|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 14, 2012, 09:48 PM | #51 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
August 14, 2012, 09:51 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Getting back on topic --- The weakness in the argument is that nobody has declared the right to carry concealed protected by the 2A and I'm sure the state will point this out. I'm not versed enough in Equal Protection law to know if the classification of citizen vs. legal resident aliens is sufficient where a constitutional right is not involved (yes, I'm assuming the 2A does not protect concealed carry if open carry is legal).
|
August 15, 2012, 11:53 AM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
|
|
April 3, 2013, 10:25 AM | #54 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Here's a very brief recap of the docket:
Quote:
Briefly, Mr. King was dismissed as a defendant (doc 41) but the overall injunction was granted. |
|
April 3, 2013, 11:13 AM | #55 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Seems to be a well-reasoned decision.
|
April 3, 2013, 01:36 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
But wait, I thought there was no right to carry a concealed weapon per Heller.
|
April 3, 2013, 02:32 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 5, 2010
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 474
|
relevant part:
Quote:
|
|
April 3, 2013, 03:00 PM | #58 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
Quote:
The court based its ruling on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It applied strict scrutiny: Quote:
The court relied on the Kachalsky opinion from the 2nd Circuit and held that their was a compelling state in protecting “the public from concealed carry of firearms because of the inherent danger that unregulated concealed weapons pose to the public.” Opinion at 17. It concluded, however, that the legislation was not narrowly tailored to serve that interest: Quote:
That was the heart of the decision and again illustrates why the standard of review is so darned important. |
||||
April 3, 2013, 07:01 PM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
Sort of odd that alienage discrimination gets a CCW(in a gold star open carry state), while Gray Peterson as a Washington resident can't get one in a place where open carry isn't available. But at least the equal protection argument was understood by the court. Someone ought to tell the 10th Circuit
|
April 3, 2013, 07:37 PM | #60 |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Posts: 6
|
It took 8 months to go from filing the motion for preliminary injunction to actual grant of the injunction.
It took nearly a year for the same to occur in Ezell. It should now be clear to all concerned that preliminary injunctions are useless for preventing infringement of rights in the face of legislatures which are determined to infringe upon those rights. While PI action is indeed faster than the normal judicial approach, that is small comfort given the sheer amount of time it takes for even a PI to be had, because the end result is that the legislature will be able to infringe upon the rights of the citizenry for at least 2/3 of the time in any given year (8 months is 2/3 of a year). I cannot regard that as an effective defense. Hence, it seems to me that the rights-infringing legislatures will win in the end, since they have no legal liability for their infringement efforts. |
April 3, 2013, 09:32 PM | #61 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I don't think I've welcomed you to my end of the interwebs, KC! Welcome aboard.
I gotta warn ya, though... Your brand of optimistic pessimism (or is that pessimistic optimism?) will be less accepted here than at CGN. I know that this won't mean much, but if you get some flack over it, at least you will know why. I didn't expect the 2A argument to go over. But it was nice to see the Judge understood the EP argument and gave it the proper scrutiny. It may not be over, especially if the State appeals this to the CA10. |
April 4, 2013, 05:11 PM | #62 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Posts: 6
|
Quote:
Quote:
Some believe my views to be overly cynical. I cannot help that. The real world is a hostile and unforgiving place, and evil is baked into the very fabric of the universe (else entropy would not be a fundamental law of the universe, and death would not be the inevitability that it is). My views are a direct reflection of that. |
||
April 4, 2013, 07:01 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Where is CGN? Always looking for a new forum to annoy...er "join".
|
April 4, 2013, 07:59 PM | #64 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
He's referring to Calguns, California's most effective gun-rights group. Gene Hoffman is their lead attorney, and Gray Peterson works with them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
April 4, 2013, 09:37 PM | #65 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Close but no cookie, Tom.
CGN is CalGuns.net. A very popular CA gun board (perhaps the largest such board in CA). This is not to be confused with CGF, CalGuns Foundation, of which Gene Hoffman is (at the very least) a Board member (and founder). While CGN and CGF are not related, most members of the CGF Board are members of the CGN gun board. A lot of what the CalGuns Foundation does, can be seen and commented upon at CalGuns.net. CGF supports CA gun rights through litigation, education, and outreach initiatives. |
April 4, 2013, 09:52 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
I've heard of them, a very effective group. Kudos to them for fighting in a very difficult battleground.
|
April 4, 2013, 10:05 PM | #67 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
I should have also clarified, Gene is not an attorney. A very astute businessman, yes.
|
|
|