|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#481
|
||||
|
||||
i can easily see a court hostile to the right adopting the very arguments mrrabbit is making to scuttle both Rupp and Miller (the contemporary one).
Or similar contortions. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility. For that reason, it behooves all of us to take him seriously. I know I do, even if I disagree with much of what he says. I certainly agree more often with him than I ever did with FGG.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#482
|
||||
|
||||
Heller, something, open carry something, Nichols is the ish something something.
Sums it up?
__________________
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac |
#483
|
||||
|
||||
Yep. And if you don't believe him, you have to read Heller. Better.
__________________
Pooty Poot, you sure screwed the pooch this time! - Ghost of Roza Shanina, WWII Soviet Sniper |
#485
|
|||
|
|||
The shift in what constitutes the central component of the right plus watering it down with all of that stuff seems to be the price that had to be paid in order to get Kennedy (and in retrospect, perhaps Roberts as well) to recognize an individual RKBA. I think Scalia did the best he could with the circumstances he was given.
|
#486
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What is annoying is that people hostile to the right cite all of those compromises as something Scalia "believed" which to me is likely totally inaccurate. He was handcuffed to Roberts and Kennedy, as you rightly observe.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#489
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
"Disconnecting" the right prevents courts from interpreting the protection as being only for military weaponry (like what Miller seemed to be attempting). But the way some would read Heller (like mrrabbit here) would render the prefatory clause null and void, and that is forbidden by Marbury v Madison: Quote:
Quote:
If. Scalia is describing a hypothetical. Read literally, the above stands for nothing more than the proposition that the Court hasn't decided the issue of protection of military arms. And it may be that if one combines Heller's claim that the scope of the right is that which was understood at its adoption with Marbury v Madison's command that no clause of the Constitution shall ever be read to have no effect unless the words themselves demand it (and they do not here), one would be able to successfully argue that military arms are indeed protected by the 2nd Amendment because, firstly, the founding generation understood that to be the case and, secondly, because doing so preserves the original understanding of the purpose and meaning of the prefatory clause. Of course, the argument would have to be raised first.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#491
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Until that might happen, there's no change to the bullet button regulations or the enforcement of said regulations.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#492
|
|||
|
|||
Now that it's been almost four months since the oral arguments, I'm wondering how close we potentially might be to a decision. What is the average time from oral arguments to a decision on a case by panels in the 9th Circuit?
|
#493
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But of the four published cases that were issued yesterday, here is the time breakdown: Case 1 - 3 months Case 2 - 1 year, 11 months Case 3 - 2 years, 2 months Case 4 - 2 months
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life. |
#495
|
|||
|
|||
A few weeks for a gay marriage case, a few years for a gun case.
__________________
DiaHero Foundation - helping people manage diabetes. Sending diabetes supplies to Ukraine now, any help is appreciated. DDR AK furniture and Norinco M14 parts kit: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1756292 |
#496
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That's the problem with having multiple CA 2A organizations that don't get along with each other. They keep filing substantively similar or identical lawsuits without really consulting each other, often causing one or both organizations to waste a lot of time and money.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#498
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And before you say what you're about to say, remember I said "realistic."
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. Last edited by CandG; 02-04-2021 at 7:23 PM.. |
#500
|
|||
|
|||
There is no realistic option. Either we just keep slugging it out in the courts or ignore the laws and deal with the fallout.
|
#501
|
||||
|
||||
I think a lot of people opt do both at the same time
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#502
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A contact the governor https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend. NRA Life Member. |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
Filed order (ANDREW D. HURWITZ, DANIEL A. BRESS and PATRICK J. BUMATAY) This appeal shall be held in abeyance pending the resolution of en banc proceedings and issuance of the mandate in Duncan v. Becerra, Docket No. 19-55376. Submission of this case is vacated until further order of the Court. Judge Bumatay dissents from this order.
|
#505
|
||||
|
||||
The more they delay, the harder they'll fall.
These cases going to SCOTUS will be an easy win for our side and will close the door for the most significant portion of the anti-gun agenda - the AWB and magazine restrictions.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#507
|
||||
|
||||
But it's par for the course. Remember when almost every 2a case in the entire country got put on hold for a few months while everyone waited to see if SCOTUS would grant cert to that little case in NY that had almost nothing to do with any of the rest of them (and ultimately proved to be totally anticlimactic for everyone on both sides)? Same thing happened when Peruta went en banc... all the rest of the 2a cases in the 9CA jurisdiction got put on the backburner for like 2 years, even cases that had nothing to do with concealed carry.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. Last edited by CandG; 02-25-2021 at 10:00 PM.. |
#508
|
||||
|
||||
What possible basis do you have to say this? Haven't seen any profiles in courage on this court yet, but definitely some punting.
__________________
"The right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. -- Justice Alito, McDonald v. Chicago |
#509
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I would've thought Pena was a good one, but maybe they knew something I didn't. They know which cases are probably heading their way in the near future, which does afford them some ability to be selective and wait for the right one to come along.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#510
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#511
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you think that nothing has changed with ACB replacing RBG (and Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy), then you won't understand why the left has been losing their mind during these confirmations and why they want to try to stack the court. And if you're depressed that we might lose and that we're still in a bad position, you just need to look at how depressed the other side is and what they think is coming. To them.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member Last edited by IVC; 02-26-2021 at 3:13 PM.. Reason: Spelling |
#512
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is it. To make matters worse add "primarily in the home" which, until SCOTUS says otherwise, means "exclusively in the home".
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#513
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#514
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"The right to keep and bear arms . . . is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. -- Justice Alito, McDonald v. Chicago |
#515
|
|||
|
|||
Very accurate.
|
#516
|
||||
|
||||
Email I received:
Quote:
__________________
“People believed that the opposite of war is peace. The truth is that the opposite of war is more often slavery” - Battlestar Galactica Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA Last edited by Steve1968LS2; 07-06-2021 at 5:48 PM.. |
#517
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
ETA: my guess is Rupp won’t move until Duncan appeal to SCOTUS is finalized.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 11-30-2021 at 9:25 PM.. |
#518
|
|||
|
|||
Filed order (ANDREW D. HURWITZ, DANIEL A. BRESS and PATRICK J. BUMATAY): The panel unanimously believes that resolution of this appeal may be impacted by any opinion of the Supreme Court in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, No. 20-843. Any party may file a letter no greater than 3 pages within 15 days of this order informing the Court of its position on whether this appeal should be held in further abeyance pending the issuance of a decision in N.Y. State Rifle.
|
#519
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#520
|
|||
|
|||
Filed order (ANDREW D. HURWITZ, DANIEL A. BRESS and PATRICK J. BUMATAY): This appeal shall be held in further abeyance pending the issuance of a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol ***’n v. Bruen, No. 20-843. The Court will issue any orders concerning additional briefing or argument after the Supreme Court issues its decision.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|