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
  #1  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:48 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,965
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default IL AG Madigan files to DISMISS Shepard-Moore as Moot: effect on Woollard?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
From:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/lawma...uinns-gun-bill

Quinn had urged Democratic Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Madigan filed motions to dismiss the lawsuits Tuesday after the override, reporting to a federal judge the issue is moot now that there's a law that answers the original legal action.

The motion said further legal action involving the law would require a new lawsuit.
IIRC, in some other thread there was a discussion re. Gura waiting for Madigan to decide re. Shepard-Moore before he decides what to do re. Wollard.

What is Gura likely to do w/Woollard now that Madigan is NOT going to appeal Shepard-Moore to SCOTUS?

When is Gura's deadline for asking for cert? (IIRC, its sometime around July 20th)

W/Mehl gone and now this, hopefully the log jam is broken and we'll get a Carry Case before SCOTUS this fall.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-09-2013 at 7:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-09-2013, 7:53 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,965
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is this good news or would we have preferred Shepard-Moore to go to SCOTUS rather than Woollard???
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:02 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Is this good news or would we have preferred Shepard-Moore to go to SCOTUS rather than Woollard???
It would have been REALLY nice if we could have gotten some insider intelligence on what went wrong with Kachalsky to be able to answer this question.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:09 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,615
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default

This was expected in light of IL. passing shall-issue legislation today.

Moore -v- Madigan was a better case as it allowed SCOTUS to issue a narrow ruling on the right to carry, which is their norm.

They could simply say that states must have a licensing scheme and cannot deny the right.

Shepard/Moore is not so narrow. If SCOTUS is so inclined, it may be our last chance this term. We shall see.

We certainly live in interesting times!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-09-2013, 8:22 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,368
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

It may come down to a CA case now.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-09-2013, 9:30 PM
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,275
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
It may come down to a CA case now.
More accurately, probably all of them (e.g. Richards and Peruta) and perhaps also Baker, though I suspect that's more of a GVR if the Ninth doesn't remand directly.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-10-2013, 6:29 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,594
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Is this good news or would we have preferred Shepard-Moore to go to SCOTUS rather than Woollard???

Wollard is better. The only way we in the PRK will ever get any kind of meaningful "and bear" is via some form of unlicensed carry. And the only case in the pipeline that has any chance of getting that issue before SCOTUS is Wollard.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-10-2013, 8:00 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

The upside is that the Supreme Court canít issue a now meaningless ruling on no-issue regimes and then duck everything else. The downside is that the court may now decide to duck everything else anyway.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-10-2013, 10:43 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,607
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I bet SCOTUS will duck carry or issue a ruling that doesn't change much.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:57 AM
stag1500's Avatar
stag1500 stag1500 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 663
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I noticed in the Calguns Wiki regarding Woolardthat "April 8th, plaintiffs file for en banc review." Is that going to prevent Alan Gura from petitioning for cert before SCOTUS?
__________________
Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. -Ayn Rand
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-10-2013, 12:01 PM
hardlyworking hardlyworking is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag1500 View Post
I noticed in the Calguns Wiki regarding Woolardthat "April 8th, plaintiffs file for en banc review." Is that going to prevent Alan Gura from petitioning for cert before SCOTUS?
Pretty sure he was denied en banc. Unless I'm thinking about a different case. He tried (also to buy time for Moore to resolve) and was rebuffed, opening the way to SCOTUS
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-10-2013, 12:14 PM
stag1500's Avatar
stag1500 stag1500 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 663
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You're right. They did deny the en banc petition.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf order.denyingenbanc.pdf (20.0 KB, 3 views)
__________________
Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. -Ayn Rand
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-10-2013, 12:25 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,641
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag1500 View Post
You're right. They did deny the en banc petition.
That's cool:
The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge
requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35. The court denies the petition for
rehearing en banc.
I assume that means he is free to file for cert? There is no other step ahead of that?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-10-2013, 1:14 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gura's cert petition in Woollard is due very shortly, by the end of this month from my understanding but the way the en banc denial worked out it is kinda hazy to a non-appellate-lawyer.

Woollard is better than the CA cases because MD has one permit for OC and CC, with off-duty police officers, security guards, business owners and personal protection permittees all having identical permits, with none of the UOC, LUCC, ABCD123CC, etc nonsense to confuse the issue, and there is a single issuing authority in the MD State Police's Handgun Licensing Division.

With Moore dropped, Woollard is the cleanest case possible above the district level, Palmer would probably be even better, but that case seems to be stuck in permanent purgatory and hasn't even had a district court ruling in what, 3 years?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-10-2013, 1:49 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,223
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Supreme court.

The Supreme court would have liked to have gotten a "pure carry" case, but that didn't happen nor will it because every state now has some form of carry, at least on paper.

If the Supreme court really does believe the second amendment is an individual right, the will take "Woolard".

After the "Heller ruling", prohibitions were supposed to be "off the table", yet that is exactly the types of gun laws that have been passed or are being voted on in Colorado, Conn, Maryland, NY and our own state.

The issues in the "Woolard" case will probably expand beyond just "carry".

If we have a right to "common and functional arms", then laws aimed at reducing the self defense function of a firearm could possibly be raised as issues.

Comnon sense would say that laws that restrict "Ergonomic features, magazine capacities, ammo restrictions would all burden the right of self defense.

Restrictions on where to carry or so called sensitive zones would also become an issue. Let's take a city like San Francisco.

Right now with the 1000 foot school zone, when we could open carry, most of the city was a no carry zone.

In high density urban areas, a restriction on carrying in school zones would effectively gut a CCW permit.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-10-2013, 2:21 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
The Supreme court would have liked to have gotten a "pure carry" case, but that didn't happen nor will it because every state now has some form of carry, at least on paper.

If the Supreme court really does believe the second amendment is an individual right, the will take "Woolard".

After the "Heller ruling", prohibitions were supposed to be "off the table", yet that is exactly the types of gun laws that have been passed or are being voted on in Colorado, Conn, Maryland, NY and our own state.

The issues in the "Woolard" case will probably expand beyond just "carry".

If we have a right to "common and functional arms", then laws aimed at reducing the self defense function of a firearm could possibly be raised as issues.

Comnon sense would say that laws that restrict "Ergonomic features, magazine capacities, ammo restrictions would all burden the right of self defense.

Restrictions on where to carry or so called sensitive zones would also become an issue. Let's take a city like San Francisco.

Right now with the 1000 foot school zone, when we could open carry, most of the city was a no carry zone.

In high density urban areas, a restriction on carrying in school zones would effectively gut a CCW permit.

Nicki
Well, technically there's still a pure carry case out there (Palmer), which has languished in DC district court for 4 years. I hope the court will now not wait for that to get there.
Best thing going for Woollard is that the license is a general carry license, and not a CCW like NY. This would make an opinion easier especially in light of the many 19th century cases upholding CCW bans.
I believe Gura's window for an extension may have lapsed already, so in all likelyhood Woollard will file for cert in a week or two.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-10-2013, 7:37 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What? You thought it was all over?

Yeah, so did I.... Apparently the lady has yet to sing!!

The ISRA has filed a response to the MTD and contemperaeously has filed motions to quash the newly enacted law, as it doesn't meet the timeline set by the court. Gun Group Demands Concealed Carry By Next Week | WUIS 91.9 Here's the relevant portion of the Sheppard docket, with links to the motions:

Quote:
2013-07-09 73 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) by Tyler R Edmonds, Lisa M Madigan, Patrick J Quinn. Responses due by 8/12/2013 (Triebel, Karl) (Entered: 07/09/2013)

2013-07-10 74 RESPONSE to Motion re 73 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (moot) filed by Illinois State Rifle Association, Mary Shepard. (Howard, William) (Entered: 07/10/2013)

2013-07-10 75 MOTION for Declaration of Unconstitutionality and Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction by Illinois State Rifle Association, Mary Shepard. (Howard, William) (Entered: 07/10/2013)

2013-07-10 76 MOTION to Expedite Briefing on Plaintiffs' re 75 MOTION for Declaration of Unconstitutionality and Preliminary and/or Permanent Injunction by Illinois State Rifle Association, Mary Shepard. (Howard, William) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
For those that don't want to read these short documents, the NRA (through the ISRA) is saying that the law does not meet the time limits of the mandate, as it adds another 9 months for anyone in IL to be able to lawfully carry. That's not to be tolerated, since they've already been infringed these last 7 months of the Stay. The State has had plenty of time to come up with a practical law. They dithered. Then they have given themselves another 9 months of "stay" via the law to make the law work. Since the UUW and AUUW laws are still on the books (they are now excepted by the carry statute, but...) and they will still be enforced, the court needs to issue the injunction immediately.

The ISRA is asking for FOID carry in the same manner and with the same restrictions as the current law would allow, if permits were available, today.

Over at the other district, Judge Myerscough has indicated she wants a response from Moore on the States MTD, so David Jenson has filed a motion to extend the time to file costs so that he can answer the MTD.... This time around, they should copy the NRA briefs and file similar motions.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-10-2013, 7:45 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,965
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
What? You thought it was all over?

Yeah, so did I.... Apparently the lady has yet to sing!!

...

For those that don't want to read these short documents, the NRA (through the ISRA) is saying that the law does not meet the time limits of the mandate, as it adds another 9 months for anyone in IL to be able to lawfully carry. That's not to be tolerated, since they've already been infringed these last 7 months of the Stay. The State has had plenty of time to come up with a practical law. They dithered. Then they have given themselves another 9 months of "stay" via the law to make the law work. Since the UUW and AUUW laws are still on the books (they are now excepted by the carry statute, but...) and they will still be enforced, the court needs to issue the injunction immediately.

The ISRA is asking for FOID carry in the same manner and with the same restrictions as the current law would allow, if permits were available, today.

...
I'm luvin' it!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-10-2013, 9:04 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,615
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default

The 7th doesn't seem to have much patience with IL., but on this one I think they will give them a pass and IL., residents will have to wait the 9 months.

Boy, I sure hope I'm wrong!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-10-2013, 10:39 PM
ziegenbock ziegenbock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 129
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
The 7th doesn't seem to have much patience with IL., but on this one I think they will give them a pass and IL., residents will have to wait the 9 months.

Boy, I sure hope I'm wrong!!!!
LOL...74/75/76....quick reads...Can't wait for the district court to rule. Looks like it is still going to take some time for a reply or at least ISRA said IL should reply back by 7/16.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-11-2013, 7:31 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,594
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Well, technically there's still a pure carry case out there (Palmer), which has languished in DC district court for 4 years. I hope the court will now not wait for that to get there.
Best thing going for Woollard is that the license is a general carry license, and not a CCW like NY. This would make an opinion easier especially in light of the many 19th century cases upholding CCW bans.
I believe Gura's window for an extension may have lapsed already, so in all likelyhood Woollard will file for cert in a week or two.

COULD make things easier. But only if Open Carry is the Schwerpunkt.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-11-2013, 8:34 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,965
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So, let's say the district court agrees w/Shepard. Madigan does NOT want FOID carry, so she appeals to CA7. CA7 agrees w/the DC. Will Madigan have to appeal this motion to SCOTUS (if that's even possible) before her regular cert deadline of July 22? Would SCOTUS (or subset thereof), take this motion on an expedited basis?

It could go pretty much the same way if the DC disagrees w/Shepard's motion and Shepard appeals to CA7. If they agree w/Shepard, at that point Madigan may appeal to SCOTUS.

Could SCOTUS deal with this motion w/o dealing w/some important 2nd A issues (e.g., standard of review/scrutiny or RKBA in public)?

ETA: Let's say SCOTUS upholds the motion and IL immediately gets FOID carry, but going thru all of this w/the motion goes beyond Madigan's cert deadline of July 22nd. Would SCOTUS extend the cert deadline b/c of the motions? Could Madigan ask for cert in time for SCOTUS' long conference? Might Shepard-Moore end up in front of SCOTUS this term after all???

Would Madigan rather ask for cert than allow FOID carry (no training requirement, no extra fees) for 9 months???
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-12-2013 at 5:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-11-2013, 9:13 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

Here are Obama and Madigan discussing the Moore dismissal:



Or could it be that Obummer was pointing at the Magazine Cover of TCW?



I DON'T WANT FOID CARRY!!!!!



Then again, it's all about Lisa and running for Governor with Obama's sponsorship...

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/06/...-for-governor/

I hope the USSC doesn't entertain a Madigan request.
__________________
Yup, big change. Taking a break from work and headed to the Police Academy...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-11-2013, 10:36 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,834
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
The upside is that the Supreme Court can’t issue a now meaningless ruling on no-issue regimes and then duck everything else. The downside is that the court may now decide to duck everything else anyway.
This is actually a great summary, albeit a bit cryptic.

Madigan case was a very good case for two reasons: (1) it addressed a no-issue state, and, (2) the cert would have been filed by the state, giving it extra weight at SCOTUS.

Now, the court would have somewhat of an easy out by saying "some form of carry must be allowed," without saying anything about what the carry should look like (akin to Heller and ban on all handguns, but not addressing, e.g., AWB). On the other hand, by removing this from the table, the court might choose not to hear any carry case since they might not feel ready to address the "allowed restrictions" on carry, much like they didn't address the "allowed restrictions" on firearms (read: AWB).
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-12-2013, 10:10 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

In the hierarchy of possible outcomes, the worst would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that blanket prohibitions are unconstitutional and then to refuse further guidance in the face of legislative and judicial revolts. This is the only possible route back to something resembling the old status quo. It would allow the political noose to continue slowly tightening around our necks, demonstrating once again that there are possibilities worse than violence.

Violence would certainly be a result of the next possible bad outcome. If the Supreme Court simply refuses to rule on the right to carry, frustrations will build until they erupt into some form of defiance, whether it is passive resistance to unjust laws or an active insurrection aimed at our oppressors and/or their proxies. Even low level violence, though, would likely lead to more popular opposition to the right to arms, so itís also a losing course.

Therefore, a ruling that the Second Amendment doesnít protect a right to bear arms outside the home would actually be a neutral or even positive outcome. Such a shocking decision would certainly rally right-to-arms proponents to obtain a more comprehensive political solution. This could result in a new constitutional amendment being submitted for ratification or possibly even the calling of a constitutional convention. The fate of our nation might be dramatically changed, but at least it would happen in an orderly, peaceful manner.

The best outcome, of course, would be for the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to may-issue regimes and rule them unconstitutional. This would finally begin to secure a meaningful right to bear arms for the nation as a whole and even more immediately for the hundred million people living in restrictive states. The American political process would be preserved and reinforced, and the United States would move a step closer to becoming the shining example of liberty and opportunity that it was meant to be.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-12-2013, 5:11 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
In the hierarchy of possible outcomes, the worst would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that blanket prohibitions are unconstitutional and then to refuse further guidance in the face of legislative and judicial revolts.
No. In the hierarchy of possible outcomes, the worst would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to remain silent from this point forward, thereby only protecting keep in the home, and even that is something the judiciary is interpreting as narrowly as possible (see Osterweil v Bartlett).


Quote:
Violence would certainly be a result of the next possible bad outcome. If the Supreme Court simply refuses to rule on the right to carry, frustrations will build until they erupt into some form of defiance, whether it is passive resistance to unjust laws or an active insurrection aimed at our oppressors and/or their proxies. Even low level violence, though, would likely lead to more popular opposition to the right to arms, so it’s also a losing course.

Therefore, a ruling that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a right to bear arms outside the home would actually be a neutral or even positive outcome. Such a shocking decision would certainly rally right-to-arms proponents to obtain a more comprehensive political solution. This could result in a new constitutional amendment being submitted for ratification or possibly even the calling of a constitutional convention. The fate of our nation might be dramatically changed, but at least it would happen in an orderly, peaceful manner.
Right. But the problem here is that an attempt to address the issue through a Constitutional Convention will be co-opted by the states in an effort to grab power for themselves. Rather than result in nationwide protection of the right to keep and bear arms, the end result will be that the states will declare complete sovereignty over control of the right, thereby enshrining that which already exists.

Nobody but a saint ever willingly gives up power unless they must, or unless they gain something greater by it. The states gain nothing by actually protecting the right to keep and bear arms nationwide, and gain power by taking full control of the right for themselves. Gee, I wonder which of those two options a state legislature would choose...

You people who think a Constitutional Convention will actually make it possible to solve this issue are living in a dream world. The state legislatures are no less interested in wielding power than is the federal government.


Quote:
The best outcome, of course, would be for the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to may-issue regimes and rule them unconstitutional. This would finally begin to secure a meaningful right to bear arms for the nation as a whole and even more immediately for the hundred million people living in restrictive states. The American political process would be preserved and reinforced, and the United States would move a step closer to becoming the shining example of liberty and opportunity that it was meant to be.
And as the best outcome, it's also the least likely. It's still possible, of course, and I hold out hope for it, but I regard it as the least likely option, particularly given the Supreme Court's handling of Kachalsky.


No, at this point, it looks to me like we're almost certainly done, but the fat lady hasn't sung yet, and I'm not about to actually call the game until the game is actually over.
__________________
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.

Last edited by kcbrown; 07-12-2013 at 5:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-12-2013, 5:23 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,965
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
So, let's say the district court agrees w/Shepard. Madigan does NOT want FOID carry, so she appeals to CA7. CA7 agrees w/the DC. Will Madigan have to appeal this motion to SCOTUS (if that's even possible) before her regular cert deadline of July 22? Would SCOTUS (or subset thereof), take this motion on an expedited basis?

It could go pretty much the same way if the DC disagrees w/Shepard's motion and Shepard appeals to CA7. If they agree w/Shepard, at that point Madigan may appeal to SCOTUS.

Could SCOTUS deal with this motion w/o dealing w/some important 2nd A issues (e.g., standard of review/scrutiny or RKBA in public)?

ETA: Let's say SCOTUS upholds the motion and IL immediately gets FOID carry, but going thru all of this w/the motion goes beyond Madigan's cert deadline of July 22nd. Would SCOTUS extend the cert deadline b/c of the motions? Could Madigan ask for cert in time for SCOTUS' long conference? Might Shepard-Moore end up in front of SCOTUS this term after all???

Would Madigan rather ask for cert than allow FOID carry (no training requirement, no extra fees) for 9 months???
Now, factor into the above mess, Gura asking for cert. in Woollard....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-12-2013, 6:04 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The economics of our nation preclude a Con-Con that successfully secures liberty.

Furthermore, KC is in all likelihood correct, the SCOTUS is no longer interested in securing the 2A for future generations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No. In the hierarchy of possible outcomes, the worst would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to remain silent from this point forward, thereby only protecting keep in the home, and even that is something the judiciary is interpreting as narrowly as possible (see Osterweil v Bartlett).


Right. But the problem here is that an attempt to address the issue through a Constitutional Convention will be co-opted by the states in an effort to grab power for themselves. Rather than result in nationwide protection of the right to keep and bear arms, the end result will be that the states will declare complete sovereignty over control of the right, thereby enshrining that which already exists.

Nobody but a saint ever willingly gives up power unless they must, or unless they gain something greater by it. The states gain nothing by actually protecting the right to keep and bear arms nationwide, and gain power by taking full control of the right for themselves. Gee, I wonder which of those two options a state legislature would choose...

You people who think a Constitutional Convention will actually make it possible to solve this issue are living in a dream world. The state legislatures are no less interested in wielding power than is the federal government.


And as the best outcome, it's also the least likely. It's still possible, of course, and I hold out hope for it, but I regard it as the least likely option, particularly given the Supreme Court's handling of Kachalsky.


No, at this point, it looks to me like we're almost certainly done, but the fat lady hasn't sung yet, and I'm not about to actually call the game until the game is actually over.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-12-2013, 9:02 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Oh, if there is a constitutional convention, it will probably mean the end of the United States. The nation may break into two or more entities, but that would be preferable to civil war. It would solve the problem peacefully but at a great political price.

However, I must confess that after Kachalsky was rejected, my confidence in a positive outcome was shaken. Iíve now realized that, whether I intended it or not, my plans for the future have begun to assume that we wonít get any ruling on the right to carry. My focus has thus turned to retreat from California.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA

Last edited by M. D. Van Norman; 07-13-2013 at 8:20 AM.. Reason: Signature.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-12-2013, 9:34 PM
meaty-btz's Avatar
meaty-btz meaty-btz is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,995
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Oh, if there is a constitutional convention, it will probably mean the end of the United States. The nation may break into two or more entities, but that would be preferable to civil war. It would solve the problem peacefully but at a great political price.

However, I must confess that after Kachalsky was rejected, my confidence in a positive outcome was shaken. I've now realized that, whether I intended it or not, my plans for the future have begun to assume that we won't get any ruling on the right to carry. My focus has thus turned to retreat from California.
To put it bluntly the issue in the cases of Republics is that their health is determined by the level of corruption and decadence of the the Society that supports it. No nation that has socially fallen into decadence as our's has, ever recovered. Not even a single one. The change of administrations was intended to be a rejuvenation of government, however if the society be corrupt then that system stops. The nation ceases to regenerate. It then must die, as all nations eventually do. The solution in this country has almost nothing to do with government or a revolution against a "government". Such a revolution by corrupt people cannot produce a change in government. The new government will remain as corrupt as the society that drives it.

When a Republic falls into decay it's only means of regeneration is rebirth through social revolution. Social revolutions usually are far worse than those against governments. They are far less certain and almost always has that revolution of society taken the form of a transfer from Republic to some form of Oligarchy or Totalitarian system as that is usually viewed as the only means by the members of a society to "regenerate" the society and purge it of the chaotic and self-indulgent members. The cycle beings again there for where a powerful government uses oppression to "cleanse the society. That society then regenerates on it's own and as the government decays, now independently from the society the society will again rise up and throw off the chains and seek after freedoms again.

We are today in the rather absurd position held by all liberty minded people in a Republic at the end of it's time, entering into the long slide of decadence into collapse and reformation into oligarchy. We are attempting to use government to perform a social regeneration. It has never worked before, why would it now? We do have some small chance of finding a path to social regeneration. If we can do that, we might pull off the impossible twice in human history in a single nation. Though my study of history and looking at the players in the game right now I see perfect matches to all past cycles, including ourselves. Is it even possible to regenerate a society where 1/3 are fully corrupted through welfare system, where at least another 1/3 are up an coming adults psychologically engineered to be little more than impulsive and self indulgent? Always such regenerations were accomplished by purging, caused by war mostly, where an internal or external force ate up that portion of society in violence.

I believe SCOTUS is done with us. That part of the game is almost played out. The final cases moving through now will be the final nails in that coffin. After that we will see a restructuring of the court to ensure no possible further gains will ever be made and likely reversals will begin.

Unless our side can generate a nucleus of a new society and through that effect the beginnings of social change, we have little hope in the future. As I have seen the pieces we have on our side on the game board I understand that to be practically impossible. Too many of us rank as members of the corrupt and decadent, self-interested and self-important, to be able to be able to form a new society that is free from the current societal issues. A good example is the Zimmerman Threads. I don't except myself from any of my own judgments.
__________________
...but their exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.

Last edited by meaty-btz; 07-12-2013 at 9:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-12-2013, 11:28 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The SAF has filed a petition for certiorari in Woollard. Http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...iles/13-42.htm
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-12-2013, 11:52 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Vtd Most Likely to Secede
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 8,007
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meaty-btz View Post
To put it bluntly the issue in the cases of Republics is that their health is determined by the level of corruption and decadence of the the Society that supports it. No nation that has socially fallen into decadence as our's has, ever recovered.
Wow, you'd be a good dinner guest. Nice post. + tagged for updates.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by teg33 View Post
Welcome, don't listen to readysetgo.
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac


Last edited by readysetgo nekkid!; 07-12-2013 at 11:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-13-2013, 7:16 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,594
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
The best outcome, of course, would be for the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to may-issue regimes and rule them unconstitutional. This would finally begin to secure a meaningful right to bear arms for the nation as a whole and even more immediately for the hundred million people living in restrictive states. The American political process would be preserved and reinforced, and the United States would move a step closer to becoming the shining example of liberty and opportunity that it was meant to be.

This just won't happen. We've seen the process many times before. In gun cases as well as in re other Constitutional Rights:

Step 1; The reviewing court will ask: Does the law infringe on a Constitutional Right?

If the answer is "yes," they proceed to Step 2; badly enough for us to strike down the law?

Then follows their Findings.


When it comes to carrying concealed, the answer to Step 1 is always the same; "No. Because carrying concealed is not Constitutionally protected."

There is no step 2.

Then follows our efforts being tossed out of the door.

But in Peterson, the 10th (following the HUGE hint in Heller) offered us this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10th Circuit
By contrast, had Peterson challenged the Denver ordinance, he may have obtained a ruling that allows him to carry a firearm openly while maintaining the stateís restrictions on concealed carry.

Which is perfectly HUGE hint from the 10th that we should be focusing on Open Carry.

True, the 7th Circuit did (in Moore) force concealed carry in Ill. But, is that really good for us? IVC gives me pause (ESPECIALLY since Madigan dropped the request for cert.):


Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
This is actually a great summary, albeit a bit cryptic.

Madigan case was a very good case for two reasons: (1) it addressed a no-issue state, and, (2) the cert would have been filed by the state, giving it extra weight at SCOTUS.

Now, the court would have somewhat of an easy out by saying "some form of carry must be allowed," without saying anything about what the carry should look like (akin to Heller and ban on all handguns, but not addressing, e.g., AWB). On the other hand, by removing this from the table, the court might choose not to hear any carry case since they might not feel ready to address the "allowed restrictions" on carry, much like they didn't address the "allowed restrictions" on firearms (read: AWB).

Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Maybe SCOTUS is waiting for us to take the hint. Maybe they're wondering why the Circuits can read Heller so clearly & why we can't. Maybe we should make LOC the schwerpunkt of Woolard. SCOTUS mentioned Nunn & all those other 19th Century carry cases for a reason. As requiring a license for the exercise of a Constitutional Right is repugnant to the Constitution, make it a case for UNlicensed LOC. While a win would allow stupid CCW regs, the practical effect would be sensible CCW regs (as in Ohio).

It would also protect the interstate carriage of guns.

If we can carry a handgun across state lines, there would be no reason we couldn't buy handguns across state lines.

State restrictions on what we can buy (like the PRK's Roster) would be gone.

Sec. 626.9 CPC would be gone.

True, separate cases would have to be filed for each of these, but we would be attacking from a position of strength. Instead of arguing REAL common sense vs. the grabberz version of "common sense," we'd have the power of a clearly delineated Right to throw at them.

In short, there's nothing bad with having unlicensed LOC as the Minimum Constitutional Standard & a whole lotta good.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-13-2013, 8:33 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meaty-btz View Post
We are attempting to use government to perform a social regeneration. It has never worked before, why would it now? We do have some small chance of finding a path to social regeneration. If we can do that, we might pull off the impossible twice in human history in a single nation.…
All our hopes and fears …

I had allowed myself to hope, because a true victory for the right to arms would strike to the very heart of the problem … but it appears increasingly likely that our legalistic victories may prove empty.

On the other hand, the moment that the social contract is completely broken will be as profoundly liberating as it will be frightening. That moment may come in October. I find myself looking toward the possibility with that curious mixture of elation and dread.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-13-2013, 8:54 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,834
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
In short, there's nothing bad with having unlicensed LOC as the Minimum Constitutional Standard & a whole lotta good.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would get a hear attack just from hearing such a case. The "living breathing document" doctrine would certainly rule out LOC as anything close to reasonable in today's society. We can barely get that 2A is an *individual* right and Sotomayor acknowledged Heller, but dissented in McDonald anyway.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-13-2013, 9:06 AM
radgokart's Avatar
radgokart radgokart is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 297
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
Which is perfectly HUGE hint from the 10th that we should be focusing on Open Carry.
[...]
Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Maybe SCOTUS is waiting for us to take the hint. Maybe they're wondering why the Circuits can read Heller so clearly & why we can't. Maybe we should make LOC the schwerpunkt of Woolard. SCOTUS mentioned Nunn & all those other 19th Century carry cases for a reason. As requiring a license for the exercise of a Constitutional Right is repugnant to the Constitution, make it a case for UNlicensed LOC.
This seems to be what Nichols v. Brown is focusing on, but on his website, Nichols says that the CA pro-gun side hates him for his lawsuit. Any ideas on that?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-13-2013, 9:34 AM
meaty-btz's Avatar
meaty-btz meaty-btz is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 8,995
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
All our hopes and fears Ö

I had allowed myself to hope, because a true victory for the right to arms would strike to the very heart of the problem Ö but it appears increasingly likely that our legalistic victories may prove empty.

On the other hand, the moment that the social contract is completely broken will be as profoundly liberating as it will be frightening. That moment may come in October. I find myself looking toward the possibility with that curious mixture of elation and dread.
Indeed but the price of social reformation has always been bloodshed. People think anti-government revolutions are bloody. Social revolutions (real ones, not the 60s which was embracing of decadence and self-interest) solidify their hold by elimination of the other society. I tell people over and over again culture wars are terrible things. Most of the middle east issues are culture wars, very old ones. We happen to be involved in a culture war with them as well. There cannot ever exist two dominant cultures or societies side by side. One must grow and the other diminish. They are always antagonistic towards each other and often openly violent.

So when it comes it will be as it always has been in history: convert or die. Ugly by any measure. It is little wonder that being mostly good people we try to find a less bloody route, even knowing it to be a pointless move. We are moral people and that really drives us, elsewise we would be like the rest.

Now there is still a small hope but it would require grave changes to ourselves first. Sometimes a government that is For the People is less bad than a government By the People. A government by the people will always be as corrupt as the People are. A government for the People is only as bad as itself. Which is better? A benign and loving dictatorship or a Corrupt Republic led by some of the most evil men in existence? I think the Great Experiment that our founders put in place is starting to complete it's course. They of course knew the nature of thins when they established it. Which is why you see writings concerning how it is only fit for a moral people. They hoped regular regime changes would continue a system of governmental regeneration and hoped that society itself would find peaceful means to regenerate over time and thus found a renewing good nation. It was a nice dream.
__________________
...but their exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-13-2013, 9:48 AM
El Toro's Avatar
El Toro El Toro is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,454
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
This just won't happen..
...The reviewing court will ask: Does the law infringe the protected Constitutional Right? No, Because carrying concealed is not Constitutionally protected.

...Which is perfectly HUGE hint... that we should be focusing on Open Carry.
....In short, there's nothing bad with having unlicensed LOC as the Minimum Constitutional Standard & a whole lotta good.

The Raisuli
This has struck me many times over as our true focus since I joined this site. I couldnt get my head around why our efforts have been to focus on CCW as a right. Its always been an exclusive privlege while open carry would have been the founders intent as "BEAR" would indicate.

The problem is that for over 150 years, local and State governemnts have trampled this right in the name of police order. If youre bearing within the city limits, you are disturbing the peace.

I think we absolutely need to define a strategy for "bear" that the SCOTUS would accept.
__________________
Quote:
Western civilization represents the pinnacle of true human progress, and we should rightly be proud of it, delusional leftists be damned.

Quote:
We know it's the family and the church not government officials who know best how to create strong and loving communities. And above all else we know this, in America, we don't worship government, we worship God.
President Donald J. Trump, Oct. 13, 2017
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-13-2013, 10:04 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Toro View Post
This has struck me many times over as our true focus since I joined this site. I couldnt get my head around why our efforts have been to focus on CCW as a right. Its always been an exclusive privlege while open carry would have been the founders intent as "BEAR" would indicate.

The problem is that for over 150 years, local and State governemnts have trampled this right in the name of police order. If youre bearing within the city limits, you are disturbing the peace.

I think we absolutely need to define a strategy for "bear" that the SCOTUS would accept.
On that note, Woollard's petition ends this way: Finally, because Marylandís law operates without
distinction between the concealed and open carrying
of handguns, confusing questions as to the manner in
which Woollard might exercise his rights are avoided.
Petitioners would assert that the Legislature may
determine the manner in which handguns are carried,
but that issue is absent here.

I don't see that an unlicensed LOC case would gain any more support for cert than what we currently have in Woollard, other than the court may be waiting for other opinions on the matter.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-13-2013, 10:12 AM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 4,260
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
In the hierarchy of possible outcomes, the worst would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that blanket prohibitions are unconstitutional and then to refuse further guidance in the face of legislative and judicial revolts. This is the only possible route back to something resembling the old status quo. It would allow the political noose to continue slowly tightening around our necks, demonstrating once again that there are possibilities worse than violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No. In the hierarchy of possible outcomes, the worst would be for the U.S. Supreme Court to remain silent from this point forward, thereby only protecting keep in the home, and even that is something the judiciary is interpreting as narrowly as possible (see Osterweil v Bartlett).
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
However, I must confess that after Kachalsky was rejected, my confidence in a positive outcome was shaken. Iíve now realized that, whether I intended it or not, my plans for the future have begun to assume that we wonít get any ruling on the right to carry. My focus has thus turned to retreat from California.
Sadly I am coming to the same conclusion. If SCOTUS denies cert in Woolard, I will seriously consider leaving my beloved home state of California.
__________________
FPC, CGF, SAF, Madison, NRA, CRPA - CCW DENIED by SCSO
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 5:27 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.