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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #961  
Old 09-03-2021, 12:49 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,044
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Not sure exactly, but it seems rather common. I've seen this request on numerous other cases, sometimes even before cert is granted.
I'm leaning toward it being a nothingburger.
No exactly. Not only does the Supreme Court rely on the briefs, but reviews the record from the proceedings below. It happens in every case.
Reply With Quote
  #962  
Old 09-13-2021, 12:26 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,889
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Sep 13 2021 Amicus brief of J. Michael Luttig, et al. submitted.
New brief filed.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...ic/20-843.html
Reply With Quote
  #963  
Old 09-13-2021, 1:09 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,044
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
In Par t III, amici show that petitioners would
improperly replace the legislatures, which have
traditionally struck the balance between the right of
self-defense and the need for public safety to determine
the constitutionally permissible limits on the public carry
of handguns, with the federal courts, to which petitioners
would accord new, exclusive, and unjustified power. Today,
neither this Court, nor any other federal court, has the
authority to curtail or prevent legislatures from choosing
a historically-rooted option for reducing the occurrence of,
and the harms caused by, gun violence in public. Consider
how, for example, statutory restrictions in the District of
Columbia on public-places carry reduced the violence and
bloodshed on January 6, 2021. Many riot defendants have
since said they came to the District of Columbia aware of
the District’s gun laws, and accordingly left their guns at
home. Petitioners’ “whenever and wherever” approach,
Pet. Br. at 29-30, would invalidate the existing statutes
that have protected and continue to protect the Nation’s
seat of government by restricting the carrying of loaded
guns on the streets of Washington, D.C.
Reply With Quote
  #964  
Old 09-13-2021, 1:26 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 229
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

In Part I

>>Amici have an interest in preserving our historical,
traditional, and constitutional system of governance
regarding the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms
in public. As history and tradition demonstrate beyond
peradventure, legislatures have, since long before the
founding and continuously thereafter up to the present
day, decided how to strike the delicate balance between
the Second Amendment’s twin concerns for self-defense
and public safety in assessing the permissible restrictions
on the public carry of loaded guns.<<

Specifically, the legislature has determined that only elite members of the Democrat party and their major donors deserve to enjoy the right to self defense outside the home. Regular people, in particular people of color, Asians, LBGTQ, and other groups were determined by the legislature to be expendable and unworthy of their Constitutional rights to self-defense out of the home. Those groups the legislature has determined ought to be vulnerable to hate crimes and street violence with no recourse. Only the Party Elite should have the ability to defend themselves outside the home.**

**--Inferred from the other amicus briefs

Last edited by Foothills; 09-13-2021 at 1:29 PM.. Reason: Additional snarkiness
Reply With Quote
  #965  
Old 09-13-2021, 1:41 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 229
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This Lutting fellow completely ignores all the criticisms of the current license issuing process and how it is discriminatory. He just asserts that the legislature gets to pick and the courts don't get to say anything about it. Completely ignores the equal protection concerns with the current permit issuance process. Would this be accepted in any other discriminatory process set up by a legislature?
Reply With Quote
  #966  
Old 09-13-2021, 3:31 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,455
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
This Lutting fellow completely ignores all the criticisms of the current license issuing process and how it is discriminatory. He just asserts that the legislature gets to pick and the courts don't get to say anything about it. Completely ignores the equal protection concerns with the current permit issuance process. Would this be accepted in any other discriminatory process set up by a legislature?

^^^ CORRECT^^^


Lutting is asserting that AzzHats like this political buttpuppet. Know what's best for {yawn} "PUBLIC SAFETY".

https://youtu.be/rG5xWcV412E

And that our FOUNDING FATHERS creation of OUR Constitution and Bill of Rights. Should be ignored, as outdated, and no longer relevant to the preservation of individual rights.
Reply With Quote
  #967  
Old 09-13-2021, 4:03 PM
Master_P Master_P is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 218
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am surprised to see this brief coming from Luttig.

Ted Cruz had said he would've been a great SCOTUS justice... wow.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #968  
Old 09-13-2021, 4:21 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,044
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Luttig says, in the little I've read so far, that the State's historical authority to restrict carrying concealed weapons reflects a legislative authority to ban all guns at all times in all places in the interest of public safety. I have to read the rest of the brief to get the basis for these claims, since historically there were few if any restrictions on openly carried firearms until Jim Crow and other post-Civil War restrictions in southern states (e.g. Texas' ban on openly carried firearms that was only recently repealed). I assume for now that he agrees with the Heller minority that the 2A applies only to service in the militias.
Reply With Quote
  #969  
Old 09-13-2021, 7:05 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,500
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
^^^ CORRECT^^^


Lutting is asserting that AzzHats like this political buttpuppet. Know what's best for {yawn} "PUBLIC SAFETY".

https://youtu.be/rG5xWcV412E

And that our FOUNDING FATHERS creation of OUR Constitution and Bill of Rights. Should be ignored, as outdated, and no longer relevant to the preservation of individual rights.
Strike a balance? BS! As Heller said, the Constitution took certain choices off the table. So what Lutting admits is that legislatures have for a very long time been violating the 2A.
Public safety is best ensured when the good people around you are also carrying! Just last weekend I was in my local Walmart. There was a gentleman wearing a T-shirt that said "Strike First, Strike Hard, No Mercy." But what made me smile even more was the pistol on his right hip. This is what true Public Safety looks like.
Reply With Quote
  #970  
Old 09-13-2021, 7:14 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Consider
how, for example, statutory restrictions in the District of
Columbia on public-places carry reduced the violence and
bloodshed on January 6, 2021. Many riot defendants have
since said they came to the District of Columbia aware of
the District’s gun laws, and accordingly left their guns at
home. Petitioners’ “whenever and wherever” approach,
Pet. Br. at 29-30, would invalidate the existing statutes
that have protected and continue to protect the Nation’s
seat of government by restricting the carrying of loaded
guns on the streets of Washington, D.C.
Given that Washington D.C. is a shall-issue jurisdiction, the whole reference to the events of January 6, 2021 to justify New York's proper cause requirement is bizarre.
Reply With Quote
  #971  
Old 09-14-2021, 12:49 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,889
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Sep 14 2021 Amicus brief of Neal Goldfarb submitted.
New brief , but I know the name Goldfarb not going to be good.
Reply With Quote
  #972  
Old 09-14-2021, 4:42 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,889
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Sep 14 2021 Brief of Kevin P. Bruen, et al. submitted.
I wonder if it's briefing season again ..
Reply With Quote
  #973  
Old 09-14-2021, 5:35 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,500
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_P View Post
I am surprised to see this brief coming from Luttig.

Ted Cruz had said he would've been a great SCOTUS justice... wow.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Good thing Ted Cruz did not get the nomination.
Reply With Quote
  #974  
Old 09-14-2021, 8:19 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Wow, the three briefs against are just as bad as the briefs supporting the petitioners.

The get it right recognizing the concealed carry question as framed by SCOTUS . . .

. . . BUT . . .

. . . proceed to straight up say that SCOTUS got it all wrong in DC v. Heller.

And of course they ignored the elephant in the corner:

Open carry and handguns that by design and intent can be categorized as non-concealable.

Wow...just wow.

=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
  #975  
Old 09-15-2021, 9:53 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,044
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As best I can understand Goldfarb's amicus (which often substitutes a reference to some other work instead of a simple statement of position) is that the Second Amendment, based on a study of the most common usages and understandings of words at the time of the founding, really means:

"...the (collective) right of the people to keep (arsenals) and bear arms (in service of the militia or for military purposes) shall not be infringed.

He does not explain why a right to organize militias and to fight with them or in the army was being preserved as a pre-existing right, nor does he reference the militia clauses of the Constitution. Further, he equates right with duty; a duty to serve is the same as a right to serve in the militia.
Reply With Quote
  #976  
Old 09-15-2021, 11:58 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,500
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
As best I can understand Goldfarb's amicus (which often substitutes a reference to some other work instead of a simple statement of position) is that the Second Amendment, based on a study of the most common usages and understandings of words at the time of the founding, really means:

"...the (collective) right of the people to keep (arsenals) and bear arms (in service of the militia or for military purposes) shall not be infringed.

He does not explain why a right to organize militias and to fight with them or in the army was being preserved as a pre-existing right, nor does he reference the militia clauses of the Constitution. Further, he equates right with duty; a duty to serve is the same as a right to serve in the militia.
In two words: linguistic gobbledygook
Reply With Quote
  #977  
Old 09-15-2021, 2:07 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,044
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

An "amicus" by Kevin Bruen (who is the police commissioner), apparently in his "individual" capacity, which was available last night, has now been stricken as "nat accepted for filing." I guess they realized that it was nothing but a second bite at the apple brief. Anyway, he presented the classic Wild Wild West and "blood in the streets" argument if open carry is allowed.

Another thing I noticed in going through these briefs. In Heller the Court said that a ban on firearms in the Capital are presumptively lawful, but I note that at the time of the founding, arms were often brought into chambers and left in the cloak room. Fisticuffs were common until a code of conduct was adopted. The Senate finally banned all arms after a pitched gun battle broke out there.
Reply With Quote
  #978  
Old 09-15-2021, 2:53 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
An "amicus" by Kevin Bruen (who is the police commissioner), apparently in his "individual" capacity, which was available last night, has now been stricken as "nat accepted for filing."
It looks like the official reply brief was stricken and not accepted for filing. I wonder why. Perhaps too long? It did seem long. Perhaps, because they rewrote the question presented by the Supreme Court? don't know.
Reply With Quote
  #979  
Old 09-15-2021, 2:57 PM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Wow, the three briefs against are just as bad as the briefs supporting the petitioners.

The get it right recognizing the concealed carry question as framed by SCOTUS . . .

. . . BUT . . .

. . . proceed to straight up say that SCOTUS got it all wrong in DC v. Heller.

And of course they ignored the elephant in the corner:

Open carry and handguns that by design and intent can be categorized as non-concealable.

Wow...just wow.

=8-(
No one in this case seems keen on arguing the Constitution protects open carry, but not concealed carry.

Petitioners want concealed carry (or at least some kind of carry whether open or concealed).

Defendants don't want any carry, and won't give an inch in a concealed carry case that implies open carry is ok.

Perhaps you should file an amicus brief.
Reply With Quote
  #980  
Old 09-15-2021, 4:26 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,091
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
It looks like the official reply brief was stricken and not accepted for filing. I wonder why. Perhaps too long? It did seem long. Perhaps, because they rewrote the question presented by the Supreme Court? don't know.
Are you frickin’ kidding me?!!

Did they file it too late yesterday? I think I didn’t see it posted until really late, like 6pm our time, 9pm theirs. That brief was the respondents’ official, formal defense on the merits. Back on June 25th they requested an extension for filing it and got it. “The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is further extended to and including September 14, 2021.”

Bleepty bleep! Did they just forfeit the game? Or is their oral argument now their total defense?!!

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

Re-elect Sonoma County Sheriff Essick!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 09-15-2021 at 4:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #981  
Old 09-15-2021, 4:46 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,091
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I wonder if it's briefing season again ..
No, that is (was?) the defendants’ merits brief, to win the actual case. The defendants’ previous brief was to get SCOTUS to deny cert.
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

Re-elect Sonoma County Sheriff Essick!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #982  
Old 09-15-2021, 4:50 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,091
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
An "amicus" by Kevin Bruen (who is the police commissioner), apparently in his "individual" capacity, which was available last night, has now been stricken as "nat accepted for filing." I guess they realized that it was nothing but a second bite at the apple brief. Anyway….
Unless I’m mistaken, it wasn’t an amicus (it wasn’t called that yesterday or today on the docket), and it wasn’t a “second bite at the Apple,” it was the respondents’ merits brief.
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

Re-elect Sonoma County Sheriff Essick!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 09-15-2021 at 5:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #983  
Old 09-15-2021, 5:05 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,091
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ha! Look at what appeared on the docket (with links to relevant documents), within the past 40 minutes.

Quote:
Sep 15 2021 Brief of Kevin P. Bruen, et al. submitted.
(1) The brief is not described as amici

(2) The brief is described as “submitted,” not the usual “filed.” Maybe it has been “submitted” to SCOTUS to be accepted for filing despite it being submitted late, after hours on the 14th?

Will CJ Roberts tell the state “too late, our rules apply to you too”?

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

Re-elect Sonoma County Sheriff Essick!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 09-15-2021 at 5:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #984  
Old 09-15-2021, 6:45 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,765
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

NY can just blame covid and all will be forgiven.
I would laugh hard if they were penalized for being late despite getting an extension but it won’t happen.
Reply With Quote
  #985  
Old 09-15-2021, 6:49 PM
Fjold's Avatar
Fjold Fjold is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Bakersfield
Posts: 21,829
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

I've got Nov. 3rd entered into my calendar. I just have the names Heller and McDonald dancing in my head.
__________________
Frank

One rifle, one planet, Holland's 375

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/Fjold/member8325.png

Life Member NRA, CRPA and SAF
Reply With Quote
  #986  
Old 09-15-2021, 8:46 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonghornBob View Post
No one in this case seems keen on arguing the Constitution protects open carry, but not concealed carry.

Petitioners want concealed carry (or at least some kind of carry whether open or concealed).

Defendants don't want any carry, and won't give an inch in a concealed carry case that implies open carry is ok.

Perhaps you should file an amicus brief.
I would if I were a attorney allowed to practice before SCOTUS.



Overall, I've been very disappointed by all the briefs. About the only saving grace is that some briefs amounted to very detailed historical papers - stuff you might read in History periodicals in a university library. That's about it.

=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
  #987  
Old 09-16-2021, 2:10 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 92
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It would not be unusual for the Supreme Court Clerk of Court to notice some technical issue with a brief - it could even be something like a margin off or the wrong color cover. If so, he notifies the filing party, they are usually given the opportunity to correct the brief and file the corrected copy. Kevin Bruen is the Superintendent and official representative of the NY State Police.
Reply With Quote
  #988  
Old 09-17-2021, 3:52 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,091
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(2) The brief is described as “submitted,” not the usual “filed.” Maybe it has been “submitted” to SCOTUS to be accepted for filing despite it being submitted late, after hours on the 14th?
I didn’t check yesterday but I did just now and the brief is now described as “filed.”

Oh well…. On to Nov 3rd!

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

Re-elect Sonoma County Sheriff Essick!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #989  
Old 09-19-2021, 3:36 PM
johnireland johnireland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Anyone who imagines that common sense or the Constitution will prevail in the Marxist court system America is now under the thumb of, is living a fantasy, and it will have a rude ending.
Reply With Quote
  #990  
Old 09-20-2021, 12:17 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,775
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnireland View Post
Anyone who imagines that common sense or the Constitution will prevail in the Marxist court system America is now under the thumb of, is living a fantasy, and it will have a rude ending.
I would have some faith. The court took the case when they could have easily just punted like they have for a decade.
Reply With Quote
  #991  
Old 09-20-2021, 12:18 AM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 630
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Somewhere in all the briefs and arguments, I hope somebody makes the following point. If SCOTUS gives us Shall Issue, it is going to have to come with some standards regarding what are acceptable delays and obstacles, otherwise it will be effectively meaningless as recalcitrant jurisdictions create endless bottlenecks with intentionally insufficient staffing or other barriers.


For instance, I recall two stories, I think from Illinois. In one case the jurisdiction said “yes you can apply for a permit, you just have to fill out one of our government printed applications, not a facsimile”, only for years they never provided any applications to citizens claiming they were out and waiting for them to be reprinted. In another jurisdiction, they said “yes you can apply for a permit you simply have to qualify on our police shooting range”, which was closed for years “for repairs”. In Los Angeles County, for instance where the Sheriff is trying to actually issue permits for a change, good data is hard to come by but they seem to get about 500 applications a week and can process about 100 or so of them. They are still processing applications from April and every week they get about another month behind. Even if you assume that processing a renewal can be done in half the time of a new application, that means they can process 200 renewals a week which means there can never be more than 20,800 permits because at that level all available processing time is consumed just processing renewal applications. That is a ridiculously small number in a county of almost 10 million people for a constitutional right.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #992  
Old 09-20-2021, 7:46 AM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,405
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
Somewhere in all the briefs and arguments, I hope somebody makes the following point. If SCOTUS gives us Shall Issue, it is going to have to come with some standards regarding what are acceptable delays and obstacles, otherwise it will be effectively meaningless as recalcitrant jurisdictions create endless bottlenecks with intentionally insufficient staffing or other barriers.


For instance, I recall two stories, I think from Illinois. In one case the jurisdiction said “yes you can apply for a permit, you just have to fill out one of our government printed applications, not a facsimile”, only for years they never provided any applications to citizens claiming they were out and waiting for them to be reprinted. In another jurisdiction, they said “yes you can apply for a permit you simply have to qualify on our police shooting range”, which was closed for years “for repairs”. In Los Angeles County, for instance where the Sheriff is trying to actually issue permits for a change, good data is hard to come by but they seem to get about 500 applications a week and can process about 100 or so of them. They are still processing applications from April and every week they get about another month behind. Even if you assume that processing a renewal can be done in half the time of a new application, that means they can process 200 renewals a week which means there can never be more than 20,800 permits because at that level all available processing time is consumed just processing renewal applications. That is a ridiculously small number in a county of almost 10 million people for a constitutional right.
I think that if SCOTUS mandates a “shall issue” type of system, the 58 counties in California will drop it, and the CA-DOJ will have to take it over, like what is done in some other states. I can’t see counties wanting to be involved, especially if they have no control over who they can deny.
Reply With Quote
  #993  
Old 09-20-2021, 8:45 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,485
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

And that is why open-carry needs to be the default exercise of the right. The right needs to be at the discretion of the people, not at the ministerial-level, and attempts to stymie the process of obtaining a concealed permit would simply default to the person having the ability to carry openly.

It’s been discussed, both ways, that if CA is forced to allow OC, that they will either capitulate and just allow easy CCW permitting due to visibility and presence of weapons, or shut CCW down as the people will have been given the right back without CA approval.
Reply With Quote
  #994  
Old 09-20-2021, 1:07 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,889
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Sep 20 2021 Amicus brief of League of Women Voters submitted.
Sep 20 2021 Amicus brief of Amnesty International USA submitted.
two new briefs.
Reply With Quote
  #995  
Old 09-20-2021, 1:28 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,176
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
It’s been discussed, both ways, that if CA is forced to allow OC, that they will either capitulate and just allow easy CCW permitting due to visibility and presence of weapons, or shut CCW down as the people will have been given the right back without CA approval.
In this scenario, I really can't see cities/counties shutting down CCW for any significant amount of time. All it'll take is one event, from one 2A activist in a black t-shirt open carrying on the street, and the flood of 911 calls will overwhelm the system. Nobody will want to deal with that. The easier route will be permitting CCW with extensive (but constitutionally "reasonable") requirements.

My guess in this case is SCOTUS will say CCW permit requirements cannot be unreasonably denied, specifically saying self-defense is a constitutionally valid good cause justification. There may or may not be a broader statement about the constitutionality of unreasonable outright OC/CC bans. States/local jurisdictions may continue with denial games now using good moral character etc, but it depends on how SCOTUS words their ruling. SCOTUS saying OC is the right in this case is just wishful thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #996  
Old 09-20-2021, 2:22 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 630
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
I think that if SCOTUS mandates a “shall issue” type of system, the 58 counties in California will drop it, and the CA-DOJ will have to take it over, like what is done in some other states. I can’t see counties wanting to be involved, especially if they have no control over who they can deny.
Perhaps the counties will want to be involved. The counties that want to issue may want to be involved to keep the state from putting up barriers to deny their residents, and counties that don't want to issue may want to be involved so they can put up their own barriers to prevent most issue. In any case, state law would have to change first to get the counties out of the picture.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #997  
Old 09-20-2021, 2:26 PM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,405
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
States/local jurisdictions may continue with denial games now using good moral character etc, but it depends on how SCOTUS words their ruling. SCOTUS saying OC is the right in this case is just wishful thinking.
GMC may become an incredible denial tool of CCW permitting; it is so utterly subjective that it lacks a real clear definition itself. There are so many ways it could be used, and those in charge of issuance won’t hesitate.
Reply With Quote
  #998  
Old 09-20-2021, 2:48 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,734
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
GMC may become an incredible denial tool of CCW permitting; it is so utterly subjective that it lacks a real clear definition itself. There are so many ways it could be used, and those in charge of issuance won’t hesitate.
SCOTUS doesn't need to say it's the right in this case. All they have to do is simply double down on DC v. Heller just as they did in Caetano v. Massachusetts.

"We meant what we said in DC v. Heller when we said . . ."

=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
  #999  
Old 09-20-2021, 2:50 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 630
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lastinline View Post
GMC may become an incredible denial tool of CCW permitting; it is so utterly subjective that it lacks a real clear definition itself. There are so many ways it could be used, and those in charge of issuance won’t hesitate.
Our only real hope is if Thomas gets his way and the Second Amendment is put on the same footing as all the other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights. Could the State require prior proof of GMC in order for somebody to exercise their rights to speech, religion, trial by jury, etc. Of course not. Well then it can't be required for bearing arms either.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #1000  
Old 09-20-2021, 3:47 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,455
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
In this scenario, I really can't see cities/counties shutting down CCW for any significant amount of time. All it'll take is one event, from one 2A activist in a black t-shirt open carrying on the street, and the flood of 911 calls will overwhelm the system. Nobody will want to deal with that. The easier route will be permitting CCW with extensive (but constitutionally "reasonable") requirements.

My guess in this case is SCOTUS will say CCW permit requirements cannot be unreasonably denied, specifically saying self-defense is a constitutionally valid good cause justification. There may or may not be a broader statement about the constitutionality of unreasonable outright OC/CC bans. States/local jurisdictions may continue with denial games now using good moral character etc, but it depends on how SCOTUS words their ruling. SCOTUS saying OC is the right in this case is just wishful thinking.
First bolded first. Which will require many more decades of litigation to further define "reasonable". Just look what the 9th CIRCUS. Has done following the Heller/McDonald rulings. Legal games, are still games. aND infringements, are still INFRINGEMENTS.

Second bolded. First refer to above paragraph. Then imagine the games that can/will be played with "Shall Issue".

Many municipalities and counties already have EXORBITANT FEES ATTACHED. Which is of course "SUBJECTIVE".

I consider FEES paid for the exercise of a CLEARLY ENUMERATED RIGHT. Right up there with POLL TAXES. Yet THE RIGHT TO VOTE, isn't even mentioned in the constitution or the Bill of Rights.

In LA Cnty which is a bit easier to get CCW than previously. Still requires an OUT OF POCKET OUTLAY. Well over $500.00. And months of nail biting before issue.

ENUMERATED RIGHTS, are those enjoyed by all citizens. Or used to be anyway. NOT only those with wallets thicker than LESSER citizens. By lesser, I mean those of limited means as seen by politicians.

I have two scenarios that play out daily across this nation, for these unfortunate lesser citizens.

[1] ... Single hard working law abiding MOM, deadbeat Dad whereabouts unknown, works 2 jobs to feed her kids and pay rent. Can only afford rent in public housing, aka projects. And utilizes public transportation. Because she can't afford a car, crazy high registration fees, insurance, and $5.00 a gallon gas, IN CA.

[2] ... Elderly widow, small fixed income. ALL SITUATIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN [1] APPLY to her also? [except kids]

WHY ARE THESE LADIES, considered less deserving of an ENUMERATED RIGHT?

Than a stay at home SOCCER Mom, whose husband is rich, and lives in a fairly safe affluent suburb.

UNTIL CC is again the LAW OF THE LAND NATIONWIDE. Abuses will continue for law abiding citizens. And even "SHALL ISSUE" will continue to remain a bridge to far for most.
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 1:10 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical