Calguns.net  

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #761  
Old 09-21-2018, 4:35 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,931
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Again...go read Heller. Note how it ended.

=8-/
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 09-21-2018, 3:30 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 385
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Again...go read Heller. Note how it ended.

=8-/
How many appeals courts have concluded that "bear" is not within the core right guaranteed by the Second Amendment? And how many of those cases cited Heller for that proposition? And after concluding that it is not a core right, how many applied their diluted excuse for "intermediate scrutiny"? Since all of these courts read Heller, it is safe to assume that they concluded that the bear issue had not been foreclosed. Read the AG's petition in Flanagan which all but argues that there is no right to openly bear arms in any incorporated ci8ty or town, notwithstanding the fact that you are far more likely to be assaulted in one of those crowded metropolitan areas than in the open country or out in the forest (because people are few and far between, and the only need for self defense in most cases is from creatures on four legs). The right as Becerra sees it is limited to private property and while hunting, camping and hiking. I wonder where he got that idea? Not from the Second Amendment!
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 09-21-2018, 4:38 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,931
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
How many appeals courts have concluded that "bear" is not within the core right guaranteed by the Second Amendment? And how many of those cases cited Heller for that proposition? And after concluding that it is not a core right, how many applied their diluted excuse for "intermediate scrutiny"? Since all of these courts read Heller, it is safe to assume that they concluded that the bear issue had not been foreclosed. Read the AG's petition in Flanagan which all but argues that there is no right to openly bear arms in any incorporated ci8ty or town, notwithstanding the fact that you are far more likely to be assaulted in one of those crowded metropolitan areas than in the open country or out in the forest (because people are few and far between, and the only need for self defense in most cases is from creatures on four legs). The right as Becerra sees it is limited to private property and while hunting, camping and hiking. I wonder where he got that idea? Not from the Second Amendment!
Again, read how the Heller case . . .

E N D E D


YOU put forth that proposition that the AG in his en banc request was possibly taking the position that authorities simply didn't understand or implement policy correctly.

IF YOUR INTERPRETATION IS TRUE . . .

That means en banc can be approved simply to allow the authorities to issue to Young.

If Young agrees - case is moot . . . there's nothing further to declare, discuss, or even any action to take.


Just like in Heller, where Scalia in making his judgment comes to a halt - because DC decided to issue to Heller at the last minute, and Heller agreed.


Scalia closing words in judgement would have been much more extensive had that not happened in Heller v. DC.


YOU brought up a possible interpretation - I simply extended it and analyzed it for you.

YOUR interpretation angle you presented is certainly possible...

YOU may turn out to be right in how this moves forward and ends...

Don't react to me, take a deep breath, think through the implication of what you pointed out.


It is actually right in line with the two possibilities I pointed out should Wolfwood enlist the help of members of the "dream team" whose history is trying to to get a win for CCW - even at the expense of OC.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 09-23-2018, 3:27 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,341
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Again, read how the Heller case . . .

E N D E D


YOU put forth that proposition that the AG in his en banc request was possibly taking the position that authorities simply didn't understand or implement policy correctly.

IF YOUR INTERPRETATION IS TRUE . . .

That means en banc can be approved simply to allow the authorities to issue to Young.

If Young agrees - case is moot . . . there's nothing further to declare, discuss, or even any action to take.


Just like in Heller, where Scalia in making his judgment comes to a halt - because DC decided to issue to Heller at the last minute, and Heller agreed.


Scalia closing words in judgement would have been much more extensive had that not happened in Heller v. DC.


YOU brought up a possible interpretation - I simply extended it and analyzed it for you.

YOUR interpretation angle you presented is certainly possible...

YOU may turn out to be right in how this moves forward and ends...

Don't react to me, take a deep breath, think through the implication of what you pointed out.


It is actually right in line with the two possibilities I pointed out should Wolfwood enlist the help of members of the "dream team" whose history is trying to to get a win for CCW - even at the expense of OC.

=8-|
Pretty ballsy if they do so and only intend to issue to Young (and continue to implement a no-issue scheme). He's been denied under both the citizen CCW and the security-guard-issue-only OC permit.
IIRC Young didn't have major death threats over his head so it's not like the situation in Drake where the original plaintiff had been kidnapped and taken halfway across the country and a permit was eventually issued to him to try to show his situation was different.
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 09-23-2018, 1:59 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,931
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Yep, would be ballsy.

Saddest part is...if the scenario TruOil's angle gives us plays out...it becomes a hammer.

If a nail pops up in which a win for OC is on the horizon, down comes the hammer...only the plaintiff and his lawyer get the win, NOT the general OC cause.

If a nail pops up for a CCW win on the horizon, same exact hammer comes down where the win is strictly for the plaintiff and lawyer only. NOT a win for the CCW cause.

Next thing you know, we're asking our liberal friends,

"How do you like a world where exercising ANY right requires filing a lawsuit?"

=8-/
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 09-23-2018, 4:08 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 385
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Pretty ballsy if they do so and only intend to issue to Young (and continue to implement a no-issue scheme). He's been denied under both the citizen CCW and the security-guard-issue-only OC permit.
IIRC Young didn't have major death threats over his head so it's not like the situation in Drake where the original plaintiff had been kidnapped and taken halfway across the country and a permit was eventually issued to him to try to show his situation was different.
I will no longer respond to rabbit, as he puts words in my mouth that I did not speak and makes arguments that i cannot interpret or that make no sense. That said, an en banc panel could reverse on the basis of the Hi AG opinion, and the chief could STILL refuse to issue Mr. Young for failing to show sufficient "cause." And as I said previously, it would take any number of years before sufficient evidence of a "no issue" policy was developed before another challenge could be brought. Flanagan is different in the sense that California has an express open carry ban in all urban areas, while Hawaii has an implied one on every island. In Flanagan, Becerra argues that banning open carry in urban areas is in the public interest, and that the public interest trumps the right, a position that can be affirmed under the Ninth Circuit's lame excuse for intermediate scrutiny, as well as the similarly lame standard applied in the 2d, 3rd and 4th Circuits. Only DC has expressly concluded that "bear" is a core right under the 2A and subject to strict scrutiny. That decision was not appealed because NY and Ca wanted to prevent that "poison" from spreading. Unless and until the Supreme Court holds that the "bear" part of the 2A is a core right AND subject to strict scrutiny, we will not see open carry, loaded or unloaded, in California.
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 09-23-2018, 5:41 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,931
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Wow, I take you seriously on the misinterpretation angle...

...and you pull a juvenile polarization move..

Guess I'll just stop taking you seriously in the future when you do make a notable observation or points . . .

Adults can play that game too...

=8-/
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:48 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.