am not a threat. I had one guy in a store once say that I'd better not let a cop see that. I just explained that it was legal to UOC. He was curious.
If someone tried to steal it, I also carry pepper spray, Or I could just pistol whip the thief. If LOC is adopted, Fine, But to get a 12050 permit with SD as a valid reason would be ideal. With so many ignorant flower sniffers and rose colored glasses wearing people basking in the sunshine without a care in the world. Concealed is better.

You live in a city with a population of a little over 100,000. I expect them to give you a little leeway there.
I think if I did that here in Orange County, they would call SWAT and I would at the very least be tasting asphalt before everything got squared away. haha.

It must also explain why no LEO's ever OC while not on duty and while in plain clothes. Oh wait...

I agree.

I feel that if we win that we can expect the state legislature to start passing laws that heavily restrict our right to carry. Everything from WHERE we can carry ( I expect a ban on schools, courthouses, bars and restaurants, airports, school zones, state government buildings ect ) also the requirements to obtain a carry permit ( more training, certain guns only, longer waiting periods for permits, lowering the amount of time before you need to renew, referalls from a certain amount of people, psychological evaluation, ) of course most of the restriction would be found unconstitutional but they are not going to go down without making our lives hell imo.

Yup. I think you might be right.
It is like the legislature's version of the old LEO saying, "You might beat the case, but you are still going to take the ride".
Except the legislature obviously has no real basis to do this, whereas an officer's job isn't to decide if someone is guilty or innocent.

His honor spent a lot of time on the concealed supposed argument. Towards the end it did seem that he finally understood that it is the state scheme that dictates the manner - not the request of the plaintiffs.

Things I liked: UOC didn't seem to be taken seriously as the right to bear arms by this court.

Things I didn't like: The court seemed willing to seriously consider that bear arms only happened inside the home - which is such an ironic turnabout from the old anti-gun line...

-Gene

My favorite part was Englund's closing sentences from the Twitter feed.
I'm glad he has a permit, maybe he will empathize a bit more (maybe).

If only our founders had been more specific... maybe they could have specified that there is a difference between one keeping (having) and bearing (carrying on ones person.) That would make it so much easier to understand...

Haha if only! Damn founders.
I think they were REALLY specific, unfortunately some people think rewriting the most important document in the history of our nation is a great idea (clearly some parts needed amending, but that is what AMENDMENTS are for).

They cant LOC if not in uniform with a badge. That part is covered under the BSIS.

Costa Mesa (I think homicide) Detective was just in my store the other day LOC with his badge on his belt.
Super nice dude too, the weird part is, I think it was a Sig?
Can they carry whatever off duty?

Paladin
03-11-2011, 5:21 AM
His honor spent a lot of time on the concealed supposed argument. Towards the end it did seem that he finally understood that it is the state scheme that dictates the manner - not the request of the plaintiffs.Don't understand what you mean by "concealed supposed argument".

Things I liked: UOC didn't seem to be taken seriously as the right to bear arms by this court.Judge England, by virtual of applying for, getting and renewing a CCW, has obviously considered personal, armed self-defense, chosen a suitable HGN and holster for it, practiced w/it, and carries it (unless he just likes having another useless piece of paper in his wallet). He's also probably read and heard the details of personal armed conflicts either in the news, on the job (criminal cases), or from his legal peers and has thought about various SD scenarios. Put those two together and even a judge will understand the ridiculousness of requiring someone to load up while someone else is attempting to inflict death or serious/grave bodily injury upon them. IOW, Judge England is no fool, unlike the judge in the Peruta case.

Things I didn't like: The court seemed willing to seriously consider that bear arms only happened inside the home - which is such an ironic turnabout from the old anti-gun line...Yeah, the National Guard is stationed in my home! LOL! Since the 3rd A prohibit quartering of troop in people's homes, how would the judge resolve that conflict between the 2nd and 3rd As?

I guess the militia Minutemen at Lexington and Concord should be glad they weren't hamstrung by our supposed "2nd A RKBA" when they went outside of their homes bearing their arms to meet the British. :rolleyes:

dantodd
03-11-2011, 6:50 AM
My favorite part was Englund's closing sentences from the Twitter feed.
I'm glad he has a permit, maybe he will empathize a bit more (maybe).


Based on how well that works on CoP and sheriffs in CA I wouldn't bet on that.

OleCuss
03-11-2011, 6:51 AM
I think the judge said Peruta was not binding - not that it was not persuasive.

If the judge's tone was quite dismissive when he pointed out that Peruta is not binding, then that could be a good thing. Otherwise I'm not sure one can read too much into that.

The most obvious thing is that we don't know what the ruling will be. At this point the judge may not know, either.

Connor P Price
03-11-2011, 7:42 AM
Haha if only! Damn founders.
I think they were REALLY specific, unfortunately some people think rewriting the most important document in the history of our nation is a great idea (clearly some parts needed amending, but that is what AMENDMENTS are for).


I'm with you, I think what I said is EXACTLY what they did. I was just being satirical since our opposition doesn't seem to understand that "keep and bear" actually means exactly what it says.

Grakken
03-11-2011, 7:51 AM
I think the judge said Peruta was not binding - not that it was not persuasive.

If the judge's tone was quite dismissive when he pointed out that Peruta is not binding, then that could be a good thing. Otherwise I'm not sure one can read too much into that.

The most obvious thing is that we don't know what the ruling will be. At this point the judge may not know, either.

Well, im expecting a loss because this is well, California. I'm hoping for the best though.

I remember everyone being encouraged by the Judge in the Peruta case and she went completely clown car on her rationale. This is being run by AG so that is a big bonus but, this is Cali, not SCOTUS. I hope I am proven wrong. Would love to eat crow.

With that being said, did BUSH normally pick pro-constitution type judges?

Untamed1972
03-11-2011, 8:11 AM
I guess the militia Minutemen at Lexington and Concord should be glad they weren't hamstrung by our supposed "2nd A RKBA" when they went outside of their homes bearing their arms to meet the British. :rolleyes:

Except that the 2A didn't exist yet then....and by taking up arms against the crown they were in fact criminals in the eyes of british law at that point.

yellowfin
03-11-2011, 8:11 AM
With that being said, did BUSH normally pick pro-constitution type judges?He picked Roberts and Alito, we know that much.

Paladin
03-11-2011, 8:19 AM
Except that the 2A didn't exist yet then....and by taking up arms against the crown they were in fact criminals in the eyes of british law at that point.That was my point: under that view of our 2nd A RKBA they would be criminals even after we got our 2nd A. IOW, we're still under an oppressive regime if that view is true.

Peaceful John
03-11-2011, 8:35 AM
You're not understanding, friend...

If I get the gist of it correctly, here's how it plays out.

Heller said the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, protected by the 2A and 14th... That is settled hash.

Now, California can offer two ways to bear a functional firearm.

They can allow loaded open carry, or loaded concealed carry.

If they allow (everyone) to loaded open carry, then they can have a concealed carry permit system in which the Sheriff has the ability to deny the permit for lack of good cause. After all, if you have the option to LOC, then it's just a matter of your preference to CCW. No right is denied.

If they DON'T allow loaded open carry, then giving the Sheriff the ability to arbitrarily deny for lack of GC is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why? Because they just boxed you into a dead end. LOC denied by law, CCW denied by Sheriff. Your right to bear arms is effectively DENIED.

And CA has decided to outlaw loaded open carry... thus...

Are you ready for it?

Allowing Sheriff's to deny CCW permits by stating that "self defense is not good enough cause" is unconstitutional.

So because LOC is illegal, then arbitrary CCW permit denial based on insufficient GC is equally illegal. You cannot deny both ways of carrying. See Heller and McDonald.

We win. Case closed.



What a splendid summary, Bruss 01! You've written something even a Democrat might understand.

Bugei
03-11-2011, 8:49 AM
As I understand, In order to be constitionally valid, We must either have a CCW system whereas anyone that is legally allowed to own a firearm is permited to carry it concealed, loaded and ready for self defence. After jumping through hoops and paying $ for the right.
Or have a system where any citizen, that is not a prohibited person, is allowed to carry a loaded firearm openly after jumping and giving money to the state. One or the other. This case is the prerunner and can lead to Ca. eventually being admitted to the other free states. My layman interpitation. Right or wrong? I'm new at this...

As I see it, the "jumping through hoops" part isn't actually required by the Constitution. Nor is paying. If California wishes to provide LCC and/or LOC without a license, I'm pretty sure it would meet Constitutional requirements.

Of course, cleaning up the confetti after the party might be onerous, but I'm willing to shoulder that burden.

Bugei
03-11-2011, 8:57 AM
How much more specific does one need to be?



How much more specific does it need to be? If anything, the text was TOO LONG. It's all the extra stuff around it that the antis have used for years to circumvent it.

The problem is that the SCOTUS has ruled that the "Shall not be infringed" is assumed... that ALL amendments should have the "shall not be infringed" implied.

It is my opinion that the original framers put "shall not be infringed" in there on purpose... that there is NO reasonable restriction on the second amendment. It's the only place in the whole document where that phrase appears; it must mean something.

First off, well said. I agree completely.

I don't see any exceptions or exclusions in the wording of the Second Amendment. For that reason, I think that anyone who does see those things is grinding an agenda rather than actually supporting the Bill of Rights.

stix213
03-11-2011, 9:04 AM
I was thinking the fact that the judge has a CCW will help us in that he should realize that unloaded carry is no means of self defense, so UOC being legal does not satisfy the constitution.

chris12
03-11-2011, 9:11 AM
If LOC is banned and LCC is allowed, wouldn't that go against the Heller decision because whole classes of weapons (shotguns, rifles) are being banned (from bear instead of keep) since they by definition cannot be concealed?

Manic Moran
03-11-2011, 9:16 AM
Put those two together and even a judge will understand the ridiculousness of requiring someone to load up while someone else is attempting to inflict death or serious/grave bodily injury upon them. IOW, Judge England is no fool, unlike the judge in the Peruta case.

On the other hand, from the fact that he has a license, he could also conclude that the current status seems to be working out as intended. Issuance for those who really need it does happen, after all, he's a Judge, he really needs it, and he has a license issued. He agrees with the Sheriff in his case. Doesn't necessarily imply he's going to disagree with the Sheriff in the case of Joe Bloggs on the Street.

I'd be very cautious about making positive conclusions without good cause.

NTM

stix213
03-11-2011, 9:18 AM
I feel that if we win that we can expect the state legislature to start passing laws that heavily restrict our right to carry. Everything from WHERE we can carry ( I expect a ban on schools, courthouses, bars and restaurants, airports, school zones, state government buildings ect ) also the requirements to obtain a carry permit ( more training, certain guns only, longer waiting periods for permits, lowering the amount of time before you need to renew, referalls from a certain amount of people, psychological evaluation, ) of course most of the restriction would be found unconstitutional but they are not going to go down without making our lives hell imo.

I doubt it since the people in power with CCW's would also have to follow those restrictions

CSDGuy
03-11-2011, 9:38 AM
If LOC is banned and LCC is allowed, wouldn't that go against the Heller decision because whole classes of weapons (shotguns, rifles) are being banned (from bear instead of keep) since they by definition cannot be concealed?
I don't think so. The LOC "ban" is what's status quo now in incorporated areas and areas where firearm discharge is prohibited so nothing would change on that anyway. PC 12050 licenses are only for revolvers, pistols, and other concealable weapons. Long guns, by definition, can not be concealed, so they do not fall under 12025... PC 12031 still applies to them, but the definition of whether or not they're loaded is more closely controlled by People v. Clark as that involved a long gun (shotgun, specifically).

The only change that might happen would be a ban on LOC in all areas of California, not just those places were it's already illegal to have a loaded firearm... and I just don't see things going that far.

Maestro Pistolero
03-11-2011, 9:44 AM
If LOC is banned and LCC is allowed, wouldn't that go against the Heller decision because whole classes of weapons (shotguns, rifles) are being banned (from bear instead of keep) since they by definition cannot be concealed?

Very good point. I haven't heard that argument though it's been hiding in plain sight, so-to-speak. It is a very strong point, IMO.

BUT, the strategy seems to be 'wring all we can out of LCC' before going down that path, because LOC is much less circuitous, constitutionally speaking. If/when we get fair CCW issue for self defense, we still have the more historically protected LOC (present arguments as to the 'choices' made by CA regarding carry notwithstanding).

E Pluribus Unum
03-11-2011, 9:53 AM
Honestly, LCC is much better.... Given the choice, if the state allows LOC in order to save arbitrary CCW, you know anyone that chooses to do it will be hassled by police. There is a certain advantage to concealed carry in that most people cannot tell you have the weapon.

Glock22Fan
03-11-2011, 9:54 AM
I was thinking the fact that the judge has a CCW will help us in that he should realize that unloaded carry is no means of self defense, so UOC being legal does not satisfy the constitution.


I think she has a Marshall's card now, but in the past Diane Feinstein has had a CCW. I never heard that she realized that we too were entitled to loaded firearms.

sfpcservice
03-11-2011, 9:59 AM
Where can I read more about this "Marshalls card" and the process to get one?

Maestro Pistolero
03-11-2011, 10:06 AM
Honestly, LCC is much better.... Given the choice, if the state allows LOC in order to save arbitrary CCW, you know anyone that chooses to do it will be hassled by police. There is a certain advantage to concealed carry in that most people cannot tell you have the weapon.

Of course, but once acknowledged as constitutionally protected behavior, we can LOC ad nauseum, and with sufficiently ubiquitous LOC, they WILL fold. At that point it will only be a matter of how many guns do they really want to actually have to look at. I'll wager the answer is ZERO.

chris12
03-11-2011, 10:14 AM
First, my personal preference is for LCC. Second, I believe that LCC and LOC are both necessary to meet 2A, though SCOTUS doesn't agree :(.

The question came from my line of thinking that extended from Yolo's argument about concealed regulations being constitutional and ban on LOC is unconstitutional. While I do believe they are just saying anything they can to win the lawsuit and do not actually want LOC; it got me thinking, is it possible that LCC does not satisfy 2A? Based on Heller and the supporting cites, I'm not so sure that LCC (with current or stricter LOC policy) satisfies 2A. Saying that it does satisfy 2A rules out people in most/many counties from bearing arms (shotguns and rifles) of common classes of weapons since they cannot be concealed.

Am I missing something?
Is it possible to have LCC for handguns legal with LOC for handguns banned, but LOC for longarms legal?

Glock22Fan
03-11-2011, 10:18 AM
Where can I read more about this "Marshalls card" and the process to get one?

Well, you could become a US Marshal, or you could become a Senator.

Neither is that easy.

scarville
03-11-2011, 11:01 AM
On the other hand, from the fact that he has a license, he could also conclude that the current status seems to be working out as intended. Issuance for those who really need it does happen, after all, he's a Judge, he really needs it, and he has a license issued. He agrees with the Sheriff in his case. Doesn't necessarily imply he's going to disagree with the Sheriff in the case of Joe Bloggs on the Street.

I'd be very cautious about making positive conclusions without good cause.
Especially since Calguns is asking the judge to, essentially, decide between defacto shall issue CCW and LOC. This judge doesn't seem to be a fool and I'm guessing knows his decision will be cited in other cases. Since SCOTUS acknowledged that CCW restrictions are not prima facie unconstitutional the safe course would be a very narrow decision that does not affirm general self defense as good cause for CCW. He may say in dicta (I just learned that's what you call it when a judge editorializes :)) that LOC is probably protected but he wasn't asked to decide that question. He can do this knowing full well that Calguns is unlikely to change directions now.

Maestro Pistolero
03-11-2011, 11:11 AM
He may say in dicta (I just learned that's what you call it when a judge editorializes ) that LOC is probably protected but he wasn't asked to decide that question. He can do this knowing full well that Calguns is unlikely to change directions now.This is what I am expecting. If the supreme court wants carry protected outside the home, the lower courts will want it to say so. In some sense, any decision in our favor would merely be an early win.

This and related issues are going to have to go up the line sooner or later. The basis of the cases that get us there will largely determine the outcome. That is what Alan Gura is so good at, laying the foundation for an eventual win. Might be sooner, might be later.

Until 2A outside the home is specifically protected according to the SCOTUS, the local nonsense will continue unabated.

ddestruel
03-11-2011, 11:29 AM
This is what I am expecting. If the supreme court wants carry protected outside the home, the lower courts will want it to say so. In some sense, any decision in our favor would merely be an early win.

This and related issues are going to have to go up the line sooner or later. The basis of the cases that get us there will largely determine the outcome. That is what Alan Gura is so good at, laying the foundation for an eventual win. Might be sooner, might be later.

Until 2A outside the home is specifically protected according to the SCOTUS, the local nonsense will continue unabated.

:rolleyes: This, anything else is just icing on the cake and a pleasant supprise i expect our side will not gain much out of the gate. but it is the long term tactics that count.


marry a judgement here good or bad with chester and a clearer scrutiny ruling from Nordyke and then the foundation will be ripe for a higher court appeal and clearer statewide ruling from the 9th. then its wide open as to where and how this gets settled.

If this judge rules in our favor the county appeals and the 9th supports the judge we get statewide SD standard. if we get a negative ruling from this judge we appeal and then it goes to the 9th, it then gets very interesting. Even more so if the 9th sticks a dagger in the subject. The future is very un-clear and the waters are still quiet murky...........Way too early for any optimism or premature speculation about how this will go. There is alot still

For now :twoweeks:

Librarian
03-11-2011, 12:09 PM
Well, you could become a US Marshal, or you could become a Senator.

Neither is that easy.

I actually wrote the marshals and asked - they denied DiFi currently had anything from them. (Email, long deleted as 'meh!' not that interesting.)

Might have been lying; might have thought I did not have 'need to know'.

krucam
03-11-2011, 1:24 PM
Article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (via the AP) on arguments yesterday:
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/suit-challenges-discretion-in-868306.html

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited," the judge said.

"The words 'keep' and 'bear' are separate words," countered Gura. "'Keep' is what you do at home. 'Bear' is what you do in public."

Rossi357
03-11-2011, 1:27 PM
All of these articles are coming off the wire service...word for word.

ed bernay
03-11-2011, 1:28 PM
As I understand, In order to be constitionally valid, We must either have a CCW system whereas anyone that is legally allowed to own a firearm is permited to carry it concealed, loaded and ready for self defence. After jumping through hoops and paying $ for the right.
Or have a system where any citizen, that is not a prohibited person, is allowed to carry a loaded firearm openly after jumping and giving money to the state. One or the other. This case is the prerunner and can lead to Ca. eventually being admitted to the other free states. My layman interpitation. Right or wrong? I'm new at this...

I have been reading this alot here but don't understand the line of reasoning. Why is it either loaded CCW or LOC? If the 2nd amendment is a fundamental constitutional right and keeping and bearing arms are protected as part of that right, why is it one or the other.

California is not providing anything. They are restricting a right. If they wish to restrict a right, they have to prove why the manner in which they are restricting it, is constitutional...no? Why do we acknowledge their restriction as an acceptable or constitutional exercise of power? Why do they get to choose to let us exercise one or the other. Isn't that line of reasoning similar to "we will let you have a long gun with our permission slip but we won't let you have a handgun". Its not one or the other.

I thought time, place, manner restrictions on constitutional rights were for ensuring your right didn't become an imminent danger to someone else. I don't get it. I guess I have not been paying enough attention to what has been happening since Heller and McDonald.

dantodd
03-11-2011, 1:38 PM
I have been reading this alot here but don't understand the line of reasoning. Why is it either loaded CCW or LOC? If the 2nd amendment is a fundamental constitutional right and keeping and bearing arms are protected as part of that right, why is it one or the other.


There is no reason it has to be one or the other. However; either is adequate to fulfill the states requirement to allow 2a exercise by residents. The state must allow at least one form of carry but certainly can permit both. California will limit to the greatest extent permissible. Maybe our legislature will change someday, but for now that's the way it's going to be.

Untamed1972
03-11-2011, 1:40 PM
I have been reading this alot here but don't understand the line of reasoning. Why is it either loaded CCW or LOC? If the 2nd amendment is a fundamental constitutional right and keeping and bearing arms are protected as part of that right, why is it one or the other.

California is not providing anything. They are restricting a right. If they wish to restrict a right, they have to prove why the manner in which they are restricting it, is constitutional...no? Why do we acknowledge their restriction as an acceptable or constitutional exercise of power? Why do they get to choose to let us exercise one or the other. Isn't that line of reasoning similar to "we will let you have a long gun with our permission slip but we won't let you have a handgun". Its not one or the other.

I thought time, place, manner restrictions on constitutional rights were for ensuring your right didn't become an imminent danger to someone else. I don't get it. I guess I have not been paying enough attention to what has been happening since Heller and McDonald.

Alot of it goes back to the extensive historical analysis done by SCOTUS in the Heller decision about how concealed weapons prohibitions in times past were upheld in state courts because LOC was legal, hence the right to bear arms was not being denied, just that one manner of carry was restricted.

ed bernay
03-11-2011, 1:53 PM
Alot of it goes back to the extensive historical analysis done by SCOTUS in the Heller decision about how concealed weapons prohibitions in times past were upheld in state courts because LOC was legal, hence the right to bear arms was not being denied, just that one manner of carry was restricted.

If that's the case, then couldn't you use that same logic that since you are allowing people to own long guns, prohibitions on handgun ownership are constitutional?...since we are allowing books, restrictions on computers or magazines are ok.

Not being argumentative, it just makes NO sense to me and it seems like we are playing along like it does make sense.

stix213
03-11-2011, 2:00 PM
If that's the case, then couldn't you use that same logic that since you are allowing people to own long guns, prohibitions on handgun ownership are constitutional?...since we are allowing books, restrictions on computers or magazines are ok.
.

I believe SCOTUS addressed exactly that in Heller. If memory serves they said something to the effect of not being able to ban any type of firearm in common ownership.

chris12
03-11-2011, 2:10 PM
Someone else can probably explain this better, but the way I understand it is that SCOTUS said restricting handguns was not an acceptable TPM restriction, but there are 'some' acceptable TPM restrictions. To decide which ones are acceptable we need to get a level of scrutiny defined, which we are expecting from Nordyke.

I believe that denying either LOC or LCC is unconstitutional, but it appears that SCOTUS feels differently as they cited cases where LCC restrictions were valid (while LOC was legal).

Scottie15
03-11-2011, 2:23 PM
I really hope Judge England went home and cleaned his gun last night while thinking about granting the good residents of Yolo Co the ability to concealed carry without coming up with 3 references letters, great "good cause" and kissing Prieto's boots.

Untamed1972
03-11-2011, 2:23 PM
If that's the case, then couldn't you use that same logic that since you are allowing people to own long guns, prohibitions on handgun ownership are constitutional?...since we are allowing books, restrictions on computers or magazines are ok.

Not being argumentative, it just makes NO sense to me and it seems like we are playing along like it does make sense.


That was basically addressed in the issues about banning whole classes of weapons, weapons in common use, what is the compelling interest in banning something that has been reckognized for 200yrs as the prefered weapon for immediate personal defense....especially since self-defense was identified as the core right of the 2A.

I mean.....essentially what you are saying is exactly what DC did....and SCOTUS told them they were wrong. So that issue has basically been addressed already....now it's just a matter getting a clear affirmation that the 2A right includes bearing your arms of choice outside the home.

Maestro Pistolero
03-11-2011, 2:58 PM
Just once it would be extremely refreshing, even novel to have a lower court with a set big enough to do the right thing. Every once in awhile, I am reminded and mortified at how unbelievably twisted the meaning of plain language becomes when in the hands of those who profess impartiality.

It's really very, very simple. "Shall not infringe" could not be less ambiguous. :confused:

Liberty1
03-11-2011, 3:04 PM
...
Is it possible to have LCC for handguns legal with LOC for handguns banned, but LOC for longarms legal?

This is what Texas has right now. I don't like it but only one state suprene court has it right; Vermont.

Blackhawk556
03-11-2011, 4:06 PM
ooohh, so this is why Pena is held up? The level of scrutiny will determined whether the "list" of acceptable handguns is constitutional?
If we don't get strict scrutiny, the roster has a chance of standing?

Someone else can probably explain this better, but the way I understand it is that SCOTUS said restricting handguns was not an acceptable TPM restriction, but there are 'some' acceptable TPM restrictions. To decide which ones are acceptable we need to get a level of scrutiny defined, which we are expecting from Nordyke.

I believe that denying either LOC or LCC is unconstitutional, but it appears that SCOTUS feels differently as they cited cases where LCC restrictions were valid (while LOC was legal).

ed bernay
03-11-2011, 4:19 PM
That was basically addressed in the issues about banning whole classes of weapons, weapons in common use, what is the compelling interest in banning something that has been reckognized for 200yrs as the prefered weapon for immediate personal defense....especially since self-defense was identified as the core right of the 2A.

I mean.....essentially what you are saying is exactly what DC did....and SCOTUS told them they were wrong. So that issue has basically been addressed already....now it's just a matter getting a clear affirmation that the 2A right includes bearing your arms of choice outside the home.

That's exactly my point. The anti's tried to say that since they allow us one type of firearm, they can ban all others. The argument of LOC or CCW is the same thing. Allowing us one to exercise one form of "bearing" does not give them the authority to restrict other forms of "bearing".

Drivedabizness
03-11-2011, 6:10 PM
I hope the "right people" are 6 moves (in 3 dimensional chess) ahead on this one...

OleCuss
03-11-2011, 6:52 PM
I'm no lawyer so I hope that those who are more wise than I will correct me (I'm betting I'll get at least some of this wrong).

But isn't there a sort of principle in jurisprudence that you minimize the violence done to the current system and that to the extent possible you follow precedent?

And since the 2A has so little jurisprudence available in its favor as a fundamental right isn't it pretty reasonable for the lower courts to follow the previous guidance on the law until the higher level has ruled on the particular points in question?

So I'm a district court judge and I get a case which is dealing with whether the right to carry a firearm is "core" or fundamental and the last thing that my Circuit Court has done is to have a ruling somewhat RKBA favorable ruling yanked en banc - possibly for the purpose of depublishing it? So the last guidance you got from your Circuit has actually been overall anti-RKBA and the Circuit court has certainly not previously been finding for the right to carry but against it? Wouldn't that make it a little difficult for the District to rule in a fashion we find favorable?

Net effect is that I really think that the district courts are going to follow previous anti-RKBA guidance as long as the Circuit has not ruled in favor of the RKBA. There will be outliers but I think the will be the exception rather than the rule.

When scrutiny is decided at the 9th Circuit level then the district courts will have guidance in the matter and will begin to rule accordingly. But some of the Circuits will have to be slapped around by SCOTUS before they'll decide that rational basis is not the scrutiny level demanded by the 2A.

Anyway, I sorta expect to get slapped silly over this one - but since I expect to learn from the experience I actually welcome it.

Have at it.

hoffmang
03-11-2011, 10:40 PM
I hope the "right people" are 6 moves (in 3 dimensional chess) ahead on this one...

Some arguments are designed for higher courts.

-Gene

Drivedabizness
03-12-2011, 8:25 AM
I thought so :)

1JimMarch
03-12-2011, 11:22 AM
A few points:

* If DiFi is legally carrying now, she's not doing it as a US Marshall. Some years back the US DOJ realized that there was a problem having the same person be in both legislative and executive branches of gov't - even if the latter is honorary.

* The single simplest change to Cali law that would give any loaded carry rights would be to strip out unlimited discretion. It would also be the most politically easy to swallow.

* WE WANT THE UOC BAN TO PASS!!! Yolo County's arguments seal that deal! The moment the UOC ban passes we should gather en mass outside the Yolo County seat doing LOC. I swear to God I'll be there if I have to take Grayhound from here in Tucson. If they want to bust us, their own arguments before Judge England will hose them in criminal court, because a county government cannot claim something is legal in court in one case, illegal in another case before another judge. Not when criminal law is involved. In order to get busted for breaking the law it has to be deliberate on your part, so the one lie they can't tell you is about the legality of your actions.

This is also why the principle of "open court" and public scrutiny matters. With sealed courts, the same agency could say one thing one day, another thing another.

wildhawker
03-12-2011, 11:29 AM
A few responses:

* There is zero chance the legislature will strip out discretion. Any bill that attempts it would be opposed by every major law enforcement and municipal association in the state. This isn't speculation.

* We DO NOT want the UOC ban to pass. That's just silly and overly-simplistic. We're not going to gain anything with a UOC ban.

* The proposed LOC march is similarly missing the target to the point of malpractice. Let's please work on keeping our people out of jail, shall we?

-Brandon

1JimMarch
03-12-2011, 12:38 PM
* There is zero chance the legislature will strip out discretion. Any bill that attempts it would be opposed by every major law enforcement and municipal association in the state. This isn't speculation.

We agree completely. But Judge England sure as hell can!

Are you aware that a racist piece of the original 1924 CCW law has already been struck down by the courts!? People v. Rappard, 1972:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/rappard.txt

The original law called for a felony charge for any green-card-holder caught packing, when a US citizen would be charged with a misdemeanor. This is also the case that ended discrimination in gun access for green-card-holders in California.

So yes, judges absolutely have the right to kick out unconstitutional pieces of law. When they do, they're supposed to make the LEAST possible change to the legislative intent while restoring constitutionality - they can kick out an entire law, or they can core out those bits that fail. That's why the discussion on the legislature's preference for concealed carry happened before Judge England.

* We DO NOT want the UOC ban to pass. That's just silly and overly-simplistic. We're not going to gain anything with a UOC ban.

Read the cases cited favorably at Heller's footnote number nine.

* The proposed LOC march is similarly missing the target to the point of malpractice. Let's please work on keeping our people out of jail, shall we?

Based on what Yolo County's attorneys said in open court in front of Judge England, a ban on UOC would have a dramatic, immediate effect in Yolo County in particular.

Gray Peterson
03-12-2011, 12:58 PM
We agree completely. But Judge England sure as hell can!

Are you aware that a racist piece of the original 1924 CCW law has already been struck down by the courts!? People v. Rappard, 1972:

http://www.ninehundred.net/~equalccw/rappard.txt

The original law called for a felony charge for any green-card-holder caught packing, when a US citizen would be charged with a misdemeanor. This is also the case that ended discrimination in gun access for green-card-holders in California.

So yes, judges absolutely have the right to kick out unconstitutional pieces of law. When they do, they're supposed to make the LEAST possible change to the legislative intent while restoring constitutionality - they can kick out an entire law, or they can core out those bits that fail. That's why the discussion on the legislature's preference for concealed carry happened before Judge England.



Read the cases cited favorably at Heller's footnote number nine.



Based on what Yolo County's attorneys said in open court in front of Judge England, a ban on UOC would have a dramatic, immediate effect in Yolo County in particular.

The ban on UOC wouldn't serve the purpose you're talking about.

You don't understand the 2A Two Step situation that federal judges are using against us here.....

The 2A Two Step (thank you, Patrick from MDShooters and Patrick-2 here for this) is as follows:

Step 1) The court holds that carry outside of the home is outside of the core of the Heller/McDonald holding (basically ignoring "most notably" language that Justice Alito held in McDonald), and therefor not subject to strict scrutiny.

Step 2) The judge then rules that a lower scrutiny applies. Because Heller/McDonald foreclosed rational basis, the judges are doing one of the following:

2A) Using "heightened" or "intermediate scrutiny", but essentially using rational basis.

2B) Flat out ignoring Justice Scalia's command that rational basis not be used by claiming he only meant to apply that to possession in the home.

Whether or not this is merely "punting upwards" or whether or not federal judges are plotting and scheming against our rights to spite SCOTUS, none of us quite know yet, and we'll never know.

That being said, total UOC ban would not help. We've lost cases in circumstances where there is a total ban on carry without permit and a person can't get that permit. Still lost.

Please it would massively inconvenience people who are not UOC'ers in terms of gun transport. There is no plus at all to passing a UOC ban in California, not to help any legal case. It was rise or fall on their own merits.

navyinrwanda
03-12-2011, 2:02 PM
Based on what Yolo County's attorneys said in open court in front of Judge England, a ban on UOC would have a dramatic, immediate effect in Yolo County in particular.
Not really.

If accepted by the court, Yolo's implied argument that plaintiff's should have challenged § 12031 would result in a dismissal. And a facial challenge to § 12031 couldn't be made against the sheriff of Yolo, but instead against the State of California, who could argue that they don't impose an absolute carry ban since concealed carry of functional firearms is allowed by permit – which, they would argue, is a permissible time, place and manner regulation. And since the State doesn't issue carry permits, they can't apply § 12031 arbitrarily. Therefore, a facial challenge to § 12031 would fail.

Yolo just wants out of this lawsuit.

sholling
03-12-2011, 2:22 PM
Well, you could become a US Marshal, or you could become a Senator.

Neither is that easy.

Actually from my layman's point of view issuing a marshal's card to a member of congress is unconstitutional. Not even getting into the 14th Amendment unequal protection argument you cannot be a member of both the executive branch and the legislative branch at the same time any more than you can be both the current sitting POTUS and the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS and the Speaker of the House or a member of the Senate at the same time. The US marshal's office is part of the executive branch.

dantodd
03-12-2011, 2:29 PM
that's the way it works in Illinois. Mayors, Aldermen etc. get to CCW virtue of their position and taking a police training course, or courses.

Glock22Fan
03-12-2011, 4:45 PM
Actually from my layman's point of view issuing a marshal's card to a member of congress is unconstitutional. Not even getting into the 14th Amendment unequal protection argument you cannot be a member of both the executive branch and the legislative branch at the same time any more than you can be both the current sitting POTUS and the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS and the Speaker of the House or a member of the Senate at the same time. The US marshal's office is part of the executive branch.

Someone posted a while back that the DoJ had woken up to this and that DiFi would/could not now have a Marshal's card. Indeed, I don't, of my personal knowledge, know whether DiFi ever had a Marshal's card, but it was said at one time that she did get one instead of renewing her CCW because, at the time, it also allowed her to travel armed on aircraft.

Maybe this was an urban legend.

However, it would be an interesting question to have answered to know whether, and if so how, she is carrying these days.

JRob
03-12-2011, 8:04 PM
...is it possible that LCC does not satisfy 2A? Based on Heller and the supporting cites, I'm not so sure that LCC (with current or stricter LOC policy) satisfies 2A. Saying that it does satisfy 2A rules out people in most/many counties from bearing arms (shotguns and rifles) of common classes of weapons since they cannot be concealed.


Can anyone cite examples of locations / situations in CA (and elsewhere) where LOC of a long gun would be the BEST way to defend oneself? [Grizzlies / Alaska]

Certainly, the 1st historical image most Americans would have on the subject is a Minuteman or frontiersman carrying a rifle - not a handgun.

scarville
03-13-2011, 8:45 PM
I doubt it since the people in power with CCW's would also have to follow those restrictions
Why? The legisilature can exempt the police can't they? So they just create another tiered system. For the hoi polloi a shall issue permit with general self defense as good cause but with "reasonable" restrictions. For the elites a more liberal permit similar to those a cop will have. However, the second permit will require a good cause beyond general self defense and will be at the Sheriff's discretion.

I hope no one here is naive enough to think the California legilslature will play fair.

hoffmang
03-13-2011, 8:58 PM
I hope no one here is naive enough to think the California legilslature will play fair.

1. You're assuming they'll play.

2. Equal protections is a ***** and a two tiered system can't stand up to a fundamental right. Many of the VIPs aren't POST certified sworn police and that's all that's required to make the way to bear arms a one process system.

3. #2 is a little off. VIPs will get their permits in minutes. You and I will take 30-60 days.

-Gene

Paladin
03-14-2011, 7:56 AM
Submitted for a decision by the court.

He will render a written decision, and we will win or loose. He will use all of the filings (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.docket.html) in the case to assist him in that written decision.

Let's say we get a decision in our favor in Nordyke in two weeks. Is there someway our side can bring that to the attention of Judge England or will it be too late?

RobG
03-14-2011, 8:14 AM
I really hope Judge England went home and cleaned his gun last night while thinking about granting the good residents of Yolo Co the ability to concealed carry without coming up with 3 references letters, great "good cause" and kissing Prieto's boots.

Sure, as he was brushing the hair on his unicorn;)

scarville
03-14-2011, 8:42 AM
1. You're assuming they'll play.
Not really. I do assume that, if they do play, they will not play fair.
2. Equal protections is a ***** and a two tiered system can't stand up to a fundamental right. Many of the VIPs aren't POST certified sworn police and that's all that's required to make the way to bear arms a one process system.
It is my undertanding that the permits given to cops are more expansive than those granted to citzens. If true, we already a have a tiered system. There may be some legal mumbo jumbo that pretends it is not but that doesn't change reality.

Also, Arizona's new law offers those who apply for and are granted permit extra privileges -- such as carrying in a bar or restaraunt -- not available to ordinary citizens who carry without benefit of a permit. A tiered sytem,
3. #2 is a little off. VIPs will get their permits in minutes. You and I will take 30-60 days.
Assuming that Californians ever get shall issue CCW, I anticipate that friends of the Sheriff and political contributors will go to the front of the line. Some animals are more equal than others.

J.D.Allen
03-14-2011, 9:54 AM
So from reading the comments made by those in the know in this thread it seems to me we are pretty much expecting a loss here and to have the can kicked on down the road. Really not much of a surprise given the
2A two-step we have been seeing lately.

This brings up a question. Given that we will now have two district level rulings against RKBA in california, is it possible Suck-remento may go back to it's former ways? Will other counties follow suit, emboldened by their new found judicial anti RKBA encouragement?

Dirtbozz
03-14-2011, 10:00 AM
So from reading the comments made by those in the know in this thread it seems to me we are pretty much expecting a loss here and to have the can kicked on down the road. Really not much of a surprise given the
2A two-step we have been seeing lately.

This brings up a question. Given that we will now have two district level rulings against RKBA in california, is it possible Suck-remento may go back to it's former ways? Will other counties follow suit, emboldened by their new found judicial anti RKBA encouragement?

"Those in the know" seemed to think Judge Gonzales was in our camp. Look how that turned out. There is no way to predict what the ruling will be in this case. We will just have to wait.

Seems to me that Sacramento has started down a path that cannot be reversed. They would just open themselves up to more law suits. Just my opinion.

OleCuss
03-14-2011, 10:02 AM
I'd recommend not being too pessimistic about local official behavior:

1. Sacramento's behavior never changed and will not change until they are beaten into submission by the courts (or in the unlikely event that the voters make changes).

2. Local sheriffs have been changing behavior based more on court and other work done which does not necessarily need to have a scrutiny level defined.

3. Politicos generally understand that the lower level courts will attempt to preserve current laws and policies as long as they can. They also must have some idea that the Circuit courts are not going to be quite as kind and that SCOTUS may really start putting the hammer down.

Don't expect much local or state change for a while. They haven't changed due to Heller or McDonald and whether we win or lose Prieto there won't be immediate and dramatic change either (except maybe in Yolo County).

The change will happen, however, and I intend to be here to celebrate it.

FWIW

Sgt Raven
03-14-2011, 10:24 AM
I'd recommend not being too pessimistic about local official behavior:
.....snip.....
The change will happen, however, and I intend to be here to celebrate it.

FWIW

I just hope I live long enough to see the changes. :cool2:

N6ATF
03-14-2011, 10:30 AM
I just hope I live long enough to see the changes. :cool2:

With the government doing just about everything in its power to make all us law-abiders dead...

So say we all.

RobG
03-14-2011, 4:19 PM
I can see this issue losing all the way to, and including, the SCOTUS. CCW can be regulated, if I recall correctly, in the McD decision. Would it be assinine to think that if that is true, the real battle here is to go after LOC since that seems to be how the supremes consider uninfringed "bearing" of arms? Of course that would likely force issuance of ccw so as to not frighten soccer moms and such. Of course, I don't know jack so don't take my thoughts as anything educated:D

press1280
03-14-2011, 4:25 PM
Let's say we get a decision in our favor in Nordyke in two weeks. Is there someway our side can bring that to the attention of Judge England or will it be too late?

I'm sure they can(and will) file a notice of supplemental authority when(and if) Nordyke comes out before Richards. I also think its possible Judge England may try to stretch things out, anticipating Nordyke could alter his decision if he jumps the gun and decides too fast.

ohsmily
03-14-2011, 7:54 PM
I can see this issue losing all the way to, and including, the SCOTUS. CCW can be regulated, if I recall correctly, in the McD decision. Would it be assinine to think that if that is true, the real battle here is to go after LOC since that seems to be how the supremes consider uninfringed "bearing" of arms? Of course that would likely force issuance of ccw so as to not frighten soccer moms and such. Of course, I don't know jack so don't take my thoughts as anything educated:D

You are making the same error in analysis that Judge England did because he was seemingly unprepared. We fully concede that concealed carry can be regulated. Alan even conceded that concealed carry can be banned completely provided another legal method to BEAR arms is provided for in the state. The CA legislature has set out a statutory scheme by which people can exercise their constitutional right to BEAR arms. They said, we will ban loaded open carry. This is perfectly fine because they then set out a licensing scheme by which people can exercise their right to BEAR arms in a concealed manner once licensed. This is a reasonable regulation. What is not reasonable is that the Yolo Sheriff's policy is both unconstitutional as applied and on its face. The Sheriff is essentially depriving people of their constitutional right to BEAR arms leaving Yolo residents with no alternatives.

hoffmang
03-14-2011, 8:26 PM
It is my undertanding that the permits given to cops are more expansive than those granted to citzens. If true, we already a have a tiered system. There may be some legal mumbo jumbo that pretends it is not but that doesn't change reality.
You understand incorrectly.

-Gene

Crom
03-14-2011, 9:20 PM
Let's say we get a decision in our favor in Nordyke in two weeks. Is there someway our side can bring that to the attention of Judge England or will it be too late?

Yes. No problem. Alan or Don would file it. It's called a NOTICE of Lodgement of recent authority in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.

vieleicht
03-15-2011, 5:08 PM
So England may be waiting for a ruling on Nordyke? Sorry if this has been beaten to death, but is there any anticipation as to when Nordyke will be ruled on?

OleCuss
03-15-2011, 5:24 PM
Lots of anticipation and everything from highly educated guesses to SWAGs. (I'm one of the SWAG guys.)

Tier One Arms
03-15-2011, 5:54 PM
Is there any chance that we'll be able to significantly lower the fee's to get a ccw, and/or do away with the training requirement? Many states don't require any training at all.

vieleicht
03-15-2011, 6:16 PM
Everybody says Q1 of 2011 but I think it will always be two weeks away.

MindBuilder
03-15-2011, 6:50 PM
Is there audio of the oral arguments available? If not, does someone know when it might come out and where we might find it when it does?

hoffmang
03-15-2011, 7:48 PM
Is there audio of the oral arguments available? If not, does someone know when it might come out and where we might find it when it does?

Doubt there is audio. Transcripts may be able to be ordered but I expect they're expensive.

-Gene

pitchbaby
03-15-2011, 8:52 PM
Is there audio of the oral arguments available? If not, does someone know when it might come out and where we might find it when it does?

I'll sum it up... Alan Gura was... well... Alan Gura... the other attorney(Was her name Serena, or something like that?) Was not so much. Nice girl and all, but not on Gura's plane of talent.

Blackhawk556
03-15-2011, 9:22 PM
^^^^just because she wasn't on gura's "plane of talent" doesn't mean she'll lose. Remember, we're in Cali and if the judge feels only he and his colleagues need ccws, Gura will lose round.

ohsmily
03-15-2011, 9:28 PM
Doubt there is audio. Transcripts may be able to be ordered but I expect they're expensive.

-Gene

Short proceeding like that would probably be 50-150 bucks at most for the first transcript. Subsequent copies will be far less expensive from the court reporter (not much more than the cost of copies from them).

MindBuilder
03-16-2011, 12:04 AM
Doubt there is audio. Transcripts may be able to be ordered but I expect they're expensive.

-Gene

I thought that the days of typing court recorders was over and that all court proceedings are audio recorded. I know that in some cases you can order a copy of the recordings for a fee. Is it that this court doesn't like to release them? Will anybody on our side be ordering transcripts? Will they post a copy for us?

pitchbaby
03-16-2011, 12:59 AM
^^^^just because she wasn't on gura's "plane of talent" doesn't mean she'll lose. Remember, we're in Cali and if the judge feels only he and his colleagues need ccws, Gura will lose round.

Sadly, I can't disagree with you.

Scarecrow Repair
03-16-2011, 5:36 AM
I thought that the days of typing court recorders was over and that all court proceedings are audio recorded. I know that in some cases you can order a copy of the recordings for a fee. Is it that this court doesn't like to release them? Will anybody on our side be ordering transcripts? Will they post a copy for us?

I can't speak to modern court reporting, but I worked in the industry a few years ago. Audio recording sure seems like a simpler, netter, cheaper way of handling things, but has several problems. The most obvious is that you can't search it. Not so obvious is microphone placement -- if you have one or several scattered around the courtroom, the sound level and quality differs - an attorney talking while turning around and bending over his desk may well be inaudible. You can't put mics on everybody -- too many needed, and then there are witnesses. Further, sometimes it can be devilishly difficult to tell who is talking, not everyone has distinctive voices.

Our company had a court reporting firm handling a huge anti-trust trial where the defendant wanted 2 hour turnaround on transcripts and paid, if memory serves, $8 a page, and were forbidden from copying pages themselves. If they wanted one copy for each of ten attorneys, each copy was also $8 a page. It was my understanding that court reporters had copy control on those transcripts and no one was allowed to copy them, all had to be bough from the reporter.

Like I said, I don't know how much of that was industry standard then and how much of it still applies. Since I still see court reporters in courts, I'd guess audio recording hadn't worked out yet. I know court reporters who also do closed captioning of sports for TV, real time, and they say software to help has gotten massively cheaper (our first system leased for $100K a year or something).

tango-52
03-16-2011, 6:11 AM
I had my deposition taken Monday (I am an expert witness in my field) and I was video taped and there was a court reporter typing the transcript simultaneously. She is the custodian of records for the deposition, keeps track of all the documents and exhibits, and no one is allowed to have a copy without paying for it.

IGOTDIRT4U
03-16-2011, 9:54 AM
I was video taped and there was a court reporter typing the transcript simultaneously. She is the custodian of records for the deposition, keeps track of all the documents and exhibits, and no one is allowed to have a copy without paying for it.

This is essentially correct. The reason a person would pay 8.00 a page for their own copy is that they are buying a copy of the transcript from the reporter, in short.

I frequently come across reporters who record the audio of depositions while also typing on the steno machine. They either use a mic set up connected to a USB port on their laptops or more so in the past, a simple tape recorder. Their laptops BTW are processing each keystroke of the steno machine as they type, so the entire transcript is really in live time. It's pretty neat.

stag1500
03-16-2011, 11:57 AM
^^^^just because she wasn't on gura's "plane of talent" doesn't mean she'll lose. Remember, we're in Cali and if the judge feels only he and his colleagues need ccws, Gura will lose round.

Doesn't matter. A loss here would just fast track the issue to SCOTUS which is what we really want.

Andy Taylor
03-16-2011, 12:00 PM
Is there any chance that we'll be able to significantly lower the fee's to get a ccw, and/or do away with the training requirement? Many states don't require any training at all.

I suspect that the cost will be attacked once we have shall issue statewide, but not before. Bigger fish to fry kinda thing. But I agree. The cost is rediculous. I am in process of getting my Sac CCW now. By the time I am finished I will have a bit over $400 into it, including the CCW, Livescan, training and ammo. It all adds up quick. $400 is to much for a fundamental right, but at this point anyway, it is not the main problem.

nicki
03-16-2011, 12:12 PM
A few years back in Ohio in " Feely vs Hamilton county ", the lower courts had agreed with "Feely", that the Ohio ban on carrying concealed arms violated the state constitution for RKBA.

So, for a short time, Ohio was like Vermont by court order.

Case got up to the Ohio Supreme court and the court ruled that the concealed weapons ban was constitutional because the people of Ohio could openly carry loaded guns and they went on citing 19th century case law about how "OPEN CARRY" was the preferred method of carry in a modern society.

Of course what happened next was people in Ohio organized "armed open carry educational marches" all across the state.

Then Gov Taft who had been stonewalling signing a CCW bill for close to 8 years signed a CCW bill within 6 months.

The Ohio Supreme court had stalled the case for over 1 year giving big hints to the legislature to pass somekind of CCW bill which was ignored.

Judge England may be aware of this case even if it wasn't submitted to him and what would stop him if he ruled that open loaded carry was the second amendment protected right.

Of course we would appeal, but in the meantime we are getting court rulings which fly against the proposals to ban open carry.

Nicki

MindBuilder
03-16-2011, 12:19 PM
It looks like I was way off in thinking court reporters were obsolete.

And apparently in this court, only the parties to the case can get transcripts for the first 90 days, to allow time for Social Security Numbers and such to be redacted before the transcript is made public. The transcripts may become publicly available sooner if the parties finish submitting redacted transcripts. I suppose they wouldn't release audio recordings any sooner.

dantodd
03-16-2011, 12:34 PM
Judge England may be aware of this case even if it wasn't submitted to him and what would stop him if he ruled that open loaded carry was the second amendment protected right.

No one has asked that open carry be allowed. For him to declare constitutional carry legal would vw the same as him ruling that the GFSZ and Obamacare are unconstitutional.

Patrick-2
03-16-2011, 1:32 PM
...
Judge England may be aware of this case even if it wasn't submitted to him and what would stop him if he ruled that open loaded carry was the second amendment protected right.

Of course we would appeal, but in the meantime we are getting court rulings which fly against the proposals to ban open carry.

Our side asked for carry to be legal and then said if Open Carry with loaded arms were allowed that the case against CCW would be much harder. It was in the last reply brief.

The complaint and the briefs all say the same thing: we are demanding a CCW permit because that is what California state law chooses in terms of manner of carry. They have been clear to say the state can choose either/or and that either would suffice and meet the constitutional hurdle. This argument has been echoed in other suits, as well.

Were a judge - by some rationale - to declare OC the rule and invalidate state laws against it, I think the current case would be considered "won". What is there to appeal? Our side already said the government can make the manner choice...

Is this likely? No way. But this is the Internet so why let the rational get in the way of a good "what if"? :)

If it could happen anywhere, I say it could happen in California. Wacky laws as it is and UOC really is odd. What if he said "CCW bans are constitutional per Heller, so the only manner of carry left is OC, which California law almost allows but for the slight issue of actually loading the gun."

By that logic, an outcome that meets both the constitutional hurdle and the goal of interrupting the least amount of law would be to simply say that California has chosen no-permit OC except for that pesky ammo thing...so load the guns and have a nice day. UOC becomes LOC and I laugh so hard I fall out of my chair. I also eat some crow. (Again...not likely)

Maryland's suit also challenges 'good and substantial' requirements. But our May-Issue system is so tightly administered that they never put in place conditions on manner of carry. Technically you can OC in Maryland with your permit - but if you do you will get it yanked by the state. If our Woollard case wins, they cannot yank it anymore. So until the legislature passes a manner-of-carry law selecting CCW, we will essentially be a Shall-Issue state with no controls. We also do not have Gun-Free zones or the like.

Our legislature only meets 90 days at the beginning of the year, so it could be a long wait before the elite in Baltimore are freed from seeing all the degenerate with their guns.

toyzilla
03-16-2011, 4:35 PM
OK. I am newbie to all of this and this has been very good reading. I have a lot of research a head of me to understand everything that is going on with all of the different court cases.

I do have a question about OCing:

Isn't UOC legal in California or is it just in certain counties? If it is only in certain counties, is there a list somewhere to tell us which ones?

Thanks,

~Scott

Glock22Fan
03-16-2011, 4:40 PM
OK. I am newbie to all of this and this has been very good reading. I have a lot of research a head of me to understand everything that is going on with all of the different court cases.

I do have a question about OCing:

Isn't UOC legal in California or is it just in certain counties? If it is only in certain counties, is there a list somewhere to tell us which ones?

Thanks,

~Scott

Simple answer, yes, it is currently legal outside certain zones, particularly those within 1000 feet of school boundaries.

This is true for all counties at present.

The legislators are trying to ban it.

Loaded open carry is legal in unincorporated zones where it is otherwise legal to shoot. This excludes public roads, so I'm not sure how useful that is unless you plan to stay in one area where there aren't any.

Maestro Pistolero
03-16-2011, 4:43 PM
OK. I am newbie to all of this and this has been very good reading. I have a lot of research a head of me to understand everything that is going on with all of the different court cases.

I do have a question about OCing:

Isn't UOC legal in California or is it just in certain counties? If it is only in certain counties, is there a list somewhere to tell us which ones?

Thanks,

~Scott

UOC is permissible by state law. Learn what a GFSZ means and become acquainted with other possible pitfalls before attempting.

UOC is not considered generally beneficial to efforts underway to improve the condition of the right in CA. Also, it may bring on other legislation that will be difficult and expensive to undo later.

Glock22Fan
03-16-2011, 4:48 PM
UOC is permissible by state law. Learn what a GFSZ means and become acquainted with other possible pitfalls before attempting.

UOC is not considered generally beneficial to efforts underway to improve the condition of the right in CA. Also, it may bring on other legislation that will be difficult and expensive to undo later.

To be pedantic (because a lot of people go looking for laws that don't exist) there isn't a law that states that UOC is legal, there just isn't one that says it isn't. Compare that with the law (passed after a Black Panther demonstration) that actually bans loaded open carry, and the new law they are trying to pass that will ban all open carry.

toyzilla
03-16-2011, 5:37 PM
Thanks for the info. I had remembered that they were trying to ban it, but did not know if it went through or not.

Paladin
03-16-2011, 5:47 PM
Yes. No problem. Alan or Don would file it. It's called a NOTICE of Lodgement of recent authority in support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.I sure hope our guys have one already drafted and waiting to be filed and just waiting for a few minor details to be filled in: date, level of scrutiny . . . . ;)

77bawls
03-16-2011, 6:16 PM
OK. I am newbie to all of this and this has been very good reading. I have a lot of research a head of me to understand everything that is going on with all of the different court cases.

I do have a question about OCing:

Isn't UOC legal in California or is it just in certain counties? If it is only in certain counties, is there a list somewhere to tell us which ones?

Thanks,

~Scott

I LOC all the time up in El Dorado county. I've been in the presence of the Forest Service numerous times, and never once have they even mentioned it.

HowardW56
03-16-2011, 7:50 PM
Doubt there is audio. Transcripts may be able to be ordered but I expect they're expensive.

-Gene

I would expect somebody will be ordering them, for the appeal...

hoffmang
03-16-2011, 8:25 PM
Isn't UOC legal in California or is it just in certain counties? If it is only in certain counties, is there a list somewhere to tell us which ones?

However, UOC isn't "bearing arms." It's at best transporting them.
I LOC all the time up in El Dorado county. I've been in the presence of the Forest Service numerous times, and never once have they even mentioned it.
LOC is bearing arms and is perfectly legal - usually in areas where discharge isn't banned by law or ordinance.

-Gene

ubet
03-16-2011, 9:27 PM
Oh wow, I just read this whole thing in one sitting. My head hurts.

If the judge rules in cgs' favor, will ccw be "shall issue" only for Yolo and the district?

ubet
03-16-2011, 9:29 PM
LOC is bearing arms and is perfectly legal - usually in areas where discharge isn't banned by law or ordinance.

-Gene

Is this true even with a ccw?

hoffmang
03-16-2011, 11:14 PM
Is this true even with a ccw?

If you are asking if you can LOC out in county land that is not a no discharge zone, even with a CCW, the answer is yes.

-Gene

kcbrown
03-17-2011, 1:08 AM
Oh wow, I just read this whole thing in one sitting. My head hurts.

If the judge rules in cgs' favor, will ccw be "shall issue" only for Yolo and the district?

Yep, that's how it works.

The real question is if we win at the district level, will Yolo appeal?

Actually, that might not matter all that much. If we win at the district level, then we essentially have contradictory rulings at the district level. I don't know if there's anything that compels the circuit to resolve that in and of itself, but Peruta has already been appealed to that level.


What I wonder is how well Peruta is likely to do at the Supreme Court level, in the (I suspect) likely event it gets there before Richards (there's no guarantee Richards will get that far).

Funtimes
03-17-2011, 1:12 AM
The NRA is a pretty powerful organization. I'd wager if Peruta goes wrong, they will get the case up to SCOTUS.