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
  #681  
Old 09-07-2018, 2:35 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,927
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Bliss is NOT authoritatvie. It one ONE exception among NUMEROUS decision before AND after that upheld convictions for concealed carry.

Heller v. DC is authoritative as Kavanaugh reminded us again in his testimony in the recent hearing.

=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
  #682  
Old 09-07-2018, 4:04 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Bliss is NOT authoritatvie. It one ONE exception among NUMEROUS decision before AND after that upheld convictions for concealed carry.
What court cases dealt with carry prior to Bliss but after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment? I know of none. If you do, please state them. If you have other founding-era sources (i.e., penned by those of the founding generation) that indicate that concealed carry was not considered to be protected by the 2nd Amendment or its state-level equivalents, please state them.

As far as I know, Bliss was the first case to deal with whether or not concealed carry was part of the protected right. All of the other cases that were cited by Heller came sufficiently long after that they almost certainly were not decided by founding generation people. That is what makes Bliss authoritative as to the understanding of the right by the founding generation, i.e. the thing that Heller itself calls out as defining the scope of the right. Bliss is the only one for which a founding generation person would have been within the life expectancy of people at the time:
  • The 2nd Amendment was ratified, along with the Bill of Rights, in 1791.
  • Bliss was decided in 1822, 31 years after ratification.
  • Nunn was decided in 1846, 57 years after ratification.
  • Chandler was decided in 1850, 61 years after ratification.

A person who was of the founding generation would have been at least 18 years old (i.e., an adult of voting age) at the time of ratification. That puts the minimum age of a founding generation person in Bliss at 49 years old. It puts the minimum age of a founding generation person in Nunn at 75 years old. And it puts the minimum age of a founding generation person in Chandler at 79 years old.

At the time Chandler was decided, the life expectancy for a 20 year old English male was around 60 years old (see https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy, and in particular, https://ourworldindata.org/wp-conten...00-to-2013.png). That's the most optimistic appraisal of life expectancy as regards the people who were deciding the cases we're talking about, as it most certainly doesn't get better as one goes further back in time. The further back in time one goes, the less likely it is that someone who was 20 years old at the time would have made it to 60. I don't know of any data that shows what the life expectancy would be of someone who was 20 years old in 1791, but that would be the most relevant figure. It's sufficient to say that 60 years old is an optimistic value for such a person.


The only case for which the person/people who decided it could have been of the founding generation and still been less than 60 years old, i.e. within the life expectancy of a 20 year old male in 1850, was Bliss.

(why a 20 year old male? Because "founding generation" starts at 18 years old at 1791, and 20 is as close as the data gets to 18. And 1850 is, within a decade, as close as the data gets to 1791)

While it is nonetheless possible that the cases later than Bliss were decided by founding-generation people, it is highly unlikely given the above. That means that if you insist they were decided by the founding generation, it is on you to prove it.


Aymette was decided in 1840, 51 years after ratification, so it is no exception to the above. But even if it were, the Court says of it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by District of Columbia v Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809
This odd reading of the right is, to be sure, not the one we adopt—but it is not petitioners' reading either.
(the context there is with respect to "citizens were permitted to carry arms openly, unconnected with any service in a formal militia, but were given the right to use them only for the military purpose of banding together to oppose tyranny", thus making it clear that the context of the citation of Aymette is the discussion of how the right relates to militia service).


Quote:
Heller v. DC is authoritative as Kavanaugh reminded us again in his testimony in the recent hearing.
It is not "authoritative" as to the understanding of the right by the founding generation. The only people who are authoritative for that are founding generation people. As such, nobody living today has the authority to assert that the understanding of the founding generation differs from what founding generation people themselves said. And of all the cases the Supreme Court cited, Bliss is the only one where it is likely that founding generation people were speaking. That makes Bliss authoritative where none of the others are.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 09-07-2018 at 4:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #683  
Old 09-07-2018, 10:58 PM
mooseboy84 mooseboy84 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

KCBROWN, Bliss is not authoritative. You're misunderstanding what "authoritative" means. Courts follow precedent. It is "authoritative" in a logical sense as you expressed the syllogistic meaning, but a court doesn't have to follow it.

Courts follow precedent. What that means is, when a case is decided in a jurisdiction or a higher court, all the following cases conform to the decision of that case. Bliss may be "persuasive" and something that is quoted or used in a judges reasoning as why she may or may not follow an opinion, but it is NOT authoritative.

"Authoritative" is when a court case or law is ruled on, and subsequent court cases must follow the rulings of higher courts (e.g. Supreme Court, or federal district court, or state supreme court). Whatever is good law/current must be followed and is "authoritative." Everything else is "persuasive" and may be something the court considers or talks about, but are not bound to follow.

Bliss v Commonwealth was cited in the Peruta v San Diego case as a persuasive "authority" in their rational of ruling AGAINST him. Bliss is not good law, because in its own time, it was overruled by state law.

If you read Peruta, it references Bliss and Heller. Heller is a very long case to read, but in Heller the supreme court held states can regulate concealed carry.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570,626 (2008) (emphasis added).

If you go to page 626 of the Heller ruling, you will read in the majority opinion (winning side of the case) and that is where they make that statement which is the current state of law regarding state regulation of firearms.

That is the Supreme Court of the US upholding those regulations. That is "authoritative" for any court in the US.

Last edited by mooseboy84; 09-07-2018 at 11:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #684  
Old 09-08-2018, 1:44 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseboy84 View Post
KCBROWN, Bliss is not authoritative. You're misunderstanding what "authoritative" means. Courts follow precedent. It is "authoritative" in a logical sense as you expressed the syllogistic meaning, but a court doesn't have to follow it.
Of course. Iím not arguing what a court has to do. Iím only arguing that the courts will be engaging in massively hypocritical behavior if they donít treat Bliss as authoritative as regards the understanding of the founding generation as regards the right to arms.

That a court would make a pronouncement about the scope of the right, and then proceed to utterly ignore their own pronouncement, is no surprise. But that does not change the fact that in doing so, the court will be engaging in massive and blatant hypocrisy worthy of the greatest derision.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #685  
Old 09-08-2018, 8:06 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,927
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Let's understand something here too, just in case people have forgotten or missed it:


Heller v. DC like most if not all decisions is a flawed decision.


Scalia, despite what his "worshippers" like to claim revealed himself an activist judge by trying to "bootstrap" the GCA of 1968 as "longstanding".

In doing so, Scalia himself, as a supposed "conservative, strict interpretation, traditionalist" behaved as a progressive protecting what he saw as his interests in the system.

He's was really no different than the "activist libs" in this regard.

Problem with this is that this kind of behavior practically guarantees a decision that is going to have holes in it.


Heller v. DC is no exception.


However, that doesn't change the fact that it is AUTHORITATIVE encompassing all SCOTUS, Circuit of Appeals and State precedents before it INCLUDING Bliss v. Commonwealth.


NOT...THE....OTHER...WAY...AROUND


Like it or not, that's the reality we are dealing with.


Hundreds of years saw the door on CCW shut - Heller v. DC virtually locked it.

Hundreds of years saw EX-FELONS as free citizens, GCA 1968 made them modern day slaves - Heller v. DC has made that modern day fight against government sanctioned slavery an uphill battle.

Hundreds of years saw Militia Acts, militia organizing and training as centered around bringing military suitable bearable arms to the table - a GCA later turns that around - Heller v. DC puts the icing on the cake.


While I disagree with Breyer for the most part - it is actually worth reading his dissent in Heller v. DC - that part in particular where he points out a circular logic used by Scalia.

=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. "

Last edited by mrrabbit; 09-08-2018 at 8:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #686  
Old 09-08-2018, 8:19 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseboy84 View Post
If you read Peruta, it references Bliss and Heller. Heller is a very long case to read, but in Heller the supreme court held states can regulate concealed carry.
It went further than that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heller
Held:
(big snip)
concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment...
Not just regulation, flat-out prohibition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Scalia, despite what his "worshippers" like to claim revealed himself an activist judge by trying to "bootstrap" the GCA of 1968 as "longstanding".
I don't see any support for this. What have you got?
__________________

Last edited by speedrrracer; 09-08-2018 at 8:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #687  
Old 09-08-2018, 11:34 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
However, that doesn't change the fact that it is AUTHORITATIVE encompassing all SCOTUS, Circuit of Appeals and State precedents before it INCLUDING Bliss v. Commonwealth.
In terms of which case "wins", yes, that is obviously the case.

But you're ignoring that it is Heller which says that the scope of the right is that which was understood at the time of ratification. As such, it is Heller which implicitly makes Bliss authoritative for the scope of the right as regards concealed carry.

Now, I'm not claiming that if Heller contradicts Bliss, then Bliss must win. No, I'm claiming that unless Heller explicitly contradicts Bliss, Bliss wins.

And Heller does not explicitly contradict Bliss. Heller does not directly say that concealed carry is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. It cites carry cases that do, and does so for a couple of different purposes (firstly, to show that the right is not limited to militia service, and secondly to illustrate that courts have not historically treated the right as unlimited). But none of those purposes is to show how the right is limited, only that it is.


Now, that doesn't mean that the Court cannot or will not find in a followup case that concealed carry has no protection under the 2nd Amendment. That is obviously a possibility. But right now it has not held or explicitly said any such thing. One might attempt to infer that, as you have, but that is not the same thing. On the other hand, it has explicitly said that the scope of the right is that which the founding generation understood it to be.


So: either the scope of the right is that which the founding generation understood it to be, or it isn't. Which is it? If it's not, despite the fact that Heller explicitly says that it is, then why should we believe anything that Heller says?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 09-08-2018 at 11:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #688  
Old 09-08-2018, 2:48 PM
menancyandsam menancyandsam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 123
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So one thing that confuses me is the reliance on these old 19th century cases which are used to uphold 2nd amendment jurisprudence. Wasn't the 2nd A. a constraints on the Federal Govt. only. The 14th A. which is used to incorporate the 2nd was ratified in 1868. And wasn't directly a 2nd A. incorporation until McDonald in 2010.

So if the state of TN in 1860 for example ruled one way on concealed carry how was the 2nd inferred or relied upon in that case & how does its outcome which I'm guessing relied upon TN State Constitution directly affect other cases regarding the 2nd A.
Reply With Quote
  #689  
Old 09-08-2018, 2:56 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,775
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by menancyandsam View Post
So one thing that confuses me is the reliance on these old 19th century cases which are used to uphold 2nd amendment jurisprudence. Wasn't the 2nd A. a constraints on the Federal Govt. only. The 14th A. which is used to incorporate the 2nd was ratified in 1868. And wasn't directly a 2nd A. incorporation until McDonald in 2010.

So if the state of TN in 1860 for example ruled one way on concealed carry how was the 2nd inferred or relied upon in that case & how does its outcome which I'm guessing relied upon TN State Constitution directly affect other cases regarding the 2nd A.
19th century cases such as State Supreme Court cases help establish the meaning of the text. It also establishes history and tradition, which is essential to the scope of the 2nd amendment in Heller and McDonald, especially since the majority in both of those cases specifically rejected an interesting balance test.
Reply With Quote
  #690  
Old 09-08-2018, 3:29 PM
menancyandsam menancyandsam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 123
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
19th century cases such as State Supreme Court cases help establish the meaning of the text. It also establishes history and tradition, which is essential to the scope of the 2nd amendment in Heller and McDonald, especially since the majority in both of those cases specifically rejected an interesting balance test.
Sure but in my layman's thinking if a State Constitution says concealed carry is bad. And a case comes forward reaffirming that concealed carry is bad. Then how can this case be sited to help establish history/tradition or anything, at least before incorporation of the 2A took place).
Reply With Quote
  #691  
Old 09-08-2018, 4:28 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by menancyandsam View Post
So one thing that confuses me is the reliance on these old 19th century cases which are used to uphold 2nd amendment jurisprudence. Wasn't the 2nd A. a constraints on the Federal Govt. only. The 14th A. which is used to incorporate the 2nd was ratified in 1868. And wasn't directly a 2nd A. incorporation until McDonald in 2010.

So if the state of TN in 1860 for example ruled one way on concealed carry how was the 2nd inferred or relied upon in that case & how does its outcome which I'm guessing relied upon TN State Constitution directly affect other cases regarding the 2nd A.
Some of those state rulings also did make a determination on the scope of the Federal right (2A), like Nunn, Chandler, and In re Brickey. IMO the 19th century state cases that looked solely at the state RKBA are still relevant because they were modeled after the 2A. I haven't seen anything that suggests the founders of the numerous state constitutional amendments had something radically different in mind than their understanding of the 2A.

And since SCOTUS has barely touched the subject, relatively speaking, these old state cases are really the only authority on the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 09-08-2018, 4:50 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,775
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by menancyandsam View Post
Sure but in my layman's thinking if a State Constitution says concealed carry is bad. And a case comes forward reaffirming that concealed carry is bad. Then how can this case be sited to help establish history/tradition or anything, at least before incorporation of the 2A took place).
They are not established precedent but the Supreme Court uses history, tradition, and meaning of the words to establish what is constitutional or not. So yes, the State Supreme Court is not legally binding anywhere except for that State, but SCOTUS looks to those cases to make their decision.

The supreme court also looks at English Common Law prior to the ratifying of the constitution and recorded debates in the State Senates/House when the constitution was ratified. Papers written by out forefathers (The Federalist Papers for example), also help establish tradition and meaning.

Last edited by wireless; 09-08-2018 at 4:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 09-10-2018, 4:47 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So long story short Hawaii is trying to get a special counsel on someone elses dime to take up the appeal of the 3 judge panel decision?
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 09-10-2018, 6:10 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,927
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
So long story short Hawaii is trying to get a special counsel on someone elses dime to take up the appeal of the 3 judge panel decision?
Kinda makes you wonder what exactly the State Attorneys were hired and paid for.

"Oh Hi!, this is Henry, my third cousin - who's our new State Asst. Attorney. When the action gets too hot, we'll contract for a real one as needed."

=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
  #695  
Old 09-10-2018, 6:25 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Kinda makes you wonder what exactly the State Attorneys were hired and paid for.



"Oh Hi!, this is Henry, my third cousin - who's our new State Asst. Attorney. When the action gets too hot, we'll contract for a real one as needed."

Itíll probably all eventually be paid for by George Soros anyway, who Iím sure will be happy to bankroll the action ...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 09-10-2018, 6:57 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
So long story short Hawaii is trying to get a special counsel on someone elses dime to take up the appeal of the 3 judge panel decision?
Yes, the county is handing off everything to the state.
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 09-10-2018, 7:43 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Yes, the county is handing off everything to the state.
And the state is handing everything off to Katyal and his D.C. crew.
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 09-10-2018, 11:38 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 743
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
And the state is handing everything off to Katyal and his D.C. crew.
I guess they found a handkerchief to dry up all those crocodile tears about mainlanders interfering in island matters.
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 09-10-2018, 3:58 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
I guess they found a handkerchief to dry up all those crocodile tears about mainlanders interfering in island matters.
No. Those tears are pretty much constant, especially if you consider that the "sovereignty" faction considers all "non-Hawaiians" to be illegal occupiers and perpetrators of "war crimes".

I saw this a couple of days ago re the Young situation:

On Friday, Hawai‘i Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin [former AG until the last guy abruptly quit at the beginning of this year] announced that he’s requesting a legal opinion from the State Attorney General to clarify the authority of county police chiefs to issue licenses permitting individuals to carry unconcealed firearms.

“I care deeply about public safety and it’s very important that we uphold Hawai‘i firearm laws for everyone’s benefit, ” said Lt. Governor Chin, who was the State Attorney General, previously.

I wrote him an email stating that he has an odd way of "caring deeply about public safety" in the cases of the women raped and beaten outside their homes who are disarmed by his laws.

* * * * *
A "press release" also appears on his site re SB2046, signed into law on July 10, 2018 banning the possession, etc. of any "multiburst trigger activator" which is defined as "a device that simulates automatic gunfire by allowing standard function of a semiautomatic firearm with a static positioned trigger finger." The press release claims (re Las Vegas) "bump stocks were used to transform a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic firearm."

I've also inquired of various governmental agencies (cops, AG, county counsel, prosecutor's office, etc.) whether I have to turn in all my string/twine/shoelaces, rubber bands, any rigid object of a particular length (stick, board, dowel, plastic/metal pipe, etc.) and cut all the belt loops off all my pants, as all those meet the above legal definition. I also asked them, since a person can "bumpfire" without any device at all, why they didn't make bumpfiring illegal instead of just the "devices" that can aid bumpfiring, since now a person can commit a crime that includes bumpfiring and will receive no "extra" penalty if he didn't use a "device". Crickets.

Last edited by surfgeorge; 09-10-2018 at 4:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #700  
Old 09-11-2018, 6:20 AM
SPGuy's Avatar
SPGuy SPGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 130
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So did I miss it in the previous posts or are we still waiting on Hawaii’s/court’s decision to go en banc?
Reply With Quote
  #701  
Old 09-11-2018, 8:15 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 118
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPGuy View Post
So did I miss it in the previous posts or are we still waiting on Hawaiiís/courtís decision to go en banc?
I believe they have until the 14th to file.
Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 09-11-2018, 8:24 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,528
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
I believe they have until the 14th to file.
I'm pretty sure the government was late in peruta and allowed to file anyway. Rules are more like guidelines when the judiciary is on your side.
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 09-11-2018, 4:06 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
I'm pretty sure the government was late in peruta and allowed to file anyway. Rules are more like guidelines when the judiciary is on your side.
I don't believe it was. If I remember correctly the state wanted no part of Peruta until they lost at the three judge panel. SD Sheriff was going to leave the case at that but the 9th circuit voted to take the case up en banc.
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 09-12-2018, 7:16 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 118
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
I don't believe it was. If I remember correctly the state wanted no part of Peruta until they lost at the three judge panel. SD Sheriff was going to leave the case at that but the 9th circuit voted to take the case up en banc.
On Harris' plea.
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 09-12-2018, 8:45 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 743
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
On Harris' plea.
...sort of.
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 09-12-2018, 9:04 AM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,444
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Harris was denied the opportunity to intervene and carry the case to an en banc appeal on Feb 27, 2014 (less than two weeks after the 3-judge ruling) by the 9CA with Judge O'Scannlain (who wrote the decision in that ruling) sitting in the Chief Judge's chair.

On December 1, 2014, O'Scannlain's term as Chief was over (they have a limit), and the next Chief (which is selected by seniority) was Thomas (who wrote the dissent in the 3-judge opinion).

On December 3, 2014 there was suddenly a call for sua sponte en banc, the vote was held and the right to intervene was granted to Harris and the case was queued for the re-hearing... we all know what happened since.

The context is important. The process was highly unusual and was clearly driven by the caprice of a single individual. When they talk about "activist judges," they mean Sidney Thomas. When SCOTUS denied cert, the dissent specifically called this out:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Clarence Thomas
The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address.
That case is a pretty ugly example of how unscrupulous the people who want to disarm the populace really are.

Here's hoping Wolfwood has a better path forward.
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 09-12-2018, 9:08 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 118
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkincal View Post
Harris was denied the opportunity to intervene and carry the case to an en banc appeal on Feb 27, 2014 (less than two weeks after the 3-judge ruling) by the 9CA with Judge O'Scannlain (who wrote the decision in that ruling) sitting in the Chief Judge's chair.

On December 1, 2014, O'Scannlain's term as Chief was over (they have a limit), and the next Chief (which is selected by seniority) was Thomas (who wrote the dissent in the 3-judge opinion).

On December 3, 2014 there was suddenly a call for sua sponte en banc, the vote was held and the right to intervene was granted to Harris and the case was queued for the re-hearing... we all know what happened since.

The context is important. The process was highly unusual and was clearly driven by the caprice of a single individual. When they talk about "activist judges," they mean Sidney Thomas. When SCOTUS denied cert, the dissent specifically called this out:

That case is a pretty ugly example of how unscrupulous the people who want to disarm the populace really are.

Here's hoping Wolfwood has a better path forward.
Thanks for this. Harris and Thomas must be golf buddies.
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 09-12-2018, 9:41 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

TWO DAYS!
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 09-12-2018, 9:49 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
Thanks for this. Harris and Thomas must be golf buddies.
Harris' proclivities during her rise in power are well known. "Golfing" with Sydney could be one of the "activities" she pursued at the time. Only the hotel maid knows for sure.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 09-13-2018, 3:46 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,009
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...they-Seem.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 09-13-2018, 3:51 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,645
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...they-Seem.aspx
So are they saying ?

We allow LEO's and Security Guards to open carry so that should satisfy Heller without allowing anyone else to.
__________________
To me there is something wrong with going to a supermarket and buying Free Range Chickens.


We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 09-13-2018, 4:06 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Check this out guys Hawaii free press just released a link to a new AG's letter on the carry law.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...they-Seem.aspx
WTHeck.... Isn't the horse out of the barn? Hasn't the plane already taken off? Shouldn't the State have made this argument during the appeal before the 3-judge panel instead of waiting until after that panel's decision? I know they weren't a party at the 3-judge panel, but weren't they given that option? Didn't you or the defense invite/notify them?

Isn't HI too late to present this new interpretation of the HRS OC law???

While this novel interpretation may change the law as understood by CA9, IIRC, it does NOT change that facts that zero OC permits have been issued as this law has been applied by the State of Hawai'i, at least to non-security guards.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 09-13-2018 at 5:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 09-13-2018, 4:25 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As a matter of statutory construction, the AG is probably right--but ignores the fact (falling back on the absence of records) that ONLY security guards ae considered for such licenses, the chiefs apparently uniformly interpreting "engaged int he protection of life or property" as being limited to such guards. So in practice it is an actual ban. Just as is the concealed carry law that has the same exceptional need requirement.

But the AG also ignores the substance of the opinion, as well as completely ignores the recent D.C. carry decision, that eliminates the "need" analysis, since that analysis summarily precludes that vast bulk of applicants/citizens and prevents them from exercising their 2A right. As we have all said at one time or another, it is a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

I have little doubt that this letter will be included as "additional authority" in the briefing on rehearing/en banc.
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 09-13-2018, 4:51 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,697
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Harris' proclivities during her rise in power are well known. "Golfing" with Sydney could be one of the "activities" she pursued at the time. Only the hotel maid knows for sure.
Just so everyone understands this reference regarding our next Democratic presidential candidate, she slept her way into power. She was the girlfriend of SF's Mayor Brown (30 year age gap!). She got her way into bed with the Democratic machine, literally. #metoo and all that doesn't apply to Democrats, especially not black Democrats. They can be as vile as they want towards women because they're so woke. And intersectional.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 09-13-2018, 4:59 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Suzuki is a ****ing liar. He talks about the reports from the county police chiefs as compiled by the AG office:

Although the Department of the Attorney General has
published statistics on firearm license applications, those
reports date back only to the year 2000... those reports, starting
in 2004, state only the number of private individuals who applied
for (and were granted or denied) a concealed_carry license; they
do not state the number of private individuals who applied for
(and were granted or denied) an unconcealed_carry license.

His whole argument that any private citizen at any time has been and is eligible for an "unconcealed carry" license is pure bull****. He fails to mention that the very forms used by his office that require the monthly reporting from the county police chiefs describe and annotate the types of licenses to carry firearms into two categories, and those categories are NOT "unconcealed" and "concealed", they are: "SECURITY" OR "CITIZEN". He's a ****ing liar, and he knows it. What a ****ing *******. I hate these people.

EDIT: Plus, Horowitz tried to say the exact same thing (as Suzuki claims in the letter that "Well, everyone is engaged in the protection of life and property, their own.") at orals and O'Scannlain (I'd characterize his tone as disdainful, if not angry) immediately challenged him as to the preposterousness of such a claim.

Last edited by surfgeorge; 09-13-2018 at 5:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 09-13-2018, 5:05 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I have little doubt that this letter will be included as "additional authority" in the briefing on rehearing/en banc.
I'm sure it will, and the 9th will lap it up, but when it comes to a real court, it won't matter. SCOTUS won't GAF about some moron's opinion that the law is facially neutral when it comes to abridging rights. Is the AG trying to show HI has been violating equal protections?
__________________

Last edited by speedrrracer; 09-13-2018 at 5:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 09-13-2018, 5:34 PM
phdo's Avatar
phdo phdo is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,262
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

So whatís the status? Can I open carry yet?
__________________
WTB:
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 19
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 66
4" Smith & Wesson Model 19
3.5" Smith & Wesson Model 29
Marlin 1894C
Colt Python
Colt Series 70
Sig Sauer P228
HK USP9c
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 09-13-2018, 6:49 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phdo View Post
So whatís the status? Can I open carry yet?
Tomorrow is the deadline for Hawaii to file their appeal to the 9th circuit for en banc review. I believe the end of October is the deadline for the 9th circuit to go sua sponte and and sabotage the ruling like they did Peruta
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 09-13-2018, 7:04 PM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 665
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
...we advise that a private individual would likely satisfy the statutory criteria for an unconcealed-carry license where he or she identifies a need for protection that significantly exceeds that held by an ordinary law-abiding citizen, and otherwise satisfies the statutory requirements for possessing and carrying a firearm.
Emphasis added by me... because this seems like the part that we are (Young is) fighting. Pretty sure it doesn’t say anything in the Second Amendment about having a need that significantly exceeds that of ordinary citizens.
__________________

Last edited by scbauer; 09-14-2018 at 4:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 09-14-2018, 7:20 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,528
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Tomorrow is the deadline for Hawaii to file their appeal to the 9th circuit for en banc review. I believe the end of October is the deadline for the 9th circuit to go sua sponte and and sabotage the ruling like they did Peruta
When does a mandate get issued?
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 2:07 AM.




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.