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
  #1521  
Old 03-30-2021, 12:05 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,451
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We’ve made a LOT of progress regarding CCWs over the past dozen years. Just compare these two CA CCW GC maps. FWIW LA Co Sheriff Villanueva said he may liberalize GC further when “defund the police” cuts come on July 01. That’s just 13 weeks away.





/threadjack
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Want to support my work? Support my causes!
https://www.alz.org/
http://cjlf.org/
https://crimeresearch.org/
https://www.nrapvf.org/ (campaigning)
https://www.nraila.org/ (lobbying)
Reply With Quote
  #1522  
Old 03-30-2021, 12:23 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,451
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSox View Post
The 90 days for cert starts upon the issuance of the mandate (which absolutely does not need to be 14 days from now).
When is the issuance of the mandate?

Tomorrow will be 1 week after we lost....
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Want to support my work? Support my causes!
https://www.alz.org/
http://cjlf.org/
https://crimeresearch.org/
https://www.nrapvf.org/ (campaigning)
https://www.nraila.org/ (lobbying)
Reply With Quote
  #1523  
Old 03-30-2021, 8:31 PM
BCD BCD is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Young v. Hawaii (CA9); EN BANC LOSS 3-24-2021- Fundamental Right to Self-Defense

So long as the US Supreme Court continues to abdicate its Heller holding through inaction, the 9th Circuit as well as California will continue down the road to gun banning or the substantive equivalent. One only needs to look at the Roster of Guns, which is neither rational nor Constitutional, but nevertheless is a fact of life for Californians.

Reading the majority opinion and dissent, the fundamental right to self-defense outside the home is teed up should US Supreme Court deem our God given right to self defense outside the home worthy of review. So far, we have two Justices, Thomas and Alito perhaps Gorsuch, who believe our right to self-defense outside of home is worthy of review. I am doubtful there are four Justices, who actually believe there is a Second Amendment for the individual to obtain a review.

Notably, Californians had a fundamental right to open carry from our founding until the Black Panthers scared a white legislature in 1968 by open carrying around the Sacramento Capital. Thank Gov. Ronald Reagan, who signed the legislation to deny Californians their fundamental right to self-defense outside of the home.

Frankly, the irony of liberals, who believe themselves to be so pro-racial equality are the one's denying their favored constituents the right to self-defense outside of the home in high crime neighborhoods. Likewise, these liberals also deny women the right to self-defense outside of the home by telling them to pee of themselves should a man try to rape them. The liberal mind is truly remarkable.

Irrational legislation is tyranny, particularly when judges knowingly twist hundreds of years of citizens' right to self-defense outside of the home to arrive at decision to deprive law-abiding citizens of their God given right to self-defense outside of the home. Criminals don't worry about a Roster of Guns or the prohibition to carry a gun or pistol in public in California, but so long as a liberal legislators and judges believe that guns are the route of all evil and they, not God, given us the right to self-defense outside of the home, we will have such holdings. God Bless America.
Reply With Quote
  #1524  
Old 03-31-2021, 5:48 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,011
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
When is the issuance of the mandate?

Tomorrow will be 1 week after we lost....

In Peruta it was a couple months,

https://michellawyers.com/guncasetra...rutavsandiego/

6/9/2016 Court Ninth Circuit Opinion

8/24/2016 Court Mandate
Reply With Quote
  #1525  
Old 03-31-2021, 5:57 AM
morrcarr67's Avatar
morrcarr67 morrcarr67 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario, CA
Posts: 13,286
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCD View Post
So long as the US Supreme Court continues to abdicate its Heller holding through inaction, the 9th Circuit as well as California will continue down the road to gun banning or the substantive equivalent. One only needs to look at the Roster of Guns, which is neither rational nor Constitutional, but nevertheless is a fact of life for Californians.

Reading the majority opinion and dissent, the fundamental right to self-defense outside the home is teed up should US Supreme Court deem our God given right to self defense outside the home worthy of review. So far, we have two Justices, Thomas and Alito perhaps Gorsuch, who believe our right to self-defense outside of home is worthy of review. I am doubtful there are four Justices, who actually believe there is a Second Amendment for the individual to obtain a review.

Notably, Californians had a fundamental right to open carry from our founding until the Black Panthers scared a white legislature in 1968 by open carrying around the Sacramento Capital. Thank Gov. Ronald Reagan, who signed the legislation to deny Californians their fundamental right to self-defense outside of the home.

Frankly, the irony of liberals, who believe themselves to be so pro-racial equality are the one's denying their favored constituents the right to self-defense outside of the home in high crime neighborhoods. Likewise, these liberals also deny women the right to self-defense outside of the home by telling them to pee of themselves should a man try to rape them. The liberal mind is truly UNremarkable.

Irrational legislation is tyranny, particularly when judges knowingly twist hundreds of years of citizens' right to self-defense outside of the home to arrive at decision to deprive law-abiding citizens of their God given right to self-defense outside of the home. Criminals don't worry about a Roster of Guns or the prohibition to carry a gun or pistol in public in California, but so long as a liberal legislators and judges believe that guns are the route of all evil and they, not God, given us the right to self-defense outside of the home, we will have such holdings. God Bless America.
FIFO
__________________
Yes you can have 2 C&R 03 FFL's; 1 in California and 1 in a different state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erion929 View Post

”Benitez 3:29 Thou shall not limit magazine capacity”
Reply With Quote
  #1526  
Old 03-31-2021, 6:26 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,451
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
In Peruta it was a couple months,

https://michellawyers.com/guncasetra...rutavsandiego/

6/9/2016 Court Ninth Circuit Opinion

8/24/2016 Court Mandate
Thanks
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Want to support my work? Support my causes!
https://www.alz.org/
http://cjlf.org/
https://crimeresearch.org/
https://www.nrapvf.org/ (campaigning)
https://www.nraila.org/ (lobbying)
Reply With Quote
  #1527  
Old 03-31-2021, 9:07 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The 9th Circuit believes the right to armed self-defense doesn’t exist outside the home, in the interest of “public safety”. Maybe the 4th amendment also doesn’t exist outside the home ... stop and frisk improved public safety. Whoops.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 03-31-2021 at 9:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1528  
Old 04-01-2021, 9:47 AM
Fyathyrio's Avatar
Fyathyrio Fyathyrio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Free 'Murica
Posts: 954
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

David Kopel examines some of the 9th's "selective editing" of historical laws used to prop up their claim in this Reason article. Makes me wonder if all the judges who agreed with the outcome actually read the references at all.
__________________
"Everything I ever learned about leadership, I learned from a Chief Petty Officer." - John McCain
"Use your hammer, not your mouth, jackass!" - Mike Ditka
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Earl Jones
The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.
Reply With Quote
  #1529  
Old 04-01-2021, 9:49 AM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
The 9th Circuit believes the right to armed self-defense doesn’t exist outside the home, in the interest of “public safety”. Maybe the 4th amendment also doesn’t exist outside the home ... stop and frisk improved public safety. Whoops.
Does the 13th amendment exist outside the home? Last time I tried to expand this question, it got zapped by the moderators, so just think about it yourself.

What about the 19th? Can we restrict women to mail-in ballots only? Try and use the reasoning of the 9th to prove otherwise.
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?
Reply With Quote
  #1530  
Old 04-05-2021, 4:01 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,835
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyathyrio View Post
David Kopel examines some of the 9th's "selective editing" of historical laws used to prop up their claim in this Reason article. Makes me wonder if all the judges who agreed with the outcome actually read the references at all.
Probably not. They were flat out boxed into a corner and chose to create a split with Moore on a pretty fundamental question rather than rule for open carry (alternatively they could have overruled Peruta but that was a longshot).
Reply With Quote
  #1531  
Old 04-10-2021, 4:02 AM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 193
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Why not do what most of the other circuits have done, which is basically “

...Is there a right to carry in some form? Maybe. There could be. Who knows, but it’s irrelevant anyway because “justifiable need” is a reasonable restriction that passes intermediate scrutiny...”

It’s mundane. It doesn’t create any new splits and SCOTUS has taken a pass on every case that used this argument.
If I were a pro-gun control liberal judge on the 9th circuit, I’d be looking to make the fewest waves. If Harris/Biden get to replace 1 of the 5 conservative justices, we probably go back to guaranteed inaction on the 2A. Replace 2 and the 5 liberal majority can permanently shut the door on a right to carry.
So, why throw the gauntlet down with such a bold decision when SCOTUS is the most conservative it will probably ever be?
Was there something in Peruta that would prevent an “intermediate scrutiny” ruling? Do they think ACB isn’t the real conservative many hope she is?
Do they think the threat of court packing will cause SCOTUS to take a pass?
Are they tossing a hand grenade hoping to blow the whole thing up? In other words, dare SCOTUS to require “must issue” or constitutional carry because they think it will generate major backlash against conservatives and become conservative version of Roe v Wade?
Reply With Quote
  #1532  
Old 04-11-2021, 3:55 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,835
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
Why not do what most of the other circuits have done, which is basically “

...Is there a right to carry in some form? Maybe. There could be. Who knows, but it’s irrelevant anyway because “justifiable need” is a reasonable restriction that passes intermediate scrutiny...”

It’s mundane. It doesn’t create any new splits and SCOTUS has taken a pass on every case that used this argument.
If I were a pro-gun control liberal judge on the 9th circuit, I’d be looking to make the fewest waves. If Harris/Biden get to replace 1 of the 5 conservative justices, we probably go back to guaranteed inaction on the 2A. Replace 2 and the 5 liberal majority can permanently shut the door on a right to carry.
So, why throw the gauntlet down with such a bold decision when SCOTUS is the most conservative it will probably ever be?
Was there something in Peruta that would prevent an “intermediate scrutiny” ruling? Do they think ACB isn’t the real conservative many hope she is?
Do they think the threat of court packing will cause SCOTUS to take a pass?
Are they tossing a hand grenade hoping to blow the whole thing up? In other words, dare SCOTUS to require “must issue” or constitutional carry because they think it will generate major backlash against conservatives and become conservative version of Roe v Wade?
They were painted in a corner thanks to Peruta and HI's draconian issue policy. Since HI hasn't issued to regular citizens, it seems a bridge too far even for CA9 to say that the right is satisfied to just have a permit process, even if NO ONE ever gets a permit.
HI could have possibly eased up at some point and issued a few token permits and claim they're just like NY and NJ, but stayed greedy and chose to play hardball.
Reply With Quote
  #1533  
Old 04-13-2021, 12:19 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,039
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

And they appear to have won. SCOTUS will not take this up
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #1534  
Old 04-13-2021, 1:10 PM
BaronW's Avatar
BaronW BaronW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: La Palma, CA
Posts: 913
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
And they appear to have won. SCOTUS will not take this up
How do you know that? Has SCOTUS even been petitioned yet? It seems a bit early to throw in the towel.
__________________
I am not a lawyer, the above does not constitute legal advice.

WTB: Savage 99 SN#507612 (buying back grandpa's rifle)
Reply With Quote
  #1535  
Old 04-18-2021, 2:19 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
And they appear to have won. SCOTUS will not take this up
I think this year we will discover whether the four justices that are highly likely to vote for cert on a public carry case also believe they have five firm votes for a 2A affirming opinion without Roberts. We have ‘carry in public’ cases NYSRPA v Corlett now being considered for cert, Russel v New Jersey filed a petition for cert, and now with the CA9 decision on Young v Hawaii the possibility that Young plaintiffs may file a petition too. That would be three cases that all explicitly ask the same question “does the 2nd amendment right to bear arms (carry) extend outside the home”?

The twist that Young v Hawaii brings to the mix is that CA9’s opinion takes direct aim at undermining the historical analysis in Heller. CA9 went to enormous effort to try and mimic the historical analysis that Scalia used in Heller, but basically omitted everything that supported a historical view of lawful, responsible citizens bearing arms for individual self defense purposes. CA9 just focused on those laws and cases that going back to English law that constrained or banned public carry of arms to build their straw man. If SCOTUS takes one of these three cases, that means the four cert affirming justices strongly believe they have a five justice majority ... and I’d expect that opinion to eviscerate the games being played by CA9 to turn Heller inside/out with some of its own language and case history.

If SCOTUS turns down all of these public carry cases in a repeat of what happened last summer after NYSRPA v NYC was mooted ... then we will know that there is another justice besides Roberts that has gone soft on preserving Heller, or that Roberts has convinced the other justices that Democrats threats of packing the court mean they should not take any controversial cases for the next few years until Democrats no longer hold majorities in both chambers of Congress and can no longer hold the Sword of Damocles over their heads.
Reply With Quote
  #1536  
Old 04-18-2021, 2:32 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 16,114
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
If SCOTUS turns down all of these public carry cases in a repeat of what happened last summer after NYSRPA v NYC was mooted ...
I wouldn't conflate the two. The last year's case was indeed mooted and it was technically a correct decision.

Agreed with the rest of your post - we will see what's going on at the SCOTUS level and we will know that soon.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #1537  
Old 04-18-2021, 5:41 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
I wouldn't conflate the two. The last year's case was indeed mooted and it was technically a correct decision.

Agreed with the rest of your post - we will see what's going on at the SCOTUS level and we will know that soon.
What I meant by a repeat was after SCOTUS mooted NYSPRA, they then denied cert to a whole slew of gun-rights cases. To me that meant that Roberts had flipped from his support of Heller, and the four solid conservatives didn’t want to risk being on the losing side of a bad decision that unwound Heller. Today, Roberts is no longer the ‘swing’ vote. And if the conservatives have a solid 5-vote majority on a pro-gun rights opinion without Roberts, then Thomas gets to determine who writes the opinion ... unless Roberts joins those five simply so he can exercise some control to moderate the opinion.

Roberts is the one who is more concerned about the ‘legacy’ of ‘his’ court than he is with ensuring the words and original intent of the Constitution are preserved regardless of the political Sabre rattling ... all this ‘court packing’ drum beating by Democrats is intentionally targeted at intimidating Roberts ... because he’s shown he can be intimidated.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 04-18-2021 at 5:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1538  
Old 04-18-2021, 6:59 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,827
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
What I meant by a repeat was after SCOTUS mooted NYSPRA, they then denied cert to a whole slew of gun-rights cases. To me that meant that Roberts had flipped from his support of Heller, and the four solid conservatives didn’t want to risk being on the losing side of a bad decision that unwound Heller. Today, Roberts is no longer the ‘swing’ vote. And if the conservatives have a solid 5-vote majority on a pro-gun rights opinion without Roberts, then Thomas gets to determine who writes the opinion ... unless Roberts joins those five simply so he can exercise some control to moderate the opinion.

Roberts is the one who is more concerned about the ‘legacy’ of ‘his’ court than he is with ensuring the words and original intent of the Constitution are preserved regardless of the political Sabre rattling ... all this ‘court packing’ drum beating by Democrats is intentionally targeted at intimidating Roberts ... because he’s shown he can be intimidated.
They weren't gun rights cases, they were state regulated privilege cases.

"Robertson v. Baldwin 1876" and "DC v. Heller 2008" made it crystal clear that concealed carry and concealable arms are not the protected exercise or firearms of repute under the 2A right.

States may regulate those - including to the point of prohibition (ban).

=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
  #1539  
Old 04-18-2021, 8:48 PM
johnireland johnireland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 250
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We all know where this is heading. A nation without a Constitution is a nation without laws. At that point, people have the right to take what ever action is necessary to defend themselves...including against the "government."
Reply With Quote
  #1540  
Old 04-19-2021, 2:55 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,011
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
04/15/2021 316 MANDATE ISSUED.(SRT, DFO, MMM, KMW, WAF, RRC, JSB, CMC, SSI, MTF and RDN) [12074949] (DJV) [Entered: 04/15/2021 07:31 AM]
Is this the final mandate needed for SCOTUS appeal ?

Last edited by abinsinia; 04-25-2021 at 2:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1541  
Old 04-25-2021, 1:02 PM
darkstar2000 darkstar2000 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Ontario, California USA
Posts: 80
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hopefully it gets sent to SCOTUS fingers crossed
Reply With Quote
  #1542  
Old 04-25-2021, 2:54 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,427
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
States may regulate those - including to the point of prohibition (ban).
States may regulate anything they please until SCOTUS says otherwise. What you think is irrelevant. Even a literal reading of any/all precedent is irrelevant, since SCOTUS can do as they please, whenever they please, disregarding anything that is inconvenient to the conclusion they want to make. Indeed precedent is contradictory, and literally any conclusion is possible via appropriately selective reading.

Again, your certainty that the courts are bound by... anything... is naive.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #1543  
Old 04-26-2021, 12:50 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,427
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Looks like SCOTUS took Corlett, though.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #1544  
Old 04-27-2021, 3:44 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,705
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Looks like SCOTUS took Corlett, though.
I firmly believe that the 9th Circus's assinine YOUNG finding was instrumental in SCOTUS giving cert in Corlett.


Reply With Quote
  #1545  
Old 04-27-2021, 3:45 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,427
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
I firmly believe that the 9th Circus's assinine YOUNG finding was instrumental in SCOTUS giving cert in Corlett.
I agree this is a distinct possibility. Somewhat OP, they also took Corlett because they would not been able to sweep Young under the rug as easily as they will Corlett:

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/26...ion-v-corlett/

Bolt_Action, please read

SCOTUS (even with ACB) is not as friendly as you might think.

My prediction:

Corlett will close this out; may issue is fine (affirming Peruta), open carry is not fine, Young will not get cert.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 04-27-2021 at 4:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1546  
Old 05-09-2021, 4:48 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,835
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Scotus booted similar cases last year, but the change this year was ACB in place of Ginsburg. I have a hard time believing they got cert at this time only to turn around and affirm May issue.
And while the justices or their clerks may be aware of Young, neither side put in supplemental briefing on it. NY isn’t even taking the position that there’s no 2A right outside the home or that OC is “the right”.
Reply With Quote
  #1547  
Old 05-09-2021, 7:14 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,835
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Has the mandate issued yet?
Reply With Quote
  #1548  
Old 05-09-2021, 8:40 AM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 890
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Mandate issued April 15th.
Reply With Quote
  #1549  
Old 05-10-2021, 2:18 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,835
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
Mandate issued April 15th.
OK so roughly July 15th a cert petition (or extension request) will be due at SCOTUS, assuming he's not going to petition CA9 for full en banc.
Now IANAL but wonder if he can petition CA9 to stay the mandate now that NYSRPA is being heard at SCOTUS?
Reply With Quote
  #1550  
Old 05-10-2021, 2:20 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,451
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
Mandate issued April 15th.
Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
OK so roughly July 15th a cert petition (or extension request) will be due at SCOTUS, assuming he's not going to petition CA9 for full en banc.
SCOTUS NYSRPA-Young double header?

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Want to support my work? Support my causes!
https://www.alz.org/
http://cjlf.org/
https://crimeresearch.org/
https://www.nrapvf.org/ (campaigning)
https://www.nraila.org/ (lobbying)

Last edited by Paladin; 05-10-2021 at 2:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1551  
Old 05-10-2021, 2:25 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 896
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

If Young gets consolidated with NYSPRA then the tea leaves would read positively for friends of liberty.
Reply With Quote
  #1552  
Old 05-10-2021, 4:45 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 311
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
If Young gets consolidated with NYSPRA then the tea leaves would read positively for friends of liberty.
If they consolidate it, then I look forward to finally reading a classic SCOTUS smack down of the 9th circuit admonishing them on their hatchet job in Young of selectively editing passages from Heller out of context, and getting Peruta wrong. Judge Sidney Thomas needs the figurative judicial textual equivalent of a 2x4 across the forehead to stop his relentless efforts to eviscerate the 2nd amendment.

Last edited by dawgcasa; 05-10-2021 at 4:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1553  
Old 05-10-2021, 5:52 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,835
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I do not believe these can be consolidated, these are different laws in different states
Reply With Quote
  #1554  
Old 05-10-2021, 6:07 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,451
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
SCOTUS NYSRPA-Young double header?

Make that a NYSRPA-Russell-Young triple header!
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Want to support my work? Support my causes!
https://www.alz.org/
http://cjlf.org/
https://crimeresearch.org/
https://www.nrapvf.org/ (campaigning)
https://www.nraila.org/ (lobbying)
Reply With Quote
  #1555  
Old 05-11-2021, 7:51 AM
Ron Jeremey Ron Jeremey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I do not believe these can be consolidated, these are different laws in different states
I'm not sure why that matters. Brown v. Board was the culmination of five cases from five states. https://brownvboard.org/content/comb...-cases-1951-54
Reply With Quote
  #1556  
Old 05-11-2021, 10:47 AM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 394
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Reply With Quote
  #1557  
Old 05-11-2021, 11:36 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,451
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If Young is also granted cert would there be a reason to or advantage by Nichols making a direct appeal to SCOTUS for cert?
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Want to support my work? Support my causes!
https://www.alz.org/
http://cjlf.org/
https://crimeresearch.org/
https://www.nrapvf.org/ (campaigning)
https://www.nraila.org/ (lobbying)
Reply With Quote
  #1558  
Old 05-11-2021, 2:31 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,835
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don’t think so. Nichols case will probably go on ice yet again until NYSRPA is decided by Scotus and in turn Young gets sent back to CA9.
Reply With Quote
  #1559  
Old 05-11-2021, 3:06 PM
Ron Jeremey Ron Jeremey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I don’t think so. Nichols case will probably go on ice yet again until NYSRPA is decided by Scotus and in turn Young gets sent back to CA9.
Or Young gets incorporated into NYSRPA.
Reply With Quote
  #1560  
Old 05-12-2021, 3:24 AM
NATO762's Avatar
NATO762 NATO762 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: SF Bay-ish Area
Posts: 309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
There are some great phrases in the petition. This one made me actually laugh out loud:
Justice Thomas stated that “it would take serious linguistic gymnastics—and a repudiation of this Court’s decision in Heller—to claim that the phrase ‘bear Arms’ does not extend the Second Amendment beyond the home.” In a move that surprised no one, the Ninth Circuit accepted that challenge and proclaimed the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home. See Mai v. United States, 974 F.3d 1082, 1105 (9th Cir. 2020) (Vandyke, J., dissenting) (“Even when our panels have struck down laws that violate the Second Amendment, our court rushes in en banc to reverse course.”)

Last edited by NATO762; 05-12-2021 at 3:35 AM..
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 5:38 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical