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
  #881  
Old 11-30-2018, 6:49 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,501
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nice read , anyone else feel like we're going to see Peruta all over again . This seem like the same lead up . Us tooting are own horns how great are briefs are and how the 3 judge panel knocked out of the park for us .

I truly had hopes for Peruta but after that crap I have no hope for this one . At least I won't be disappointed this time .
__________________
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
  #882  
Old 11-30-2018, 7:27 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,952
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Nice read , anyone else feel like we're going to see Peruta all over again . This seem like the same lead up . Us tooting are own horns how great are briefs are and how the 3 judge panel knocked out of the park for us .

I truly had hopes for Peruta but after that crap I have no hope for this one . At least I won't be disappointed this time .
If Youngs lawyers try to turn this into a win for CCW in future proceeding...then it will be Peruta all over again...

...consistent with SCOTUS as before. No cert.

If Youngs lawyers stay with the OC win they've initially been given...and proceed argumentively there on . . . chances are better . . . though it'll take awhile most likely due to CA9s usual liberal activist judges antics.

=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
  #883  
Old 11-30-2018, 9:35 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 156
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Nice read , anyone else feel like we're going to see Peruta all over again . This seem like the same lead up . Us tooting are own horns how great are briefs are and how the 3 judge panel knocked out of the park for us .

I truly had hopes for Peruta but after that crap I have no hope for this one . At least I won't be disappointed this time .


Last time we had Kennedy who impeded what was right. Our only barrier this time is Roberts, and if former justice Stevens recent interview is anything to go by Roberts may be squarely in our corner now that Kennedy is gone.
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 12-01-2018, 3:22 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,501
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Last time we had Kennedy who impeded what was right. Our only barrier this time is Roberts,
I agree completely , Roberts is a legislate from the bench guy . Need not look any further then him changing mandate to a tax . I how ever was speaking more to what to expect from the 9th . I have no doubt they will figure out a way to mess this up . I think based on the Peruta en-banc that at best we'll get open unloaded carry . I still can't believe anyone can think any device is functional if it's missing the parts that make it work as intended .

It's functional you just need to put the tires back on to drive it .
It's functional you just need to plumb some gas to that stove .
Your legs are functional we just need to re-attach your spinal cord .
__________________
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
  #885  
Old 12-01-2018, 6:47 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 454
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Whether it is loaded or unloaded, it will be "subject to reasonable regulation," i.e., there is a right to "bear" arms outside the home, but "may issue" for carry outside the home is constitutionally permissible. That will be the result in Young as well, reversing the panel and concluding that the may issue scheme is constitutional even if the effect is no issue. This is a policy determination in which evidence of the law in practice is irrelevant; and as a matter of policy, guns in public should be limited, because, of course, more guns means more gun crime. It's a FACT! (Even if there is no evidence to support that assumption either. The experts they chose to believe tell them so, and that is enough. Why this is not a jury question is a mystery to me. Has been for years.)
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 12-01-2018, 7:51 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,523
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Even Heller (Scalia) bailed and folded constitution in favor of 'long held prohibitions' so expect continued erosion of rights until the constitution is once more the supreme law of the land.
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 12-01-2018, 9:44 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 156
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Even Heller (Scalia) bailed and folded constitution in favor of 'long held prohibitions' so expect continued erosion of rights until the constitution is once more the supreme law of the land.
Check out this archive of a recent NYT article, where Stevens essentially took credit for forcing Scalia to add the "longstanding prohibitions" clause to secure Kennedy's vote. If Stevens is telling the truth, then we are in our best position ever to roll back gun control. That would also mean that Kennedy alone, not Roberts, was the reason we have never seen a gun rights case in front of the Supreme Court since Mcdonald.

https://archive.fo/gcrV2
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 12-02-2018, 12:15 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,952
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Check out this archive of a recent NYT article, where Stevens essentially took credit for forcing Scalia to add the "longstanding prohibitions" clause to secure Kennedy's vote. If Stevens is telling the truth, then we are in our best position ever to roll back gun control. That would also mean that Kennedy alone, not Roberts, was the reason we have never seen a gun rights case in front of the Supreme Court since Mcdonald.

https://archive.fo/gcrV2
Which is really weird if you think about it...

Steven's pushes longstanding prohibitions....of which ex-Felons WAS NOT ONE . . . but counted anyway . . .

. . . and then in his dissent took a shot at Scalia's "in common use" as circular logic.

Well geeeeeee Mr. Steven's.....





At least he was willing to lay claim to what I think was the biggest flaw of all in the Heller v. DC 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
  #889  
Old 12-02-2018, 2:31 PM
Write Winger's Avatar
Write Winger Write Winger is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

More on Stevens:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2018...eller-decision
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 12-02-2018, 2:45 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,284
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

The "in common use" standard is undoubtedly problematic. Is there any doubt that automatic weapons, SBRs, SBSs, etc. would be in common use if they weren't prohibited by state and federal laws? But they've been intensely regulated for 85 years, so of course, they are not "in common use" and to argue that they would be in common use were they not prohibited would be speculation (even if almost certainly correct speculation.)

Hopefully, this is refined out of existence, especially if Trump gets another appointment.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old 12-02-2018, 4:51 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,952
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
The "in common use" standard is undoubtedly problematic. Is there any doubt that automatic weapons, SBRs, SBSs, etc. would be in common use if they weren't prohibited by state and federal laws? But they've been intensely regulated for 85 years, so of course, they are not "in common use" and to argue that they would be in common use were they not prohibited would be speculation (even if almost certainly correct speculation.)

Hopefully, this is refined out of existence, especially if Trump gets another appointment.
At some point, the circular reason aspect of both "in common use" AND "longstanding prohibitions" in Heller v. DC has to be called in question.

Prohibitions against ex-Felons didn't get codified until the GCA of 1968 - Heller v. DC tries to boot strap it.

Heller basically made slavery legal again by turning supposedly free ex-Felons into slaves who have to get permission to exercise their right AFTER 1968.

By the same logic, what's next? Because CA banned LOC in 1967, that too is longstanding meaning OC can be banned? Of course not, that completely contradicts the very same PRO OC holding in the very same decision.


And as you pointed out...the same circular logic can be used to allow something that was regulated to near nonexistence as proof that something was not in common use and therefore can be banned.

Talk about broadcasting to anti gun and anti 2A liberals a strategic plan straight from the SCOTUS bench.

If you think about it, that's exactly what the CA legislators and CA judges both state and CA9 are doing.


(Is is possible, that CA9 may try to go for en banc in Young or simply decide Nichols, and then argue that LOC (1967) can be banned under the "longstanding boot strap" but not UOC (2013)?)


A couple GCAs need to go, and the circular reason logic of Heller v. DC needs a correction.


Problem is, the NRA under Heston owns the GCA of 1968 and the Mulford Act of 1967. Is the NRA willing to step up, admit they're were wrong, and lobby for their overturning?

=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. "

Last edited by mrrabbit; 12-02-2018 at 4:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 12-02-2018, 5:33 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,318
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

mrrabbit said


Quote:
Problem is, the NRA under Heston owns the GCA of 1968 and the Mulford Act of 1967. Is the NRA willing to step up, admit they're were wrong, and lobby for their overturning?
Somebody needs to check a calendar. GCA 68 was 30 yrs before Heston was Pres. NRA. And 31 yrs after Mulford.

from wiki,
Quote:
A supporter of Democratic politicians and civil rights in the 1960s, Heston later became a Republican, founding a conservative political action committee and supporting Ronald Reagan. Heston was the five-term president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), from 1998 to 2003.

Prior to the "Revolt at Cincinnati" which happened 21 yrs before Heston took helm at NRA. The NRA was not politically active. In 1977, I had already been a NRA member for 4 yrs. Harlon Carter and his supporters made it clear that "FROM THAT DAY FORWARD". NRA was becoming a Pro-2A politically active org.

The NRA in 1977 already "stepped up and admitted that previous NRA policy was wrong".

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...led/404628002/

The LONG AGO NRA is not the same NRA of today. Please try and keep up.

Last edited by pacrat; 12-02-2018 at 5:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 12-02-2018, 6:41 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,674
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

NRA is off topic for this thread.

Feel free to start a thread for that discussion.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 12-05-2018, 4:32 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,357
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I believe this has been covered several times, but the ruling in Young does not legalize loaded open carry in California. [ Just this past week a staff member at a local range told me it did.]
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 12-05-2018, 5:56 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
I believe this has been covered several times, but the ruling in Young does not legalize loaded open carry in California. [ Just this past week a staff member at a local range told me it did.]
Nor does it legalize loaded or unloaded open carry in Hawaii. Nor anywhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 12-06-2018, 3:59 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 454
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Nor does it legalize loaded or unloaded open carry in Hawaii. Nor anywhere else.
All true. All it does is require Hawaii chief of police to consider civilian applicants who are not applying to be security guards. It has no effect on any other aspect of the law, which includes a "may issue" scheme for both concealed and open carry licenses. the best thing you can say about it is that it recognizes a constitutional right to carry outside the home. But it does NOT recognize a right independent of a state or county issued license to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 12-06-2018, 7:14 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 550
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
All true. All it does is require Hawaii chief of police to consider civilian applicants who are not applying to be security guards. It has no effect on any other aspect of the law, which includes a "may issue" scheme for both concealed and open carry licenses. the best thing you can say about it is that it recognizes a constitutional right to carry outside the home. But it does NOT recognize a right independent of a state or county issued license to do so.
Yes, even Mr. Young may not bear arms outside his home for self-defense... without a license from the Hawaii (County) Police Department. The state and AG lied when they said there has never been a requirement to be employed as security personnel for an open carry license and that "engaged in the protection of life or property" never meant "employed as security personnel". People were told (by the cops/staff) that they couldn't apply for open carry because they weren't employed as security guards. The state will claim that those low level employees who administered the application distribution were simply uninformed and/or mistaken.

It's just a coincidence that almost every security guard that applied received a license (there have been some that have had a disqualifying offense on their record) to open carry (while on duty in uniform only), and not one single "ordinary citizen" has ever gotten one. Of course no "ordinary citizen" has ever gotten a concealed carry license in Hawaii county either. So at least they're "fair" about it. No license for you! (See: Seinfeld "soup nazi" episode).

I'm just amazed the state and county can actually make the claims they've made with a straight face... I guess it helps that they know that no matter how they've violated people's rights and lied to the court that they will suffer no consequences whatsoever. All while being handsomely paid by the very taxpayers whose rights they violate. Good gig if you can get it. And you have no moral or ethical scruples.

Last edited by surfgeorge; 12-07-2018 at 1:09 PM.. Reason: correct misspelling typo
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:51 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,108
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
the best thing you can say about it is that it recognizes a constitutional right to carry outside the home. But it does NOT recognize a right independent of a state or county issued license to do so.
If the right is recognized by the court, there must be a way to exercise it, which in turn implies "shall issue." Anyone denied on the "may issue" grounds can now sue for infringement of his right.

Peruta ruling avoided answering the question of whether carry is a right. That way, the issue remained unresolved and the state could play licensing games with impunity. This ruling, written by the same judge who wrote the initial Peruta decision, forces the recognition of the right.

This is a big deal, even if another case (or two) will be required to iron out the details.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 12-08-2018, 5:49 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 454
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
If the right is recognized by the court, there must be a way to exercise it, which in turn implies "shall issue." Anyone denied on the "may issue" grounds can now sue for infringement of his right.

Peruta ruling avoided answering the question of whether carry is a right. That way, the issue remained unresolved and the state could play licensing games with impunity. This ruling, written by the same judge who wrote the initial Peruta decision, forces the recognition of the right.

This is a big deal, even if another case (or two) will be required to iron out the details.
Nah. A number of circuits have ASSUMED that the right exists outside the home but STILL affirmed restrictions on the right, using a sliding scale intermediate scrutiny standard that gave conclusive weight to the sate's interest in public safety. Why would we think that the Ninth would do anything differently?
Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old 12-10-2018, 7:37 AM
RestrictedColt RestrictedColt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Hacienda Heights
Posts: 588
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

When the state took away unloaded open carry I thought this battle would have come much sooner. If the state is forced to give us a way to carry they'll probably just give back unloaded open carry. If enough people exercise it it'll probably become a shyt show and the state might then decide to go with shall issue for concealed instead of allowing open carry.
Reply With Quote
  #901  
Old 12-10-2018, 3:21 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,553
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think the state is up the creek and the 9th knows it. The only thing they are wrestling with is how to deny the right without loosing the whole country....
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #902  
Old 12-10-2018, 11:30 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,034
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RestrictedColt View Post
When the state took away unloaded open carry I thought this battle would have come much sooner. If the state is forced to give us a way to carry they'll probably just give back unloaded open carry. If enough people exercise it it'll probably become a shyt show and the state might then decide to go with shall issue for concealed instead of allowing open carry.
this is why....the 9th circuit is trying to EnBanc flanagan ...overiding a 3 judge trial..calif does not want open carry...both flanagan and young were created after open carry was banned unlike peruta. the question is will flanagan will go enbanc and if it does whether they reject it and pass it on to scotus and take the risk of kavenuaugh ( you know he wants payback on sen. fienswine) or grant ccw like illinois. I believe it will go enbanc. then it gets interesting....

Last edited by stag6.8; 12-10-2018 at 11:36 PM..
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 6:03 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.