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
  #401  
Old 01-31-2019, 10:07 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,019
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Where is FGG and his obnoxious smilies? This case can't be all that bad if we don't have FGG to tell us why it will go against us, right?
Simply because the case will win, even on a narrow basis, a win is a win.

At its most basic, even a idiot with an IQ of 75 understands that if you own something, you should be able to move it when you move - whether temporarily or permanently.

It's not rocket science.

=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
  #402  
Old 01-31-2019, 10:46 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,228
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
At its most basic, even a idiot with an IQ of 75 understands that if you own something, you should be able to move it when you move - whether temporarily or permanently.
I own a house, yet I'm unable to move it when I move, either temporary or permanently. I guess I need to work on my IQ to raise it to the 75...

Time to put some money down. How much are you willing to bet that the decision will NOT be about property rights, but about 2A?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 01-31-2019, 11:34 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,449
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
I own a house, yet I'm unable to move it when I move, either temporary or permanently. I guess I need to work on my IQ to raise it to the 75...
You need to call Dave.

http://davidyoungerhousemovers.com/

Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 02-01-2019, 8:14 AM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
I own a house, yet I'm unable to move it when I move, either temporary or permanently.
Unable to and not allowed to by law are to different things . You absolutely can move your house with you . It's done all the time . In fact we bought a house and had it moved on to the back portion of our property . In our case we had the house moved intact but you can have your house dismantled to any size in which transport and reassembly is possible for your situation . From sections to all the way down to individual boards . Intact or the least amount of sections IMHO is the best way to go about it . The least amount of repair the better .

I'm a contractor and I get asked all the time "can you" , and before they can finish there sentence I say yes . They then say you don't know what I was going to ask and I reply it does not matter what you want , It can be done ( with in reason and physics ) . The real question is can you afford it and or will it be cost effective .
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY

Last edited by Metal God; 02-01-2019 at 10:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 02-01-2019, 8:27 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,019
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
I own a house, yet I'm unable to move it when I move, either temporary or permanently. I guess I need to work on my IQ to raise it to the 75...

Time to put some money down. How much are you willing to bet that the decision will NOT be about property rights, but about 2A?
Houses are moved in San Jose every year...kinda cool to watch too.

You should get out more often.

=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
  #406  
Old 02-01-2019, 10:55 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
I guess I need to work on my IQ to raise it to the 75...
Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 02-01-2019, 6:46 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,228
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Unable to and not allowed to by law are to different things .
True, but the post said "should be able" not "should be allowed" and the post was in jest anyways...

A better answer would've been that for a sub-75 IQ, my house should be easy to take along when I move - just inflate the tires and tow it with a truck.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 02-01-2019, 7:04 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,449
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
True, but the post said "should be able" not "should be allowed" and the post was in jest anyways...

A better answer would've been that for a sub-75 IQ, my house should be easy to take along when I move - just inflate the tires and tow it with a truck.
Damn Dude, inflatable tires on your shopping cart. I'm impressed.

I know, I'm bad, just couldn't resist.
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 02-01-2019, 8:42 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
True, but the post said "should be able" not "should be allowed" and the post was in jest anyways...
Fare enough I did not read all 11 pages or 400 post and may have missed that part . I was responding to your specific post that had nothing about should in it and only said .

Quote:
I own a house, yet I'm unable to move it when I move, either temporary or permanently. I guess I need to work on my IQ to raise it to the 75...

Time to put some money down. How much are you willing to bet that the decision will NOT be about property rights, but about 2A?
If I missed part of the conversation , sorry about that .
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 02-04-2019, 10:09 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 134
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

On a different note. A question for the legal people on this forum.

IF we get strict scrutiny or better how does this effect past cases? Does it reopen cases we lost under "intermediate" or are they dead and gone so we have to wait while a new case percolates up through all the layers of courts?

If it does reopen old ones, how far back? Do we get another shot at Peruta?

Do we go back to everything after Heller II? Everything after Miller?
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 02-05-2019, 8:43 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,942
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyDave View Post
On a different note. A question for the legal people on this forum.

IF we get strict scrutiny or better how does this effect past cases? Does it reopen cases we lost under "intermediate" or are they dead and gone so we have to wait while a new case percolates up through all the layers of courts?

If it does reopen old ones, how far back? Do we get another shot at Peruta?

Do we go back to everything after Heller II? Everything after Miller?
Does not reopen cases that were final. But it would open the door to new challenges because cases that used some form of intermediate scrutiny would loose their value as precedent.
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 02-05-2019, 9:50 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 134
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Does not reopen cases that were final. But it would open the door to new challenges because cases that used some form of intermediate scrutiny would loose their value as precedent.
So a freedom-hating state could just leave its anti-gun laws on the books. When someone is arrested, or denied a permit, he has to get a lawyer and fight it.

But now comes the really bad part -- each jurisdiction in the state caves on the law -- but it is only precedent in that jurisdiction, and it is never appealable to a higher court. So we have to fight the battle in each county in the state at huge expense.

Or maybe I have that wrong and a decision in one county is good for the whole state?

Or, would it be possible for someone to go after the entire state at once?
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 02-05-2019, 11:14 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,449
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Another broad view opinion.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/59990376...#sp=show-clips
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 02-06-2019, 2:56 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,975
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyDave View Post
So a freedom-hating state could just leave its anti-gun laws on the books. When someone is arrested, or denied a permit, he has to get a lawyer and fight it.

But now comes the really bad part -- each jurisdiction in the state caves on the law -- but it is only precedent in that jurisdiction, and it is never appealable to a higher court. So we have to fight the battle in each county in the state at huge expense.

Or maybe I have that wrong and a decision in one county is good for the whole state?

Or, would it be possible for someone to go after the entire state at once?
I've never even visited a law school so I'm by no means a lawyer - so read at your own risk.

If there were a good SCOTUS opinion and Kommifornia left in a place a law which clearly did not comply, then if arrested I'd expect the sequence to go like this:

1. Arrested. (In some jurisdictions they'd simply not arrest you, however.)
2. Convicted (too likely here in California even if the law were clearly unconstitutional). However, the judge may throw out the case as unconstitutional but I'd not count on that. . .
3. Appeal the conviction. Likely through the federal District Court. The District court strikes down the law itself.
4. The State of Kommifornia really might appeal to the 9th Circus.
5. 9th Circus may have enough judges appointed by Trump that it will actually follow the Constitution and precedent and finish the job of striking down the law. Otherwise it may go to SCOTUS again.

There are variations on this, of course. I think that the appeal might be up through the State Supreme Court but the state court is going to be so stacked with fascists that they are fairly unlikely to follow the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent so it ends up in federal court anyway.

But if someone can muster the resources after an arrest, one would expect the law to be struck down.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 02-06-2019, 6:59 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,942
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I've never even visited a law school so I'm by no means a lawyer - so read at your own risk.

If there were a good SCOTUS opinion and Kommifornia left in a place a law which clearly did not comply, then if arrested I'd expect the sequence to go like this:

1. Arrested. (In some jurisdictions they'd simply not arrest you, however.)
2. Convicted (too likely here in California even if the law were clearly unconstitutional). However, the judge may throw out the case as unconstitutional but I'd not count on that. . .
3. Appeal the conviction. Likely through the federal District Court. The District court strikes down the law itself.
4. The State of Kommifornia really might appeal to the 9th Circus.
5. 9th Circus may have enough judges appointed by Trump that it will actually follow the Constitution and precedent and finish the job of striking down the law. Otherwise it may go to SCOTUS again.

There are variations on this, of course. I think that the appeal might be up through the State Supreme Court but the state court is going to be so stacked with fascists that they are fairly unlikely to follow the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent so it ends up in federal court anyway.

But if someone can muster the resources after an arrest, one would expect the law to be struck down.
No need for an arrest. One could merely file an action for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 02-06-2019, 7:41 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,104
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyDave View Post
So a freedom-hating state could just leave its anti-gun laws on the books. When someone is arrested, or denied a permit, he has to get a lawyer and fight it.
Yes, but if you have a SCOTUS decision to back you, then you are going to win, eventually, and that's when the state is going to write your lawyers (and you) and nice fat check.

So it won't cost you a penny. There are some very accomplished lawyers who would take such a case without needing a dime from you. Of course when they win they'll take a huge chunk, but that's just business, they need to make back the interest on the loan of their time and money during the years they are fighting this all the way up the ladder.
__________________

Last edited by speedrrracer; 02-06-2019 at 7:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 02-06-2019, 8:25 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,975
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
No need for an arrest. One could merely file an action for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Thank you. That is much better.

And we can bet that CRPA, Madison Society, Calguns, NRA, and maybe GOA would all be eager to help make that happen.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 02-06-2019, 4:09 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 35
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Olecuss, I think you do misunderstand the court process. I believe that you are talking about what happens if charged under a CA law in state court that is unconstitutional. You would be tried in the local CA Superior Court most likely. If convicted, you would appeal to the CA appellate court for the geographical area where the trial court was located. If the conviction is upheld by the appellate court, you would then ask the CA Supreme Court to review the case. The CA supreme court may, or may not, hear the case. Keep in mind that none of this is in a federal court to this point. If the CA Supreme Court upholds the conviction under the state law (or refuses to take the case) and the defense is that the law is unconstitutional under the US 2nd Amendment, then you could request the US Supreme Court to hear your appeal. While you might try to initiate some type of action, like a declaratory judgment to hold the law invalid in federal court, that court may well decide to hold off on the case until the criminal case winds its way throgh the state courts.
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 02-06-2019, 8:18 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 769
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This piece might provide some insight into the anti-civil rights strategy. It was originally put out in the New York Law Journal...

The Gun Grenade in the Hands of the Supreme Court

You can't read the entire article there, unless you are a member (I'll give you a link in a moment where you can), but the sub-headline is the important part for that link...

Quote:
In his Civil Rights and Civil Liberties column, Christopher Dunn provides a brief background on Second Amendment jurisprudence, setting the foundation for his discussion of 'New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York', a case the Supreme Court recently accepted out of New York that threatens to curtail dramatically the ability of states and localities to regulate firearms. How the court decides this case may be a pivotal moment for public safety and constitutional jurisprudence.
Here's a link to the entirety of the article... The Gun Grenade in the Hands of the Supreme Court

You will note how, in the 3rd paragraph, he misrepresents the 2nd Amendment...

Quote:
The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This article would seem to provide some insight into the anti-civil rights side of how the 2nd Amendment should be viewed...
  • That Heller was incorrectly decided as an individual, rather than a collective, right.
  • That Heller left the scope and doctrinal standards open to question.
  • That Heller recognized the scope of the right is not unlimited.
  • That the level of scrutiny, as cited by the Second Circuit, is, therefore, variable.
  • That the impositions imposed are "trivial" based on the core element of the 2nd Amendment as laid out in Heller... self-defense in the home; meaning strict scrutiny should not apply.

The intent/concern in this piece is summarized in the last paragraph in the author's expressed fear that SCOTUS may be prepared to 'expand' the right beyond the home by treating the 2nd Amendment consistent with how other rights are adjudicated; restricting gun-control efforts.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 02-06-2019 at 8:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 02-07-2019, 7:25 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 837
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The case also will allow the court to address a jurisprudential issue that poses a profound dilemma for many civil libertarians: the interrelationship between the doctrine governing gun rights and the doctrine governing other provisions of the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment right to free speech.
It only poses a “profound dilemma” if you’re not actually a civil libertarian but instead someone who wants people to be allowed to do things you like, prohibited from doing things you don’t like, and you view the constitution as nothing but a tool to achieve your particular ends.

Something it would be nice to see SCOTUS address head-on in the decision (as part of a scrutiny discussion) is how the lower courts have effectively allowed “preventing gun violence” to become “promoting public safety” and then in turn become “restricting firearms ownership and use” when talking about a compelling government interest.
Reply With Quote
  #421  
Old 02-07-2019, 7:34 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,104
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You will note how, in the 3rd paragraph, he misrepresents the 2nd Amendment...
Your analysis of the article and their POV might be correct, just going to point out that after great effort and considerable expenditure of resources, they finally did manage to get the 2A right on later edit; it's now been properly copied/pasted and the author is resting, exhausted from his labors

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Something it would be nice to see SCOTUS address head-on in the decision (as part of a scrutiny discussion) is how the lower courts have effectively allowed “preventing gun violence” to become “promoting public safety” and then in turn become “restricting firearms ownership and use” when talking about a compelling government interest.
If SCOTUS goes that way, we win. That is the battleground. Can we ignore the civil rights and just say "public safety uber alles" or do we actually have to make room for freedom in our socialist utopia? Don't hold your breath waiting for SCOTUS to rule on that
__________________

Last edited by speedrrracer; 02-07-2019 at 7:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #422  
Old 02-07-2019, 12:46 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 837
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
If SCOTUS goes that way, we win. That is the battleground. Can we ignore the civil rights and just say "public safety uber alles" or do we actually have to make room for freedom in our socialist utopia? Don't hold your breath waiting for SCOTUS to rule on that
Well, I’m talking about a step even less than that. In Friedman v. Highland Park it was stated that “public safety” might not even be the compelling government interest that needs to be argued anymore. Making people “feel safer” means that restrictions, in and of themselves, have effectively become the “compelling government interest” completely divorced from any material benefits to public safety.

Unless that gets corrected, laws will tautologically pass any scrutiny test.
Reply With Quote
  #423  
Old 02-07-2019, 2:03 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 509
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Well, I’m talking about a step even less than that. In Friedman v. Highland Park it was stated that “public safety” might not even be the compelling government interest that needs to be argued anymore. Making people “feel safer” means that restrictions, in and of themselves, have effectively become the “compelling government interest” completely divorced from any material benefits to public safety.

Unless that gets corrected, laws will tautologically pass any scrutiny test.
Agreed. Friedman allowed "feelz" to trump a guaranteed civil right, and that is an intolerable application of any level of review, as it is nothing more that "rational basis" wrapped up in a pretty package. Which is what the Ninth has been doing as most remarkably demonstrated in the San Francisco ordinance requiring firearms to be unloaded and locked up when not in use. The anti-circuits are quite cynical in their applications of the "intermediate" scrutiny test, applying the same sliding scale analysis that the majority in Heller expressly rejected.
Reply With Quote
  #424  
Old 02-07-2019, 4:24 PM
Phiremin Phiremin is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 87
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
The case also will allow the court to address a jurisprudential issue that poses a profound dilemma for many civil libertarians: the interrelationship between the doctrine governing gun rights and the doctrine governing other provisions of the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment right to free speech.
Interesting. So he is basically saying that by applying strict scrutiny to the 2nd Amendment, the same level of scrutiny applied to encumbering other fundamental constitutional rights, this will erode protections under those rights (the 1st Amendment for example).
Because obviously we plan to defy whatever the SCOTUS tells us with regard to 2A protections. If they say “strict scrutiny”, we’ll water it down to the point of irrelevance to allow whatever silly gun law a state wants. However, by lowering the bar on strict scrutiny, the constitutional rights that we like and approve of may be at risk as we set new precedence for what “strict scrutiny” means.

... Of course you could just accept the 2A is a real constitutional right and stop ignoring it
Reply With Quote
  #425  
Old 02-10-2019, 12:00 AM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 134
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phiremin View Post
... If they say “strict scrutiny”, we’ll water it down to the point of irrelevance to allow whatever silly gun law a state wants. However, by lowering the bar on strict scrutiny, the constitutional rights that we like and approve of may be at risk as we set new precedence for what “strict scrutiny” means...
The real problem is that the meaning of strict scrutiny has already been well established for the favored rights. It is already set in stone.

Surely judges will twist themselves into knots watering it down in 2A cases, but I am thinking that any scheme which starts by making the state prove its case and that its restrictions are the least intrusive possible is going to fail if our side can point out a less intrusive way to achieve a goal.
Reply With Quote
  #426  
Old 02-11-2019, 5:04 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 596
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As we expected, the Court will not hear NYSRPA this Spring: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/c...il-calendar-2/
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #427  
Old 02-11-2019, 7:07 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 837
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Agreed. Friedman allowed "feelz" to trump a guaranteed civil right, and that is an intolerable application of any level of review, as it is nothing more that "rational basis" wrapped up in a pretty package.
It's worse than that; it doesn't even have to be a rational way of restricting firearms. It literally just has to BE a restriction on firearms. Restrictions on firearms make people feel safer whether they make any sense or not, therefore all restrictions on firearms serve a compelling government interest.
Reply With Quote
  #428  
Old 02-11-2019, 9:11 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
As we expected, the Court will not hear NYSRPA this Spring: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/c...il-calendar-2/


I was hoping Thomas could write the majority opinion as the crowning achievement of his decades long faithful service in protecting our Constitution and BoR, and then retire in July so that Trump could replace him before next fall the election cycle beginning again....

I guess SCOTUS could still hear it in Oct, Thomas could then announce his retirement to begin on 2020 Jan 01, and then write the opinion and release it all before New Years day.

Meanwhile next fall, Trump could select his nominee to replace Thomas and the Senate Jud. Cmte could hold hearings, vote, and full Senate floor vote by Christmas recess.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-11-2019 at 10:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #429  
Old 02-11-2019, 9:14 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 134
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
As we expected, the Court will not hear NYSRPA this Spring: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/02/c...il-calendar-2/
Not an entirely bad thing.

Some more time for RBG to retire works for us.

If we get a replacement, a broad ruling is much easier to achieve.
Reply With Quote
  #430  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:39 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,726
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyDave View Post
Not an entirely bad thing.

Some more time for RBG to retire works for us.

If we get a replacement, a broad ruling is much easier to achieve.
Plus, if it is heard at the same time as Rogers, perhaps merged, we may get a comprehensive ruling on RBA.

Bottom line: since we can't change this, might as well be optimistic!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #431  
Old 02-12-2019, 7:33 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,019
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Plus, if it is heard at the same time as Rogers, perhaps merged, we may get a comprehensive ruling on RBA.

Bottom line: since we can't change this, might as well be optimistic!
Knowing that the Roger's cert request attempts to argue for CCW, and argue that OC can be banned in favor thereof, why would SCOTUS take up Roger's?

And how would Roger's + NYSRP be comprehensive when SCOTUS in Heller v. DC already recognizes:

1. CCW may be prohibited.
2. OC is the right.
3. Right to travel.

So that brings up another "comprehensive" question:

Why would SCOTUS issue a comprehensive comprehensive decision?

=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
  #432  
Old 02-12-2019, 8:41 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,735
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyDave View Post
Not an entirely bad thing.

Some more time for RBG to retire works for us.
Exactly. We will be much better with her having some time to retire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyDave View Post
If we get a replacement, a broad ruling is much easier to achieve.
Yes. And I'm sure they took this to give a broad ruling. SCOTUS doesn't get involved in minutiae and narrow issues of specific laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Plus, if it is heard at the same time as Rogers, perhaps merged, we may get a comprehensive ruling on RBA.
That would be great! IANAL so I don't know how that works, how likely that is, etc, but I know it would be great and it sounds logical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Bottom line: since we can't change this, might as well be optimistic!
Except not KC. KC, here's a list of the most depressing movies ever. Please add this to your Netflix.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #433  
Old 02-12-2019, 9:42 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

“SCOTUS doesn't get involved in minutiae and narrow issues of specific laws.”


They do. Such as MA stun gun ban.
Reply With Quote
  #434  
Old 02-12-2019, 10:48 AM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 596
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Knowing that the Roger's cert request attempts to argue for CCW, and argue that OC can be banned in favor thereof, why would SCOTUS take up Roger's?

And how would Roger's + NYSRP be comprehensive when SCOTUS in Heller v. DC already recognizes:

1. CCW may be prohibited.
2. OC is the right.
3. Right to travel.

So that brings up another "comprehensive" question:

Why would SCOTUS issue a comprehensive comprehensive decision?

=8-|
Sigh.

Sigh.

Not a single Circuit court has interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing that OC is protected by 2A. Nor has a single Circuit interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing the 2A protects the right to travel with a firearm.

These issues, therefore, are not established for any practical purpose. Some people, who actually believe in broad interpretations of civil liberties, want the Court to more clearly enunciate what rights the 2A protects so that the People can begin enjoying those rights with reduced fear of prosecution.

And now I've committed the cardinal sin of knowingly feeding the troll. May God forgive me.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #435  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:29 AM
Prwterbird's Avatar
Prwterbird Prwterbird is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 86
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Resist the
Reply With Quote
  #436  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:45 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,975
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
Sigh.

.
.
.
And now I've committed the cardinal sin of knowingly feeding the troll. May God forgive me.
God may forgive you, but we will not!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #437  
Old 02-12-2019, 1:23 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 659
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
“SCOTUS doesn't get involved in minutiae and narrow issues of specific laws.”


They do. Such as MA stun gun ban.
Oh for the love of crackers, are you serious? I think you are trolling, but how does affirming that 2A applies to arms not conceived at the time of ratification somehow equal minutiae? It was unanimous per curiam by the way.
Reply With Quote
  #438  
Old 02-12-2019, 2:12 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,019
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
Sigh.

Sigh.

Not a single Circuit court has interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing that OC is protected by 2A. Nor has a single Circuit interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing the 2A protects the right to travel with a firearm.

These issues, therefore, are not established for any practical purpose. Some people, who actually believe in broad interpretations of civil liberties, want the Court to more clearly enunciate what rights the 2A protects so that the People can begin enjoying those rights with reduced fear of prosecution.

And now I've committed the cardinal sin of knowingly feeding the troll. May God forgive me.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
http://www.guncite.com

__________________
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
  #439  
Old 02-12-2019, 2:27 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not a single Circuit court has interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing that OC is protected by 2A. Nor has a single Circuit interpreted Heller/McDonald as establishing the 2A protects the right to travel with a firearm.

Reply With Quote
  #440  
Old 02-12-2019, 2:29 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Oh for the love of crackers, are you serious? I think you are trolling, but how does affirming that 2A applies to arms not conceived at the time of ratification somehow equal minutiae? It was unanimous per curiam by the way.
In the exactly the same way as affirming the right to travel with one's firearm. A narrow issue of a specific law. Or you are unable to read complete sentences?
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 8:27 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.