Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [Filed for cert to SCOTUS, 1/12/17]

[IVC]

Heh, it would be called a "deadlock" in multithreaded programming since Richards is waiting on Peruta.

Not sure what Gura wants to do, just pointing out that his brief(s) naturally have quite a different context from most other briefs.

[kcbrown]

how and why is this still a thing? gura's latest brief outlined, in clear english, why PER LAW THAT HARRIS BUFFOON HAS NO SAY, NO STANDING, WHATSOEVER.

allowing her into the case would be the highest form of legal legerdemain.

Why in the world do you believe the 9th Circuit is going to care about what the law is when the type of people who dominate the circuit are the types of people who got us Kachalsky, Woollard, and Drake, and are exactly the people who got us Fyock? The panels on those cases clearly didn't care about the law.

No, you're clearly going on misplaced faith here.

its HIGHLY unlikely she'll be let in. surely only the mentally incompetent could magically conjure some reason why she needs to step into a case that is;

Not mentally incompetent. Irredeemably corrupt.

[Sgt Raven]

The intent of GC was to deny the right to carry to Chinese and Latinos, while still allowing the "right" people to carry, and it wasn't even hidden (different times in 1923). So it WAS corrupt and designed for cronyism by definition. Read up on the history of CA may-issue.

I saw a Cable Show recently about 'Jim Crow' Type Laws..

When You add in the California Laws against Asians & Latinos.....

California had more Jim Crow Type Laws than any other State......

[planetbuster]

kc; granted.. along with a nod to your everpresent cynicism xD

but the things that you hold up by the scruff of the neck and point to as evidence that the whole thing is skewed and no justice can be found here etcetc was MOSTLY the norm BEFORE Ishii started handing out the middle finger.

point being, the writing is on the wall in various instances, and only as of relatively recently. if it were still 2002 or the like, id be just as cynical but surely the glacier is beginning to melt, no?

[kcbrown]

kc; granted.. along with a nod to your everpresent cynicism xD

but the things that you hold up by the scruff of the neck and point to as evidence that the whole thing is skewed and no justice can be found here etcetc was MOSTLY the norm BEFORE Ishii started handing out the middle finger.

Most certainly.

The question with respect to Silvester is twofold:

1. Will Harris fail to comply with the order? I think the answer is almost certainly "yes".
2. If "yes", will the court subsequently take real action in response (as opposed to saying "stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!")? History says that the answer will be "no".

That case may prove to be a litmus test of judicial power. Palmer has already cast doubt upon the notion that the courts can, or are willing to, actually enforce their decisions against the government (but it's not quite time to use that as a definitive example).

point being, the writing is on the wall in various instances, and only as of relatively recently. if it were still 2002 or the like, id be just as cynical but surely the glacier is beginning to melt, no?

With respect to the decisions themselves, it is, and Peruta is certainly an example of that (I fully expect it to be reversed en banc, but it still counts as a win until then).

A reason I'm cynical is that with the sole exception of Moore, the positive effects of these cases have been relatively minimal (Ezell is finally gaining some real ground, however). Even Peruta has had relatively little effect given the 9th Circuit's scope, with only Ventura and Orange counties voluntarily issuing licenses as a consequence (I say "voluntarily" because there are other counties, e.g. Santa Clara, which are not issuing despite Peruta, so clearly the decision to issue must not be one that was directly forced by the court decision itself, though it obviously changed something sufficient to cause those two counties to start issuing).

However, that said, most of this stuff is building blocks, and you can't judge the construction of the house when only the foundation has been built. The problem is that with a roughly 50% win rate, the foundation is looking quite unstable to me, and a good house cannot be built on a bad foundation.


Don't get me wrong: hope is not lost. But I don't like the odds at all.

[Tincon]

If "yes", will the court subsequently take real action in response (as opposed to saying "stop, or I shall say 'stop' again!")? History says that the answer will be "no".

This would be that history which you can't provide a single example of?

[kcbrown]

This would be that history which you can't provide a single example of?

Heh.

See my last in that thread.

[Tincon]

You still don't have a single example.

[kcbrown]

You still don't have a single example.

Of a government representative defying the courts for something other than what you call "short term"? No, I don't.

But you've already acquiesced the point I was making with respect to Silvester, because "short term" is all I need for that.

[LINY]

Unfortunately, the civil right to which this forum is primarily devoted is not one of those "provided for under, and explicitly stated in, the Calif Constitution."

It wouldn't matter if it did- the NYS constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms CANNOT be infringed" and look at the BS (UN)SAFE act and permission-slip to even *touch* a handgun that we're fighting....

[SimpleCountryActuary]

I saw a Cable Show recently about 'Jim Crow' Type Laws..

When You add in the California Laws against Asians & Latinos.....

California had more Jim Crow Type Laws than any other State......

Has.

[Tincon]

Of a government representative defying the courts for something other than what you call "short term"? No, I don't.

But you've already acquiesced the point I was making with respect to Silvester, because "short term" is all I need for that.

So your point was that Harris will comply with the court order?

[kcbrown]

So your point was that Harris will comply with the court order?

My point is that she will not comply with the court order until the case has either been decided against her by SCOTUS or SCOTUS has denied cert, assuming the 9th Circuit upholds the district court's decision.

Which is to say, the only condition under which she will comply with the order is when the case has been completely disposed of in our favor by the courts.

If that requires issuance of a new order, then it means that she will not comply with this court order at all under any circumstance.

[IVC]

My point is that she will not comply with the court order until the case has either been decided against her by SCOTUS or SCOTUS has denied cert, assuming the 9th Circuit upholds the district court's decision.

So she will respect some courts, while flaunting others. What is that SCOTUS has at their disposal that would be more persuasive than what CA-9 has?

[rlc2]

Sheriff Prieto's paradigm is ...scary

Dear Sheriff Prieto:

People who are involved in criminal activities but have never been convicted are presumed innocent.

Yours sincerely,

The US Constitution

PS - If they do anything illegal with the gun you license them to carry, you have lots you can do to them. But Oh by the way - people with carry licenses are, statistically, much more law-abiding than the general public. Your unfounded "alarm" does not allow you to implement an unconstitutional policy. Sheriff McGuinness used to say much the same until he saw the light.

Thank you. When you put it like that, you have to wonder about the mindset, the paradigm that would allow something so illogical, so...paranoid sounding to be put to paper; as there can be only two paradigms that make sense, to justify this argument:

A.) The Sheriff is somehow conflating some number of innocent, simple law abiding citizens seeking a permit to exercise their right to self defense, with this hypothetical vaguely threatening mass of "criminals not convicted" who in his imagination are eagerly waiting to apply for background checks, pysch evals, gmc, range fees, classes, and shooting tests.

REALLY? Sheriff? That is what yiu fear, per your own sworn submission to the court? If so, then maybe a psych eval IS in order, and I leave that to the Board of Supervisors of Yolo County...or maybe a forward leaning family member, with that new GVRO tool...

B) This is the PR brainfart of an author of an idea that is so blatantly deceptive, outright ridiculous distortion of reality, on its face,
Never mind under the color of the Sheriffs position, that calls into question not just the moral authority of that office, but the legitimacy of those who overee the Sheriff. REALLY, Sheriff? Are there really so many known criminals, in your jurisdictiin, who are somehow not yet convicted, but also just brazenly ready to sign up for CCWs?

Sir, if that is so, then with respect, maybe you need to do something ahout your policing, or better, to embrace this new law as the flytrap it will be, to make your job easier, when those known criminals line up at your permit counter, so you can handcuff them.

Because, Sheriff, if its not a or b, then we citizens have to conclude you are just making crazy sounding ***** up, to play along with your campaign funders, or the loudest of the most hysterifal gun grabbers.