Flanagan v. Harris 2023 Feb 08 Dismissed as moot

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by taperxz

The question is, “how does this affect the plaintiff “Young”?

I'm more wondering, how does Young affect this appeal? I'm reading their brief and it's well written and a good read, but... it cites the Young panel, over and over. IANAL and I'm wondering ... does that make sense? If Young is accepted en banc (which is likely), the panel decision becomes depublished and is no longer precedent, right? In which case, this Flanagan brief loses most of its support.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

I'm more wondering, how does Young affect this appeal? I'm reading their brief and it's well written and a good read, but... it cites the Young panel, over and over. IANAL and I'm wondering ... does that make sense? If Young is accepted en banc (which is likely), the panel decision becomes depublished and is no longer precedent, right? In which case, this Flanagan brief loses most of its support.

Yes, but for now it's controlling precedent. They need to milk the crap out of Young.

[press1280]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

So, if I'm understanding, they want to skip the panel and go to an en banc directly? Is this commonly done? I've never heard of it (IANAL). I guess the logic is, spend minimum time at the 9CCA level, to go to cert faster? This is good, because I think cert isn't a thing that California wants at this point, and California might just do a risk assessment and decide that fighting this case at SCOTUS isn't desirable, just like what happened with Wrenn.

Following the issuance of a three judge panel order or opinion, parties may seek rehearing before an en banc court.

source

Maybe I missed it, but I thought CA is asking for en banc directly, Plaintiffs are well served with Young controlling 9th Circuit precedent.

[stag6.8]

now since kavanaugh is now confirmed...if flanigan sucessfully goes enbanc and its gets denied ...the supreme court might take it now since kennedy is gone..the person im weary as of now is roberts..he is now the deciding vote..it used to kennedy. enbanc might be a good thing..they might approve ccw and stop it there....like illinois..after all ..new york...new jersey..massachetts..maryland ..hawaii..dont want ccw shall issue..

ALSO...

all forms of open carry in calif. was banned prior to flanigan being filed ..so.. it wont be tainted like peruta was.

[sfpcservice]

There are many exemptions to the California open carry ban.

[glbtrottr]

And now, we have 4 women clerking for Kavanaugh...don't feel so overly confident...yet..

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

There are many exemptions to the California open carry ban.

None which allow a regular citizen to openly carry a loaded firearm in an urban area unless that citizen is running away from someone who is actively trying to kill you, or trying to stop or capture a person who is actively trying to kill someone else. Like Hawaii, security guards in uniform get a pass, but that's about it.

[wolfwood]

amicus briefs filed one from Giffords
https://www.scribd.com/document/3943...Giffords-Brief

one from 11 states

https://www.scribd.com/document/3943...6uM6AA1wH9rs-0
different counties
https://www.scribd.com/document/3943...n-Amicus-Brief

[mshill]

Originally Posted by TruOil

None which allow a regular citizen to openly carry a loaded firearm in an urban area unless that citizen is running away from someone who is actively trying to kill you, or trying to stop or capture a person who is actively trying to kill someone else. Like Hawaii, security guards in uniform get a pass, but that's about it.

And as we have seen recently, that will get you killed by the cops.

[mshill]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

amicus briefs filed one from Giffords
https://www.scribd.com/document/3943...Giffords-Brief

one from 11 states

https://www.scribd.com/document/3943...6uM6AA1wH9rs-0

What a bunch of BS. Apparently "Common Sense" is now a legal terms that can be used liberally throughout legal briefs to federal courts of appeals.

Their justification for "intermediate scrutiny" (aka rational basis) is that banning open carry in non-rural areas is not a significant burden on the right because one "may" carry concealed with a permit. Which is funny because the residents of the metropolitan areas are not being issued concealed carry permits. So, if you are a resident of a rural area in CA, you can carry in a metropolitan area because your rural county issues concealed carry permits, but a resident of that metro area cannot at all. Hmm, seems ripe for "equal protection" suit.

The they go on to spout the "more guns == more violence" mantra saying that Lott's study was flawed because he aggregated over the states and the when Donahue disaggregated to the state level it looks different. I would say let's disaggregate to the county level and see what falls out (maybe a close correlation to the colors of the California CCW map).

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by mshill

Their justification for "intermediate scrutiny" (aka rational basis) is that banning open carry in non-rural areas is not a significant burden on the right because one "may" carry concealed with a permit.

The argument is stupid, especially after Peruta concluded that there is no right to carry a concealed firearm. Their argument thus devolves to: "we may bar your exercise of a constitutional right if we have the discretionary power to grant you a license to which you have no constitutional right." Poof, there goes the 2A. It's magic!

[MajorCaliber]

Originally Posted by TruOil

The argument is stupid, especially after Peruta concluded that there is no right to carry a concealed firearm. Their argument thus devolves to: "we may bar your exercise of a constitutional right if we have the discretionary power to grant you a license to which you have no constitutional right." Poof, there goes the 2A. It's magic!

Excellent summation. Allow me to go one step further and add:

...to which you have no constitutional right, and which you are unlikely to be granted.

[Librarian]

Um, clarification? I seem to have missed a step.

En banc denied, now appealed to SCOTUS, petition for cert, as of 11/21? Not yet conferenced, so cert not granted yet?

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Um, clarification? I seem to have missed a step.

En banc denied, now appealed to SCOTUS, petition for cert, as of 11/21? Not yet conferenced, so cert not granted yet?

No, not yet. The briefs filed today were filed in the Court of Appeals with respect to the request for rehearing en banc.

[ulmapache]

Folks...don't lose all hope... Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that one could stroll down to the local cannabis store and pick up a couple of joints, yet, today, that is the reality in several states, with national acceptance coming soon IMHO... So, I hope to live long enough to see the day that I can strap on my pistol under my coat, have my permit on me, (the situation in my state) and travel all 50 states without worrying about running afoul of some state law. Soon comes the day when we do NOT lose our 2nd Amendment rights when we cross an arbitrary geo-political line in this great country...

[BryMan92]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

amicus briefs filed one from Giffords
https://www.scribd.com/document/3943...Giffords-Brief

one from 11 states

https://www.scribd.com/document/3943...6uM6AA1wH9rs-0
different counties
https://www.scribd.com/document/3943...n-Amicus-Brief

Funny how Giffords are arguing that bear only applies to militia, whilst keep applies to militias and the people. Even more funny is their citation is essentially a Wikipedia page:

https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/co...ond-amendment/

[sfpcservice]

Originally Posted by ulmapache

Folks...don't lose all hope... Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that one could stroll down to the local cannabis store and pick up a couple of joints, yet, today, that is the reality in several states, with national acceptance coming soon IMHO... So, I hope to live long enough to see the day that I can strap on my pistol under my coat, have my permit on me, (the situation in my state) and travel all 50 states without worrying about running afoul of some state law. Soon comes the day when we do NOT lose our 2nd Amendment rights when we cross an arbitrary geo-political line in this great country...

The cannabis changed because it fits into the pacification plan. Guns carrying is not a pacification value and will never be "accepted" by the ones in power like weed has been.

[Drew Eckhardt]

Originally Posted by ulmapache

Folks...don't lose all hope... Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that one could stroll down to the local cannabis store and pick up a couple of joints, yet, today, that is the reality in several states, with national acceptance coming soon IMHO... So, I hope to live long enough to see the day that I can strap on my pistol under my coat, have my permit on me, (the situation in my state) and travel all 50 states without worrying about running afoul of some state law. Soon comes the day when we do NOT lose our 2nd Amendment rights when we cross an arbitrary geo-political line in this great country...

1994:

2017:

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt

2017:

And the 2017 map isn't accurate. DE and CT are in practice shall-issue. It should be 6 states that are may-issue, not 8.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

And the 2017 map isn't accurate. DE and CT are in practice shall-issue. It should be 6 states that are may-issue, not 8.

And isn't Hawaii "may issue" in name but "no issue" in practice?

[Cokebottle]

Originally Posted by mshill

Hmm, seems ripe for "equal protection" suit.

What seems ripe for equal protection is that a PPT in the Walmart parking lot is 100% legal in Quartzsite, but 35 miles away in Blythe it's a felony.
Same goes for the AWB, CCW on school property, handgun roster, etc....

Actions that are 100% legal, acceptable, and everyday happenings in some 43 states, are lifetime-prohibiting felonies in 7 states.

Motor vehicle law, traffic violations, real estate, legal representation, insurance, etc... In no other aspect of our lives do we find situations where what is acceptable in one state is anything more severe than a minor misdemeanor in another state.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by TruOil

And isn't Hawaii "may issue" in name but "no issue" in practice?

Yes, HI, MD and NJ are may-issue in name, almost no-issue in practice. CA, NY and MA are may-issue in name, and actually do issue quite a lot of permits, depending on where you live. I would say that California is roughly half (by population) nearly shall-issue, and actually isn't bad, outside of a few mostly coastal counties.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

Yes, HI, MD and NJ are may-issue in name, almost no-issue in practice. CA, NY and MA are may-issue in name, and actually do issue quite a lot of permits, depending on where you live. I would say that California is roughly half (by population) nearly shall-issue, and actually isn't bad, outside of a few mostly coastal counties.

Yes, we passed 50% of the pop. living in "green" counties when Sheriff Gore of San Diego Co liberalized issuance Sept 2017.

About a year ago, CA, for the first time EVER, passed 100,000 CCWers.

FWIW, this map will get even prettier when Sonoma goes light green in January and LA goes light red sometime over the next month, maybe even late next week. We don't know yet how Yolo Co will change, if at all, when Lopez takes office in January.

[TruOil]

I've always wondered: why is Imperial dark red?

[Offwidth]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I've always wondered: why is Imperial dark red?

Reasons.

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by Librarian

Um, clarification? I seem to have missed a step.

En banc denied, now appealed to SCOTUS, petition for cert, as of 11/21? Not yet conferenced, so cert not granted yet?

In Flanagan the State of California asked to be heard initially en banc if Young goes en banc. There has been no panel hearing yet of any kind.

[CCWFacts]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I've always wondered: why is Imperial dark red?

Originally Posted by Offwidth

Reasons.

Demographics.

Wiki:

Hispanic or Latino of any race were 140,271 persons (80.4%).

Hispanics have overwhelming support for gun control. Nowhere that has demographics like Imperial County is going to support gun rights.

Originally Posted by Paladin

FWIW, this map will get even prettier when ... LA goes light red sometime over the next month, maybe even late next week.

Let's hope!

LA city should have its own color on the map, and should be yellow.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

LA city should have its own color on the map, and should be yellow.

Going by their published app info (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1423638), my *guess* is the City of LA (via LAPD) is yellow if you have multiple "favorable factors" and no "unfavorable factors," but light red if you don't have any favorable factors. Until we hear of people actually getting LAPD CCWs and find out what their GC is like, I don't think carving out the City of LA is needed.

We will take a proactive approach re. LASD and Villeneuva and change it to light red soon (since he's taking office on Monday). We'll assume he'll liberalize issuance slightly, as he said in his campaign (from dark red to light red), rather than to wait for feedback from applicants who are issued or denied. Why? If we just leave it dark red, people who don't closely follow the news, but could get a LASD CCW under light red won't know that, won't apply and we won't hear about anyone getting issued. IOW, the chicken & egg problem.

As we always say, the colors on the map can easily be off by 1 color, one way or the other, but not off by 2 colors.

If anyone wants to discuss LASD/Co or LAPD/City further, please post in the appropriate CCW Info thread: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...d.php?t=352761

/threadjack

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by TruOil

I've always wondered: why is Imperial dark red?

You got me to look over some of my notes and Imperial should be changed to light red because we don't have any current info on it being dark red. IIRC, that color, like some low population counties where virtually no one from there has posted, is just legacy info being passed along, unquestioned. Dark red means "virtually no one" can get issued. If in fact, some one could, they'd be disuaded from even trying by dark red, and the county stays low re. issuance and "chicken and egg" problem perpetuates itself.

I've asked baggss to revise Imperial to light red when he revises LA to light red, hopefully very soon.

/threadjack

[sfpcservice]

Off topic a bit but how about Yolo? Heard they are changing colors soon...

[CandG]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

Off topic a bit but how about Yolo? Heard they are changing colors soon...

The new sheriff has specifically said he plans to keep their ccw policies exactly the same as the previous sheriff.

Although, I would argue that it shouldn't be dark red, because they do issue permits. Something like 60% of applicants were approved last year. In my opinion they should be yellow.

[sfpcservice]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

The new sheriff has specifically said he plans to keep their ccw policies exactly the same as the previous sheriff.

Although, I would argue that it shouldn't be dark red, because they do issue permits. Something like 60% of applicants were approved last year. In my opinion they should be yellow.

Wow I ran into a guy from there who said the incoming sheriff promised to change the system... Campaign lies or was my guy wrong?

[CandG]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

Wow I ran into a guy from there who said the incoming sheriff promised to change the system... Campaign lies or was my guy wrong?

I think your guy was just incorrect. Lots of news articles online that quote the new sheriff as saying he plans to change nothing. He did say he was willing to "discuss" the policy with people, but after he flat out said that he likes the policy and plans to keep it, I imagine the "discussion" will be something along the lines of a toilet with a "suggestion box" sign on it.

[wireless]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

And the 2017 map isn't accurate. DE and CT are in practice shall-issue. It should be 6 states that are may-issue, not 8.

Rhode Island is a hybrid shall issue. The state supreme court ruled local LE must issue a permit, but an application to the State Police/AG is may issue.

[wolfwood]

reply brief filed

https://www.scribd.com/document/3955...ra-Reply-Brief

[CCWFacts]

A link directly to the PDF

Reading it now. Typo on page 10: "That argument is overwhelming refuted by the historical record.". Should be overwhelmingly, or utterly, completely, thoroughly, etc.

[TruOil]

The reply is certainly correct that the open carry ban in essence renders all urban areas in their entirety "sensitive areas," thus nullifying the 2A in those places. I agree with the sentiment, and a victory would nudge the meter, but it still leaves, as does Nichols' case, the 1000' GFSZs as "sensitive places." I have a hard time believing that without direct Supreme Court direction, no California state court or the Ninth Circuit will overturn those state and federal restrictions, without which the right is essentially nugatory, there being so few areas that do not fall within a prohibition zone.

[wolfwood]

Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: PK): No judge has requested a vote to hear this case initially en banc within the time allowed by GO 5.2(a). The petition for initial hearing en banc (Docket Entry No. [12]) is therefore denied. [11182996] (AF)

[CandG]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Docket Text:
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: PK): No judge has requested a vote to hear this case initially en banc within the time allowed by GO 5.2(a). The petition for initial hearing en banc (Docket Entry No. [12]) is therefore denied. [11182996] (AF)

Correct me if my understanding is wrong, but this means that since the petition in question was for the initial hearing to be en banc, that this denial means the next step is just a regular plain ol' 9th circuit panel hearing, right? (After which, presumably, yet another en banc petition can be filed, no?)

[wolfwood]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

Correct me if my understanding is wrong, but this means that since the petition in question was for the initial hearing to be en banc, that this denial means the next step is just a regular plain ol' 9th circuit panel hearing, right? (After which, presumably, yet another en banc petition can be filed, no?)

that is correct. That is really good for Young. The chance of en banc being denied has gone way up