Flanagan v. Harris 2023 Feb 08 Dismissed as moot

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

If they really want to litigate a open carry case then it proceeds to discover and then someone files a motin for summary judgement or it goes to trial.

One would think that they wouldn't have bothered to argue the open carry angle unless they wanted to pursue that (otherwise, what would be the point?).

Anyway, cool. So this essentially was the opening salvo, as it were.

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

One would think that they wouldn't have bothered to argue the open carry angle unless they wanted to pursue that (otherwise, what would be the point?).

Anyway, cool. So this essentially was the opening salvo, as it were.

They are arguing open carry in order to get around Peruta. They are trying to say that they are entitled to a concealed carry permit because they would carry open if that was allowed but since open carry is not allowed they are willing to take concealed.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

They are arguing open carry in order to get around Peruta. They are trying to say that they are entitled to a concealed carry permit because they would carry open if that was allowed but since open carry is not allowed they are willing to take concealed.

If that were all they were saying, they wouldn't have bothered to ask for the primary form of relief (enjoinment of the open carry prohibitions), nor argued against the Constitutionality of the open carry prohibitions:

Originally Posted by Flanagan v Harris Complaint

72. California statutes prohibiting law-abiding citizens, including Plaintiffs, from publicly carrying an exposed firearm for self-defense violate the Second Amendment.

Note that the primary form of relief requested is enjoinment of the open carry statutes. Concealed carry (in the form of "good cause" redress similar to what was argued for in Peruta) was asked for as an alternative form of relief.

The case appears to be a comprehensive attack on the entire carry regime. I don't doubt that the plaintiffs would prefer to get concealed carry permits as a matter of right (though the case asks for open carry first), but at least this case, unlike Peruta, doesn't leave anything on the table. And rightly so. Had they failed to ask for the alternative form of relief, the court might well have decided that the mere fact that concealed carry isn't banned outright is sufficient to "satisfy" the 2nd Amendment even though the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect it, thus dispensing with the case.


Is it not true that, as a litigant, you don't voluntarily give your opposition anywhere to go?

[Paladin]

No real activity since March 08?

http://michellawyers.com/michelle-fl...-harris-et-al/

[press1280]

Originally Posted by Paladin

No real activity since March 08?

http://michellawyers.com/michelle-fl...-harris-et-al/

Someone will have to explain what's going on. According to Nichols they haven't made a true open carry claim and have missed several deadlines as far as a re-do on the complaint.
It's not looking promising right now.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by press1280

Someone will have to explain what's going on. According to Nichols they haven't made a true open carry claim and have missed several deadlines as far as a re-do on the complaint.
It's not looking promising right now.

Mr. Nichols has provided the transcript of the February 13, 2017 court appearance in which counsel for the plaintiffs claims, over and over again, that the solution to their "open carry" lawsuit is for the sheriff to issue concealed carry permits. Of course the judge keeps insisting he is not going to re-litigate Peruta, and sums things up thusly:

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK WE'RE GETTING ANYWHERE. p. 16

It's pretty funny really, in a sad kinda way.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...rris-et-al.pdf

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

Mr. Nichols has provided the transcript of the February 13, 2017 court appearance in which counsel for the plaintiffs claims, over and over again, that the solution to their "open carry" lawsuit is for the sheriff to issue concealed carry permits. Of course the judge keeps insisting he is not going to re-litigate Peruta, and sums things up thusly:

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK WE'RE GETTING ANYWHERE. p. 16

It's pretty funny really, in a sad kinda way.

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...rris-et-al.pdf

Plaintiffs here are deathly afraid that the court (not necessarily this court, but certainly the 9th Circuit) will claim that concealed carry is a means of satisfying the right and, thus, that the open carry ban is Constitutional since carry isn't entirely foreclosed -- and then terminate this case without remedy because concealed carry is no longer part of the challenge and, thus, a remedy on that basis is not possible. That fear is entirely justified.

By dismissing the sheriff as a defendant, the concealed carry angle goes out the window. Now, the court did say here that there is no concealed carry remedy available since the plaintiffs were denied a concealed carry permit and Peruta states that they don't have a right to such, so that, at least, suggests that this court might treat this case with some honesty regarding the totality of the scheme.

But the 9th Circuit will not, and therein lies the problem. This court doesn't presume malfeasance on the part of the 9th Circuit, when malfeasance is exactly what one should expect.


The only way I can think of to protect the entire argument is to argue that something absolutely must be available as a matter of right, since a right to do something actually means that the average citizen has the lawful ability to do that something. And as such, if the court insists that the availability of concealed carry "satisfies" the right and thus the open carry ban is Constitutional, then concealed carry must be available as a matter of right even if there is no specific right to concealed carry. Which is to say, while one may not have a right to carry concealed specifically, one must have a satisfiable right to carry, so it is invalid for the court to claim that the "availability" of concealed carry satisfies the right unless that availability translates to an ability to carry as a matter of right.

Obviously, in the context of this case, the above argument is one that should be made not as the primary argument, but as a backstop for the primary argument, which is that since concealed carry is not protected as a right, then open carry must be, with all that implies.


We're going to lose this case, and we're going to lose it because the courts (the 9th Circuit at a minimum, and possibly this court as well) will treat the "availability", regardless of how limited, of concealed carry as "satisfying" the right even though concealed carry itself is not protected as a matter of right.

Only the Supreme Court can save this case. But that has always been true of all these cases, so the above shouldn't be taken to mean that this case is somehow worse than any others (indeed, it is attempting to be better). It is merely a reflection of the actual state of judicial affairs. What else should one expect from people who wield power arbitrarily?

[surfgeorge]

Regardless of what the "Plaintiffs here are deathly afraid" of, all that matters to the court is the lawsuit, as written, by the plaintiffs. Their "strategy" includes asking the court to rule that sheriffs (the L.A. County Sheriff in particular) in counties of greater than 200,000 population must violate existing state law and issue open carry licenses to citizens of those counties. OBVIOUSLY no court is going to do that, so the apparent strategy is to "win by losing" and then claim that "Well, since that can't happen, rule that those sheriffs then have to issue CCW licenses even though Peruta already ruled that they don't have to do that."



Essentially "ditto" for the claim against the California Attorney General.

And this is the "new" strategy based upon the eight long years of Peruta litigation... the best the NRA/CRPA could come up with.

Result: Motions to dismiss against L.A. County Sheriff and Attorney General GRANTED.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Originally Posted by Paladin

No real activity since March 08?

http://michellawyers.com/michelle-fl...-harris-et-al/

This case is moving forward rapidly and a ton has been done since March. We are currently finishing up discovery. I just deposed one of the State's experts yesterday. Unless something unexpected happens, an MSJ will be filed no later than September.

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

Regardless of what the "Plaintiffs here are deathly afraid" of, all that matters to the court is the lawsuit, as written, by the plaintiffs. Their "strategy" includes asking the court to rule that sheriffs (the L.A. County Sheriff in particular) in counties of greater than 200,000 population must violate existing state law and issue open carry licenses to citizens of those counties.

Can you point me to where in our lawsuit Plaintiffs seek this remedy?

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

Can you point me to where in our lawsuit Plaintiffs seek this remedy?

What was it you expected the L.A. County Sheriff and the Attorney General to be ordered by the court to do if your lawsuit was successful? And if that premise was valid, why were both granted their motions to dismiss (and thus no longer subject to you lawsuit)?

Was your request to extend the date for expert testimony/depositions extended, or does it expire today?

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Originally Posted by surfgeorge

What was it you expected the L.A. County Sheriff and the Attorney General to be ordered by the court to do if your lawsuit was successful? And if that premise was valid, why were both granted their motions to dismiss (and thus no longer subject to you lawsuit)?

Was your request to extend the date for expert testimony/depositions extended, or does it expire today?

You answer my question first.

But, just to clarify, this case is not about concealed or open carry, it seeks to force the answer to whether there is a right to carry in some manner, which is why challenges are made to all of California's carry statutes, both open and concealed, and license and non-license restrictions. Seeking to keep the Sheriff in the lawsuit was to preclude the state from pointing to him as a possible remedy for Plaintiffs, now the Court has said he is not, so we have successfully narrowed the State's outs.

A challenge only to the open carry restrictions risks effectively the same result in Peruta but just from the opposite angle, as kcbrown points out. In other words, the Court could say there is no right to open carry per se, a CCW is sufficient to satisfy the 2A, and because (at least in theory) you could get one and you are not challenging your inability to get one, your challenge fails.

Additionally, we just happen to think this is the correct legal approach, regardless of the strategic questions raised by the Ninth Circuit. It is, after all, our reading of Heller that a state can regulate the manner of carry (e.g., open v. concealed) but it cannot ban it. CA has a scheme that bans it. We are challenging that scheme as a whole. It is up to CA to determine what gives. Whether that ends up being concealed or open carry, some Plaintiffs may have their preferences, but they will take either one.

So anyone who says this case is only about getting CCWs (and doesn't genuinely seek to obtain open carry) is either misinformed or intentionally spreading disinformation.

[CCWFacts]

Thanks Sean. That makes sense. You have included the sheriff and asked for a CCW at this stage, so the state can't come back later and say, "hey if you want to carry why didn't you ask the sheriff? Oh, you asked and he said no? so why didn't you sue him?" Now you can say, "yes we did all that"

[sfpcservice]

I'm confused by all the "dismissed" stuff... can someone summarize where we are presently, who's off the hook and who's still on?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

So anyone who says this case is only about getting CCWs (and doesn't genuinely seek to obtain open carry) is either misinformed or intentionally spreading disinformation.

Or they've never graduated from law school.... (And life is too short, and you're not getting paid, to educate them. (And they wouldn't thank you, but would resent you, if you did 'school' them. ))

Thx for the update, Sean. In what season (next fall, winter, spring), do you think the trial will take place?

I'm PMing you a question re. this case that I'd rather the antis not see.

[sfpcservice]

Thank you guys for all of your work!

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

I'm confused by all the "dismissed" stuff... can someone summarize where we are presently, who's off the hook and who's still on?

The judge dismissed the Sheriff as a defendant and our claims against the state challenging concealed carry laws because he said the relief we sought could not be obtained in light of Peruta. The State is still a defendant and must defend the open carry statutes.

Originally Posted by Paladin

Or they've never graduated from law school.... (And life is too short, and you're not getting paid, to educate them. (And they wouldn't thank you, but would resent you, if you did 'school' them. ))

Thx for the update, Sean. In what season (next fall, winter, spring), do you think the trial will take place?

I'm PMing you a question re. this case that I'd rather the antis not see.

Well, they are still misinformed, even if it is understandable. I have no problem with people having questions about this, but making uninformed (or worse, deliberately false) accusations about what is going on in this case, I do have a problem with.

Trial is set for February 6, but there will likely be MSJs from both sides before then and a likely appeal before we get to trial (of course, you never know).

Thanks for the kind words.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

You answer my question first.

But, just to clarify, this case is not about concealed or open carry, it seeks to force the answer to whether there is a right to carry in some manner, which is why challenges are made to all of California's carry statutes, both open and concealed, and license and non-license restrictions. Seeking to keep the Sheriff in the lawsuit was to preclude the state from pointing to him as a possible remedy for Plaintiffs, now the Court has said he is not, so we have successfully narrowed the State's outs.

While you've successfully narrowed the state's "outs", I fear you haven't eliminated how the court can wriggle out of the legal situation.

A challenge only to the open carry restrictions risks effectively the same result in Peruta but just from the opposite angle, as kcbrown points out. In other words, the Court could say there is no right to open carry per se, a CCW is sufficient to satisfy the 2A, and because (at least in theory) you could get one and you are not challenging your inability to get one, your challenge fails.

It's worse than that. Even with the sheriff dismissed, the court could claim that. Which is to say, they can claim that regardless. This hinges on what exactly it means for exercise of a right to be "available". You guys need to be arguing that a right isn't actually available unless the average person can actually exercise it if he chooses, i.e. the average person can actually engage in the activity that the right defines (here, that's "bear", as defined by the Supreme Court).

Additionally, we just happen to think this is the correct legal approach, regardless of the strategic questions raised by the Ninth Circuit. It is, after all, our reading of Heller that a state can regulate the manner of carry (e.g., open v. concealed) but it cannot ban it.

It is a mistake of monumental proportions to attempt to argue such a thing. You shouldn't. You should leave the question of who can regulate what alone, and argue only that the right must be exercisable by the average person for it to qualify as not being impermissibly infringed (since it can't even be a right otherwise), and leave the question of who can regulate what to the courts. If you must argue who can regulate what, you must argue in favor of all possible alternatives that leave the right uninfringed, without arguing more strongly for one versus the other. That means arguing that if the court decides that open carry can be banned or regulated in such a way that the average person cannot engage in it, then the court must remedy the plaintiffs by either forcing issuance of concealed carry licenses or striking the ban on concealed carry. And it means also arguing that if, conversely, the court reiterates that concealed carry can be banned or restricted such that it is not something the average person can engage in, then the court must remedy the plaintiffs by striking the open carry ban.

CA has a scheme that bans it. We are challenging that scheme as a whole. It is up to CA to determine what gives.

(emphasis mine)

And this is the problem. It is up to the courts to decide what gives at this point. The state may have preferences, but that alone doesn't bootstrap those preferences into Constitutionality. It is something for the courts to decide, but the court decisions themselves are what shape the landscape, and the litigation needs to somehow incorporate that so that the courts can't wriggle out of their legal duty without that being plain to all, including other courts.

[surfgeorge]

Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates

So anyone who says this case is only about getting CCWs (and doesn't genuinely seek to obtain open carry) is either misinformed or intentionally spreading disinformation.

Who said or wrote that "this case is only about getting CCWs (and doesn't genuinely seek to obtain open carry)"?

I certainly didn't. Someone else in this thread, or elsewhere?

As for your other "questions", I think KC at least touched on the basics of some of the problems. EDIT: Also, see page 1 of this thread from August 17, 2016, the posts by rplaw and Fabio.

[pacrat]

And this is the problem. It is up to the courts to decide what gives at this point. [1]....The state may have preferences, but that alone doesn't bootstrap those preferences into Constitutionality. It is something for the courts to decide, but the [2]....court decisions themselves are what shape the landscape, [3]....and the litigation needs to somehow incorporate that so that the courts can't wriggle out of their legal duty without that being plain to all, including other courts.

IANAL for damn sure. But I was raised to know "right from wrong" by parents of the 'Greatest Generation" that also made it through the "Great Depression".

IMHO, the crookedest politicians in this nation today. Are those that wear robes and sit at benches.

[1]....The "state has preferences" for sure. But don't have to "Bootstrap" those preferences into "Constitutionality". They in Ca, pass laws that they know are unconstitutional. Just ask "Reggie", Then let the turds in robes cover their collective leftist azzes.

[2]....And courts today, shape that "landscape" to fit their political agenda. With impunity!

[3]....That is, in today's world an impossibility. As in "Peruta". The 9th ruled the way it was predetermined they would rule, by simply changing the focus of the case. And ignoring, whatever they found inconvenient. Because there is no actual onus that a court "consider evidence", only that they have to hear it.

The courts [judges] of today no longer serve the cause of justice. And they assuredly don't give a crap what other courts think of them. Because there is nothing that they can do but overturn them. If the 9th gave a crap what other courts cared. Would they be the most "overturned" Fed Court in the country?

And this ploy goes all the way to SCOTUS. Rather than rule whether a law is Constitutional strictly on its merits, as written. As they are tasked to do. We'll just change this pesky unconstitutional "fee" word to "tax" and OsamaCare is GTG.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by pacrat

[3]....That is, in today's world an impossibility. As in "Peruta". The 9th ruled the way it was predetermined they would rule, by simply changing the focus of the case. And ignoring, whatever they found inconvenient. Because there is no actual onus that a court "consider evidence", only that they have to hear it.

Right. But my point isn't to "make" the courts actually issue an honest decision, but rather to arrange things such that their dishonesty is easily seen and is obvious to all, most especially to those (such as other courts) who think the courts are honest and objective.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

Right. But my point isn't to "make" the courts actually issue an honest decision, but rather to arrange things such that their dishonesty is easily seen and is obvious to all, most especially to those (such as other courts) who think the courts are honest and objective.

If court action on the 2nd isn't obvious to people at this point, I don't think justices literally saying gunowners are goatf*ckers and should all be exterminated and they would happily throw the switch would shift anyone at this point.

And then when you deal with calgunners...

[pacrat]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

Right. But my point isn't to "make" the courts actually issue an honest decision, but rather to arrange things such that their dishonesty is easily seen and is obvious to all, most especially to those (such as other courts) who think the courts are honest and objective.

The "Ninth Political Circus Court" already did exactly that in Peruta.

My point is that "your" point is moot. Courts don't give a crap what, [other turds in robes] think of them. Unless they get caught beating their wife. Mark Fuller example.

As appointed for life tenured turds, with no legal onus for honesty, and no punishment possible for obvious misfeasance on the bench, aka Judicial Immunity.

Being overturned has never affected the Position, Salary, or Pension, of a judge, has it?

JM2c

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by pacrat

The "Ninth Political Circus Court" already did exactly that in Peruta.

One would think.

And yet, Thomas was joined only by Gorsuch in his dissent against denial of cert for Peruta.

Either the malfeasance of the 9th Circuit isn't as obvious to all on the Supreme Court as you state (the "progressives" don't care about such malfeasance at all, but what of, e.g., Alito?), or the Supreme Court really doesn't care about how the lower courts do things.

There is no peaceful action save for an Article V Constitutional Amendment that can possibly deal with the latter case, so that leaves us only with the former case.

However obvious the 9th Circuit's malfeasance is to us, we have to presume that it isn't obvious to all. That is the position from which I argue here.

My point is that "your" point is moot. Courts don't give a crap what, [other turds in robes] think of them. Unless they get caught beating their wife. Mark Fuller example.

This isn't for changing what the 9th Circuit does, it's for changing what other courts do in response. You can't effect change if the need for change isn't known.

As appointed for life tenured turds, with no legal onus for honesty, and no punishment possible for obvious misfeasance on the bench, aka Judicial Immunity.

Being overturned has never affected the Position, Salary, or Pension, of a judge, has it?

JM2c

Preach it, brother! That's exactly what I've been saying since long before you joined the board.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to raise visibility of these problems. How else can they possibly be fixed if there's no real awareness of them?

[pacrat]

Peruta being denied cert, "may" have been a blessing in disguise. Right now "may" not be a good time. Since Chief Turd Roberts has embraced the role of leftist turncoat. "OsamaCare".

If other "originalist" justices are hoping to take a 2A case after the "leftist" pendulum of SCOTUS swings back to solid Constitutional grounds.

In case you haven't noticed in the last 30 yrs or so. We as 2A believers are only allowed to "raise visibility" of 2A issues. Even malfeasance in the courts. Amongst the "choir".

NRA had to create NRA channel as a truthful outreach. Because of the duplicity in the BS-M. But again only the choir hear what NRA is singing.

Because as previously stated about other turds in robes. The Bias Stream Media. Only makes public when turds beat their wives, or get caught accepting bribes.

However obvious the 9th Circuit's malfeasance is to us, we have to presume that it isn't obvious to all. That is the position from which I argue here.

As my views show. IMO, they see it, but ignore it as "turd business" as usual practices.

In the other recent Pro 2A decisions in other circuits. We will never know their true motives. It is "possible" other circuits saw the injustice done the citizens controlled by 9th decisions. And decided to not take part for integrity reasons. But none of the other "non turds in robes" will ever OUT their peers by publishing decisions and including the words.

"Since the Ninth Circus Screwed the Pooch" Even the NonTurds are quite that honest.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by pacrat

Peruta being denied cert, "may" have been a blessing in disguise. Right now "may" not be a good time. Since Chief Turd Roberts has embraced the role of leftist turncoat. "OsamaCare".

That's a real possibility. But why didn't Alito sign on to the Thomas' dissent?

Because as previously stated about other turds in robes. The Bias Stream Media. Only makes public when turds beat their wives, or get caught accepting bribes.

I've already dismissed the MSM. It is utterly corrupt. It has no redeeming qualities left in it. I believe a concerted effort should be made to discredit it amongst the general population to the point of its destruction. That has already happened to some degree. That particular job needs to be finished.

As my views show. IMO, they see it, but ignore it as "turd business" as usual practices.

Maybe, but how would you know if they don't actually say anything about it one way or the other? Without knowing the answer, you have to bust out game theory on the problem. The proper game theoretical move is to presume that at least some of the courts are listening, because if that presumption is right, then you wind up improving the situation through your efforts, while if it's not, then the end result is the same as if you didn't bother. As with the litigation itself, it's the difference between some chance of success and no chance of success. Faced with such a choice, I'll take the former any day.

"Since the Ninth Circus Screwed the Pooch" Even the NonTurds are quite that honest.

I agree they won't say such a thing, certainly, because they believe that it will implicate the entire system. But that doesn't mean they can't or won't act on what they see.

[press1280]

There's still the OC angle, which has cite able cases like Nunn, Chandler, and in re Bricker. The strategy of Peruta unfortunately does not have cases to point to.

[wolfwood]

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...y-Judgment.pdf

Government files its MSJ

NRA files theirs

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...y-Judgment.pdf

[Drivedabizness]

Becerra needs a slap upside the head from US DOJ AND the 9CA. His arrogant filing addresses nothing - merely states an opinion at odds with the judicial record.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

All filings in this case are available here: http://michellawyers.com/michelle-fl...-harris-et-al/

[Drivedabizness]

The issuance of a CCW SHOULD NOT be an issue of concern to the Sheriffs Department. CCW issuance is a matter of law and is the policy preference in the State of California. I would point the good Sheriff back to Block - he may NOT have a policy where he refuses to use his discretion - and Block was pre-Heller. BUt Hey IANAL...

[CCWFacts]

I read our side's motion. Cool! I liked it!

A couple of questions:

Are we going to skip the trial phase on this? There are no contested facts in this dispute, right? Therefore no reason for a jury trial?

Second question, why use a sans serif font? It seems like most briefs are in a serif font. Any particular reason?

[press1280]

The state cannot cite one case where total carry bans have been upheld. Instead, they focus on laws passed in frontier towns. Those laws were either repealed or in the case of IN Re Brickey, overturned. A law is found to be constitutional by the courts, not simply because it was passed. In other words, a law's existence cannot be the source of its constitutionality.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by press1280

The state cannot cite one case where total carry bans have been upheld. Instead, they focus on laws passed in frontier towns. Those laws were either repealed or in the case of IN Re Brickey, overturned. A law is found to be constitutional by the courts, not simply because it was passed. In other words, a law's existence cannot be the source of its constitutionality.

Oh yes it can. That's exactly what "longstanding" laws are: laws that have bootstrapped themselves into Constitutionality simply by existing long enough. It's why I have such a dim view of that part of Heller. No law should be Constitutional merely because it has existed long enough, but the Supreme Court was stupid enough or evil enough to encode that very thing into the "framework of Constitutionality".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[press1280]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

Oh yes it can. That's exactly what "longstanding" laws are: laws that have bootstrapped themselves into Constitutionality simply by existing long enough. It's why I have such a dim view of that part of Heller. No law should be Constitutional merely because it has existed long enough, but the Supreme Court was stupid enough or evil enough to encode that very thing into the "framework of Constitutionality".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go down the list of the carry bans referenced by the state and tell me which ones are still in effect? And the law at issue in CA only dates back to 1967, a mere 9 years earlier than DC's ban which was struck in Heller.

[kcbrown]

Originally Posted by press1280

Go down the list of the carry bans referenced by the state and tell me which ones are still in effect? And the law at issue in CA only dates back to 1967, a mere 9 years earlier than DC's ban which was struck in Heller.

I was addressing the more general claim that "a law's existence cannot be the source of its Constitutionality". For "longstanding" laws, the law's existence is the source of its Constitutionality.

One major problem is that "longstanding" is almost certainly an arbitrary construct in and of itself, and can thus mean whatever the court in question wishes it to mean.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by kcbrown

I was addressing the more general claim that "a law's existence cannot be the source of its Constitutionality". For "longstanding" laws, the law's existence is the source of its Constitutionality.

One major problem is that "longstanding" is almost certainly an arbitrary construct in and of itself, and can thus mean whatever the court in question wishes it to mean.

That might work if the law was never really challenged. However, we have numerous cases where carry bans were struck and none that say otherwise. The state is in a box I would say.

[wolfwood]

https://everytownresearch.org/amicus...gan-v-becerra/

everytown filed a amicus brief

[press1280]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

https://everytownresearch.org/amicus...gan-v-becerra/

everytown filed a amicus brief

It's full of complete inaccuracies. Their defense rests on 2A not extending outside the home, or "populated areas" get a pass and can ban OC completely. They also think the law is "longstanding" even though LOC wasn't banned until 1967 (9 years earlier than the DC law struck down in Heller).

[wolfwood]

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.o...y-Judgment.pdf

opposition by the State filed

[Drivedabizness]

Hey Javier - we all know your "motivation" - and it AINT public safety