HuffPo:Guns in America: Why I Think It's Time for California to Stop Fighting Peruta

[Paladin]

On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. issued a Summary Judgment Order affirming that the 2nd Amendment confers a right to "bear arms" outside the home. The order was nothing short of devastating to the District of Columbia which has been resisting and delaying compliance with legal decisions on this issue for many years. The order was plain. The government and police of the District of Columbia were told to cease and desist from enforcing all laws regarding carrying weapons until such time that an acceptable and constitutionally compliant set of laws providing for the carrying of weapons outside the home for D.C. residents and non-residents are put into place. That's a hammer blow in magnitude rarely seen and it's a wake-up call to other jurisdictions resisting similar decisions on other parts of the country.

More at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-santiago/guns-in-america-why-i-thi_b_5628403.html

[banker1]

great article....

[Paladin]

Near the bottom right HuffPo has a poll asking you if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the NRA. It is one of several polls, so you may have to clik thru to get to it and vote.

[thorium]

I do get a kick out of imagining the discussions going on about this case in the kamala Harris camp. If they weren't sure before, they're sure now... This will be bigger than the 9th circuit, it will not end even if an en banc review goes her way.

So she can advise CA civic entities to keep ignoring Peruta, and get it in the face, or she can tell them to do an end run and put as restrictive a licensing mechanism as has passed federal court scrutiny in place, which means places like LA and SF are going to have to loosen up.

Let's hope she gets it in the face a la Palmer DC

[Tincon]

Peruta is certainly the gift that keeps on giving.

[epilepticninja]

Peruta is certainly the gift that keeps on giving.

Hopefully it keeps on giving, brother. Something needs to slap the CA politicians upside the head so they realize that the courts for the most part are on the side of the gun owning citizen in this state.

[Loubot10]

The Author's Title is as dry as it gets -

"Systemic Risk and Global Stability Observer; Architect of Risk Management Systems"

Living proof that where emotional nonsense is controlled, common sense flourishes.

[Go Navy]

I do get a kick out of imagining the discussions going on about this case in the kamala Harris camp. If they weren't sure before, they're sure now... This will be bigger than the 9th circuit, it will not end even if an en banc review goes her way.

So she can advise CA civic entities to keep ignoring Peruta, and get it in the face, or she can tell them to do an end run and put as restrictive a licensing mechanism as has passed federal court scrutiny in place, which means places like LA and SF are going to have to loosen up.

Let's hope she gets it in the face a la Palmer DC

Harris is not bound by the lower court decision in D.C. She will ignore it. She and the liberals who control the State Assembly and Brown, who is a liberal, will constrain Peruta beyond reason, knowing that her restraints will then be litigated for years while we suffer under new restrictions and rules. She doesn't care.

[OleCuss]

It's an interesting op-ed.

Pretty futile, however, since Kamala is not operating on the basis of sound public policy strategy.

Kamala wants to be governor, or POTUS, or a Justice of SCOTUS. Folding on this issue is not going to help her to achieve any of those goals since she has to play up to the nutcase fascist base of her party to have any real hope. She doesn't have the same political situation in Illinois to give her the kind of political cover she would need in order to abandon a futile and (for them) presumably counter-productive pursuit.

Can any of us seriously imagine Kamala saying, "Hey folks, I made a monumental screw-up by pursuing intervenor status, en banc and any possibility of requesting cert. So stop enforcing all these anti-liberty laws I've been pushing and shoving down the throats of the people of Kalifornia!".

Ain't going to happen. . . She'd be a laughingstock and she knows it. She has to play this out to the end in order to look serious to the people to whom she thinks she needs to look serious. She may even hope that she fails, but she has to look like she tried.

And understand, the 9th Circuit is huge. The number of people whose support she wants and whom she would tick off immensely is huge.

[taperxz]

Peruta is certainly the gift that keeps on giving.

MY POINT exactly! It will keep giving just like Palmer will keep giving just as McDonald and Heller. The box is open.

[Tincon]

MY POINT exactly! It will keep giving just like Palmer will keep giving just as McDonald and Heller. The box is open.

Well, Palmer is only a district court decision, and of course it relies heavily on Peruta itself. Given that there is only one district court in DC and Palmer is certain to be appealed and/or mooted, its value at the moment is very limited in both time and scope.

That said, the tide is clearly shifting in our favor, and that does matter, even at SCOTUS.

[OleCuss]

Harris is not bound by the lower court decision in D.C. She will ignore it. She and the liberals who control the State Assembly and Brown, who is a liberal, will constrain Peruta beyond reason, knowing that her restraints will then be litigated for years while we suffer under new restrictions and rules. She doesn't care.

Well, it is absolutely true that she is not bound by the D.C. court's decision. But you have to understand that D.C. courts tend (as far as I can tell) to be inordinately influential.

What is more, the D.C. lower court gave a roadmap to other district courts about how to implement the language of Peruta. The Palmer decision is constructed in a manner which may be immensely problematic for the more stubborn governmental entities.

And politically it is potentially disastrous for the fascists. Seriously, D.C. immediately caved with the understanding that they really had no choice in the matter. There is not an immediate stay and appeal - there is an immediate compliance.

The model of post-Peruta ruling and compliance has to be extremely disturbing to the anti-liberty folk.


Here in Kalifornia there is a somewhat less onerous regulatory regime, but the logic is really very similar. Kamala and company may find that they will have to go to a system which is totally unpalatable to them in a major hurry if they don't develop a constitutionally compliant system.

Their tactic will likely be to see what kinds of ordinances D.C. passes and then try to model the Kalifornia regulatory regime on that. Sort of how D.C. based their roster on ours.

So sure, they will try a lot of legal maneuvering, but it may sort of work itself out sort of as it did in Illinois. Again, the politics here are very different than in Illinois, but the court decisions are as well. . . What I imagine we would do is to ask for a temporary injunction on any unconstitutional regulatory regime which is instituted and basically stop enforcement of the really stupid stuff until they come up with a decent regulatory regime.

And understand, I do want some modicum of regulation. Not much, but some with the intent to keep the firearms out of the hands of the criminal element but not the law-abiding. Of course, the best way to do that is to lock up the criminal element rather than continuing the Jerry Brown "Book-'em and Release-'em" approach. And maybe actually prosecute the straw purchasing law against the folk supplying the gangsters rather than against everyone except them.

[taperxz]

Well, Palmer is only a district court decision, and of course it relies heavily on Peruta itself. Given that there is only one district court in DC and Palmer is certain to be appealed and/or mooted, its value at the moment is very limited in both time and scope.

That said, the tide is clearly shifting in our favor, and that does matter, even at SCOTUS.

Which is also my point. The Palmer opinion is way beyond even Peruta. Its really the first break through even though its district court.

EDIT: And Peruta relied heavily on Heller

[thorium]

Kamala now knows (for sure) this is bigger than CA and bigger than the 9th.

Therefore I imagine she is indeed concerned about having to finally comply with federal law (that pesky constitution) to a wider extent than CA does today, and that has a good chance of happening no matter what happens in the 9th circuit.

But agreed, kamala also knows she gets to keep trying regulatory regimes until she finds the most restrictive yet barely constitutionally acceptable regime, and gum things up in court for years getting there.

Still better than the de facto bans in places like LA and SF.

[SWalt]

KH is a dyed in the wool anti, I highly doubt she would even listen. But 1 thing I like about the article is:

to adapt to the court order issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Peruta case. Adaptations will need to be made. Licensing systems need to be updated. Training and skills requirements need to be standardized. Peace Officer Standards Training (POST) for dealing with a more broadly armed populace need to be updated particularly in those "local" jurisdictions that are the most resistive. Public awareness and nervousness about firearms need to be dealt with some sort of operationally constructive -- as opposed to fearful -- educational campaign. And all of this needs to be done in a fashion much more organized than waking up on a Saturday morning to the news that you've just gotten a whammy of a court order to cease enforcing laws on your books until you get back in line.

The demonization of firearms is very deep culturally by design. Guns only kill people, they are not seen as saving people from harm. That has to change.