|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1561
|
||||
|
||||
SCOTUS isn't reading any posts here, and any arguments here are usually to make a prediction, IMO. I don't think any of this ever makes it to any filing; I find it hard to believe any lawyer would deign to mine anything here for their own use (unless nefariously).
So to that extent, arguing here only has two purposes 1) helping the "other" side (I've seen this claim but don't find it terribly convincing) 2) make predictions And I've said my piece on 2). Logic/reason don't enter into it.
__________________
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 |
#1562
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1564
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1565
|
|||
|
|||
That's a definite ^^^^^^
|
#1566
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#1567
|
|||
|
|||
It goes to the en banc panel. When en banc was granted, the 3 judge panel decision was vacated. What that panel does then is highly dependent upon what the Supreme Court does in the NYSRPA case. As you know already, by narrowing the issue to the concealed carry issue only, there is a suggestion that the Court is attempting to avoid the open carry question all together. If it does so, whether it will then take up Young to address open carry is unknowable at this time, although the issue is squarely presented because the en banc panel eliminated any right to carry outside the home.
If the Court holds that there is a right to bear arms outside the home, it may just return Young for redetermination in view of that holding, letting it percolate up again in a couple of years. I think that we are all aware that the Ninth drags its feet in deciding any case that might result in an expansion of gun rights. |
#1568
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I agree with you except since the GVR after NYSRPA will vacate the en banc decision I think it goes down to original 3-judge panel to redo with new law and directions that should be clear enough for a 3-judge panel to decide the case. If loser there thinks 3-judge panel was wrong (e.g., our side if we lose and think the judges are resisting SCOTUS), they can then ask for en banc review. I don’t see a majority of those judges wanting to get slapped down yet again on similar issue. If we win then and HI seeks cert, it will be denied. (Similar if we win at 3-judge and HI asks for en banc I expect them to be denied.) JMO
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 10-22-2021 at 9:00 PM.. |
#1569
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1570
|
||||
|
||||
Okay, that I could see where they technically give it to the en banc but the en banc does not rehear and decide it again but just sends it back down to the 3-judge panel.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#1571
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If SCOTUS rules as I predict, Peruta as a precedent will be finished. Young's open carry case was predicated on Peruta being good law, so now we'll be on a blank slate with NYSRPA controlling. |
#1573
|
|||
|
|||
No. The Hawaii "may issue" law applies to both open and concealed carry (it doesn't distinguish between them). If SCOTUS says "may issue" is constitutionally impermissible, the lower federal are bound to follow that directive and overturn the Hawaii law. If the District Court or the Court of Appeal so orders, it may allow a period of time for Hawaii to enact a new law, such as occurred in Illinois, subject to a time limitation. IF that limit is not met, the state will be enjoined from enforcing its law, and the state becomes ConCarry. (Hawaii being virulently anti-gun, we have to assume that a new law will be enacted expeditiously.) The only time a new suit would be required is if Hawaii imposes onerous conditions for approval of a carry permit in an effort to limit the number of guns being carried.
|
#1575
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We have to wait for the dust to settle and sue California again. |
#1577
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Otherwise every bad gun law that the 9th Circus has upheld in Ca. Peruta for example. Would also apply in Az. and Alaska. Which are Constitutional Carry states. |
#1578
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The communist know this, and will likely attempt to use every tool in their power to drag things out. The practical way I see this, is that my children (20’s) may benefit, but many older folks will be beyond the point of armed defense by then. |
#1579
|
|||
|
|||
There is some misunderstanding here..... when a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals publishes a decision it is binding precedent in the entire Circuit jurisdiction, not just the state where the case originated from.
So, Young will be binding throughout all the states within the 9th circuit once it is finished as a case. States rights have nothing to do with this. The 9th Circuit Ct of Appeals would base its ruling on the Federal Constitution, so the decision is binding on all states. That doesn’t mean states can’t grant broader privileges (via state statute or State Constitution) to citizens than the bare minimum recognized by the 9th Circuit, but it is either a state legislature being generous, or a state abiding by its own State Constitution (which can recognize/grant broader civil liberties to the people in the state than the Federal Constitution (as interpreted by the 9th Circuit)). |
#1580
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1581
|
||||
|
||||
Not entirely. To the extent the 9th held that there is no 2A right to carry outside of the home, that would be binding on all the states in the 9th Circuit as a matter of federal law, but meaningless because other than CA & HI, there is a independent state right to carry outside the home in the other states. In fact, 4 of the 9 states are permitless carry and NV, OR & WA are shall issue.
|
#1582
|
|||
|
|||
Other states are not automatically bound by the Young decision in their current laws. Someone would need to sue the other states individually and assert that their currently laws have some sort of Constitutional defect. Washington State is shall issue for example.
Now, individual law enforcement entities might take it upon themselves to follow the Young precedent - not unlike the way Gavin Newsom decided to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses as mayor. For that matter, if NYSPRA rules that "Shall Issue" should be the standard, then some sheriff's may choose to adopt the Court's reasoning. One can always contact the local Sheriff and ask that they do so. If they don't, then maybe litigation is in order. I could see a character like Villenueva taking the court decision and on his own deciding to follow it for LA County. I expect certain other counties to dig in their heels and resist bitterly. And I wouldn't be surprised if the State took legislative action to try and thwart the Court's decision, by expanding the definition of "sensitive spaces" for example. |
#1584
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
1. Thomas 2. Alito 3. Gorsuch 4. Kavanaugh 5. Notorious ACB |
#1585
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
FWIW I expect most remaining anti sheriffs to roll over after consulting County Counsel and accept SD = GC (assuming NYSRPA majority rules that).
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#1586
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Too bad SCOTUS doesnt just reinstate the 3 judge panel ruling and call it a day
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc |
#1587
|
|||
|
|||
This is what I had thought originally. I was wondering if we should get some folks together to apply here in Santa Cruz County once NYSRPA and Young are decided. I remember a meeting with our Sherriff where we said he would abide by the Peruta Decision if decided in favor of carry. Fingers crossed! I don't want to have to move to Monterey or San Benito just to carry
|
#1588
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1589
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
When I refer to the sheriff consulting county counsel I’m expecting them to tell the sheriff they have to accept SD as GC or they’re knowingly and intentionally leaving the county exposed to legal liability (think county liability insurance rates), and may even be personally liable for civil rights violations. I’d be surprised if the CA state sheriffs association isn’t working on responses to possible outcomes right now. IOW I expect things to change in out favor fast.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#1590
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
A 9th Circus ruling is as I said; "A CITABLE PRECEDENT" and will be binding on all COURTS future adjudication within the 9th A precedent is not BINDING on the State. Until/Unless it is litigated within that state's Court System. Quote:
NOPE IT'S NOT INCORRECT. IT'S ALSO ACCURATE. Quote:
^^^AGAIN, NOT ONLY CORRECT, BUT ACCURATE^^^ If A FED CIRCUIT COURTS rulings were "BINDING ON ALL STATES WITHIN THE CIRCUIT". Instead of the Courts within the circuit. A-holes like this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG5xWcV412E Couldn't get away with the crap they do. A CITABLE PRECEDENT WITHIN A CIRCUIT. IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN SIMPLY SAYING "BINDING ON STATE". Every ruling in every circuit would be considered the LAW in every state, within that circuit. |
#1591
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 11-11-2021 at 2:32 PM.. |
#1592
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"CASE LAW" is binding on the COURTS. Not the STATE. MOST LEA and DAs adhere to CASE LAW. Because they know they are backing a losing horse, ONCE A CASE GETS TO COURT. So they either don't make arrests, or those arrests get "DA REJECTED" before ever getting to court. Recent "Ca Magazine" cases where citizens were arrested and/or had their "Freedom Wk" mags taken. Is perfect example. Those cases are "unenforceable" due to Benitez Stayed Ruling. So none made it to COURT. DA REJECTS Because they would be losers, IN COURT. Your (Guillory v. Gates) reference actually supports my premise. I haven't delved into it. Yet if it was a CCW case Re GC and GMC arbitrary and capricious denials, and they won. Why does LEA unfettered discretion, to arbitrarily deny CCW application due to GC and GMC persist in Ca? You present it as a Black/White racial disparity 14th A issue. We all know that is a No No for enforcement. Last edited by pacrat; 11-11-2021 at 3:57 PM.. |
#1593
|
|||
|
|||
So much confusion here.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling is binding on ALL federal AND state courts. Restated, all courts are bound to follow that precedent, not just the parties to that case. It is a little bit more complicated with constitutional issues only in this regard: the particular portion of the Constitution in issue must be applicable to the states (as most of the BOR have been). If SCOTUS says that the BOR requires something, that is the minimum standard that must be followed by all states and all state courts as a minimum standard (e.g. Miranda). Heller set a minimum standard that all states must allow citizens to keep loaded firearms in their homes available for immediate use. If Bruen says "shall issue" is the minimum standard for CCW, that rule is binding on all states as a minimum requirement. States are allowed to be less restrictive (e.g. concarry). The immediate effect on Bruen will be shall issue in the last 8 holdouts, but subject to any limitations that SCOTUS deems permissible. Circuit Court decisions are binding on all FEDERAL courts within the circuit and on the parties to the litigation. They are PERSUASIVE authority as to state courts, but not BINDING, even on questions of federal law. State Supreme Court rulings are binding on all federal courts in that state, including federal appellate courts, on questions of state law. They are not binding on federal courts as to questions of federal law. Federal District Court decisions are binding on the parties, and if one of those parties is the State, on all "state" agencies. That is why Benitez' decision is binding on all policy agencies in the state. |
#1594
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1595
|
|||
|
|||
There was an article I read once that explored how states routinely ignore appeals court decisions in other circuits.
You’re seeing something similar with states (and companies) outside the 5th Circuit pushing ahead with vaccine mandates despite the 5th circuit staying the Federal OSHA one. They may not change behavior without a Supreme Court ruling. |
#1596
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1597
|
|||
|
|||
I am not aware of any state law in California that prevents anyone from carrying a handgun for self-defense in their own home.
|
#1598
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
the list is endless.
__________________
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 |
#1599
|
|||
|
|||
Heller holding was limited to carrying a handgun in the home for self-defense. It's not fair to say Heller has been "ignored" by the courts in California.
|
#1600
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Remember that Heller expressly permitted restrictions on the right, and it's arguable whether these things are permitted restrictions.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|