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
  #321  
Old 07-30-2019, 8:52 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
So, Flanagan is along side of Nichols....
Nichols is actually ahead of Flanagan.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 07-30-2019, 11:21 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Nichols is actually ahead of Flanagan.
If NYSRPA causes a substantial change in relevant law, couldn't CA9 require new briefing in Young? new oral arguments?

Same with Nichols: If NYSRPA and/or Young cause a substantial change in relevant law, couldn't CA9 require new briefing and/or new orals?
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 07-31-2019, 3:31 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
If NYSRPA causes a substantial change in relevant law, couldn't CA9 require new briefing in Young? new oral arguments?

Same with Nichols: If NYSRPA and/or Young cause a substantial change in relevant law, couldn't CA9 require new briefing and/or new orals?
The State already asked for additional briefing. There definitely will be another oral argument in front of the 11 judge pane
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 07-31-2019, 7:47 AM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 254
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uscscjohn View Post
True but frustrating. The NY case involves a law that even some liberal Justices should find unconstitutional. A pro second amendment finding won't require any sweeping proclamations that will prove dispositive of the California cases.
A SCOTUS ruling in the NY case doesn't necessarily need a sweeping ruling, but the hope from pro-2A forces is that the court will, at the very least, set out the standard of scrutiny for 2A law as "strict" as opposed to "intermediate."

If they do that, it will force re-adjudication of a ton of cases that have been decided since Heller. Most of them didn't go our way.

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 07-31-2019, 8:36 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,172
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
A SCOTUS ruling in the NY case doesn't necessarily need a sweeping ruling, but the hope from pro-2A forces is that the court will, at the very least, set out the standard of scrutiny for 2A law as "strict" as opposed to "intermediate."

If they do that, it will force re-adjudication of a ton of cases that have been decided since Heller. Most of them didn't go our way.

Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk
Not so fast...

First off, your premise is seriously flawed:

"but the hope from pro-2A forces is that the court will, at the very least, set out the standard of scrutiny for 2A law as "strict" as opposed to "intermediate."

1. One, you are assuming you get to "define" what the pro-2A hope or argument is.

2. You ignore what SCOTUS already said in Heller v. DC, "history, text and traditon."

So for the zilliontrillionbillionthousandthhundrenthumpteenth time . . .

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Read Heller v. DC


But then again, I'll entertain you...

...so let's say SCOTUS does use NYSRPA to REMIND on Heller v. DC or to set some type of STANDARD or CLARIFY something else entirely such as the dammed if you do, damned if you don't foggy territory of carrying as a traveller:


1. All cases that were rejected for cert by SCOTUS that had as their core argument that open carry may be banned in favor of concealed carry . . .

. . . stay dead.

2. All cases awaiting a cert response, will probably be waiting a little longer for a response.

3. All cases awaiting a full court response before a circuit appellate court will likely be waiting a while longer: (Young)

4. All cases awaiting a panel decision before a circuit appellate court will likely be waiting a while longer: (Nichols)

5. All cases waiting an appeals consideration before a circuit appellate court - are simply that - awaiting consideration. Nothing really changes for them.

Really nothing changes - even in a best case scenario - NYSRPA still has the effect of drawing out the time it takes for Young and Nichols to be decided upon.

=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
  #326  
Old 07-31-2019, 9:08 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
The State already asked for additional briefing. There definitely will be another oral argument in front of the 11 judge pane
Since we want a substantial change in the relevant law (e.g., a central holding of a public RBA), I was just assuming the equivalent things happen with the 3-judge panel in Nichols. If so, then ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
... Flanagan is along side of Nichols....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-31-2019 at 9:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 07-31-2019, 10:47 AM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 254
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Not so fast...

First off, your premise is seriously flawed:

"but the hope from pro-2A forces is that the court will, at the very least, set out the standard of scrutiny for 2A law as "strict" as opposed to "intermediate."

1. One, you are assuming you get to "define" what the pro-2A hope or argument is.

2. You ignore what SCOTUS already said in Heller v. DC, "history, text and traditon."

So for the zilliontrillionbillionthousandthhundrenthumpteenth time . . .

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Read Heller v. DC
I have. I've read it the same way you have.

There's a plethora of district and circuit court judges who haven't. Or if they have, they've done it not truly respecting the ruling, but looking for loopholes, inconsistencies or just made $#!+ up.

Yes, NYSRPA won't revive concealed/open carry lawsuits, those will have to be re-filed and work their way through again. However, it may force the circuit courts to do the right thing--required by Heller--when it comes to magazine capacity bans, California's handgun roster and assault weapons ban.

You point to Heller and say that the result is clear! And it is to you and me.

But judge after judge has been ignoring or twisting (more twisting) "history, text, and tradition" and we get crap like the Rupp and Kolbe decisions.

Yes, these judges should be following Heller. They haven't been. They've been left to their own devices since Heller and MacDonald.

This wait on NYSRPA may extend the next step of all of these cases a year, but it might, if Trump can get more circuit and district judges confirmed, mean that overall it's shorter (or at least not any longer).

There's certainly a non-zero probability that if they set the "strict" standard and Trump keeps packing the 9th Circuit that we could win at the circuit 3-judge panel level. We could have enough judges that they don't go en banc to overturn. Then we don't have to appeal to the SCOTUS. Not having to go through en banc and SCOTUS cuts two years minimum off getting the rights the constitution recognizes.

And if we got lucky with the draw and Judge Benitez (PBUH) got a bunch of these cases at the district court level we could save even more time since a pro-gun Ninth Circuit wouldn't likely put an injunction in place while the case is under review. That's three years saved, minimum.

It is in no way a given that NYSRPA makes the overall wait any longer.
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:13 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,172
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
I have. I've read it the same way you have.

There's a plethora of district and circuit court judges who haven't. Or if they have, they've done it not truly respecting the ruling, but looking for loopholes, inconsistencies or just made $#!+ up.

Yes, NYSRPA won't revive concealed/open carry lawsuits, those will have to be re-filed and work their way through again. However, it may force the circuit courts to do the right thing--required by Heller--when it comes to magazine capacity bans, California's handgun roster and assault weapons ban.

You point to Heller and say that the result is clear! And it is to you and me.

But judge after judge has been ignoring or twisting (more twisting) "history, text, and tradition" and we get crap like the Rupp and Kolbe decisions.

Yes, these judges should be following Heller. They haven't been. They've been left to their own devices since Heller and MacDonald.

This wait on NYSRPA may extend the next step of all of these cases a year, but it might, if Trump can get more circuit and district judges confirmed, mean that overall it's shorter (or at least not any longer).

There's certainly a non-zero probability that if they set the "strict" standard and Trump keeps packing the 9th Circuit that we could win at the circuit 3-judge panel level. We could have enough judges that they don't go en banc to overturn. Then we don't have to appeal to the SCOTUS. Not having to go through en banc and SCOTUS cuts two years minimum off getting the rights the constitution recognizes.

And if we got lucky with the draw and Judge Benitez (PBUH) got a bunch of these cases at the district court level we could save even more time since a pro-gun Ninth Circuit wouldn't likely put an injunction in place while the case is under review. That's three years saved, minimum.

It is in no way a given that NYSRPA makes the overall wait any longer.
Last line...

...it already has.

If if it is a win...it will cause activist judges to either reset on current cases (delay) OR as you've already noted, spite their noses forcing it to SCOTUS for an even further delay.

Anytime something is added to the pipeline or causes a reconsideration of something in the pipeline, a delay is inevitable.

It's also smacks of a "strategy". Some would call it a conspiracy.

=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
  #329  
Old 07-31-2019, 1:07 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,825
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
So for the zilliontrillionbillionthousandthhundrenthumpteenth time . . .
He keeps on saying, "just read Heller", which we all have read. Heller does talk about history, text and tradition, but that's not a judicial test that the courts know how to apply and so they keep coming up with their own things, resulting a circuit split. Mr.Rabbit can't comprehend that different people can read Heller and not see his exact, and not well supported, interpretation of it. I keep on encouraging MrRabbit to go ahead and start open carrying a loaded gun and when he gets arrested for that, tell the judge his favorite line, "just read Heller". I wish he would do that instead of posting it in this forum because that would at least keep him off-line for a while. Alternatively, he should spend a few hundred dollars and get a TRO against enforcement of laws against open carry, which should be very easy because he can write on the TRO form, "just read Heller", and no doubt it will be issued pronto.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 07-31-2019, 2:51 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,120
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
He keeps on saying, "just read Heller",
[...]
Mr.Rabbit can't comprehend that different people can read Heller and not see his exact, and not well supported, interpretation of it.
It's worse than that- he never cites portions of Heller to back his positions up. He never quotes from it. His only instruction is "Read Heller".... ooookay.... He never has anything constructive to add... which is why he's on my ignore list. I got tired of him insisting we need to "read Heller".

Me: "Strangest thing happened... the DMV billed me twice for registration"
Mr.Rabbit: "clearly you haven't read Heller"
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 07-31-2019, 4:36 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,825
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
It's worse than that- he never cites portions of Heller to back his positions up. He never quotes from it. His only instruction is "Read Heller".... ooookay.... He never has anything constructive to add... which is why he's on my ignore list. I got tired of him insisting we need to "read Heller".
He's also on my ignore list but sometimes, I admit, I cant help but read some of his posts.

I once got him to cite specific portions of Heller and what he did was he pointed out sources that Heller cited and says that if Heller cites those it means it's true. Which is great except Heller also cites the 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) which states that no "Papist" (derogatory term for Catholic) may bear arms. So... if everything Heller cites is law, I guess SCOTUS wants us to understand that the 2A means Catholics shall not be armed? Weird, considering that Catholics on SCOTUS signed that opinion. Anyway, "just read Heller" tells us that according to Mr.Rabbit! Never got any explanation.
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 07-31-2019, 6:34 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,181
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

hoystory said

Quote:
There's certainly a non-zero probability that if they set the "strict" standard and Trump keeps packing the 9th Circuit that we could win at the circuit 3-judge panel level. We could have enough judges that they don't go en banc to overturn. Then we don't have to appeal to the SCOTUS. Not having to go through en banc and SCOTUS cuts two years minimum off getting the rights the constitution recognizes.
That assumes that anti 2A opponents, will immediately throw up their hands and concede defeat, and "NOT Appeal". Which they assuredly will NOT do.

Fighting various unjust/unconstitutional legislation, costs millions of dollars.

Defending unjust/unconstitutional legislation, is what prosecutors/AGs/ and all of their related employees, get paid millions of dollars to do.
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 07-31-2019, 11:15 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
It's worse than that- he never cites portions of Heller to back his positions up. He never quotes from it. His only instruction is "Read Heller".... ooookay.... He never has anything constructive to add... which is why he's on my ignore list. I got tired of him insisting we need to "read Heller".
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
He's also on my ignore list but sometimes, I admit, I cant help but read some of his posts.
GMTA!

"Three strikes, he'sssss OUT!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
I once got him to cite specific portions of Heller and what he did was he pointed out sources that Heller cited and says that if Heller cites those it means it's true. Which is great except Heller also cites the 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 422 (1689) which states that no "Papist" (derogatory term for Catholic) may bear arms. So... if everything Heller cites is law, I guess SCOTUS wants us to understand that the 2A means Catholics shall not be armed? Weird, considering that Catholics on SCOTUS signed that opinion. Anyway, "just read Heller" tells us that according to Mr.Rabbit! Never got any explanation.
Did you ever ask him what panels in what circuit courts of appeals in what cases have adopted his interpretation of Heller? While this linked thread is old and I stopped updating it long ago after Peruta was denied cert (so there's subsequent Carry Cases not listed), this shows there's been plenty of opportunity for plenty of circuits to say "Open Carry is the Right." If they haven't, it kinda makes you wonder why?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=812950

ETA: here's a link to my old thread re. OC cases: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=869265
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 08-01-2019 at 9:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 08-01-2019, 7:07 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Last line...

...it already has.

If if it is a win...it will cause activist judges to either reset on current cases (delay) OR as you've already noted, spite their noses forcing it to SCOTUS for an even further delay.

Anytime something is added to the pipeline or causes a reconsideration of something in the pipeline, a delay is inevitable.

It's also smacks of a "strategy". Some would call it a conspiracy.

=8-|
SCOTUS can and does act quickly when it feels lower courts are ignoring its clear rulings.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 08-01-2019, 7:50 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,172
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
SCOTUS can and does act quickly when it feels lower courts are ignoring its clear rulings.
Acting quickly and acting later are two different things - but both can happen at the same time.

Acting quickly later is still a delay.

Simple logic...that's all it is.

=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
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 12:09 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.