|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 16, 2013, 03:13 PM | #201 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
As to California: there are two cases pending before the 9th Circuit and they're very cool in their own right. And with Kachalski dead they can't delay for much longer.
Two different Federal judges came to the same conclusions in NorCal and SoCal: "concealed carry can be restricted to may-issue so long as unloaded open carry remains legal". And then after those two judges ruled, the morons at the California legislature banned unloaded open carry...handing the 9th Circuit a horrible hot potato! We've also got a 9th Circuit/Hawaii-based case...dunno status on that.
__________________
Jim March Last edited by Evan Thomas; April 16, 2013 at 03:25 PM. Reason: corrected spelling. |
April 16, 2013, 04:18 PM | #202 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
Not to get too far off track, but some people have the impression there's favorable and unfavorable circuits. Each panel is 3 judges out of a minimum of 11(the 9th has 30 something). It's the luck of the draw. Woollard in the 4th circuit, considered a conservative court because of the states encompassed, got 2 Clinton and 1 Obama appointee. Peruta in the 9th, however, got 2 GOP appointed judges. We have to remember the best way to SCOTUS is a circuit split, and that includes losing at least 1 case.
Woollard was just denied en banc(no suprise), so now 90 days to petition SCOTUS. Gura will obviously wait to see how IL shakes out, but it seems unlikely IL will push at this late stage. This also gives time for Peruta and Muller to get decided and get an official split. |
April 16, 2013, 04:38 PM | #203 | |
Member
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
In the interim, the Illinois legislature can pass a carbon copy of New York's law, and Madigan can call the state in compliance and drag things out another couple years. If Posner goes to war with the 2nd Circuit with a stark break, the Supreme Court will likely take the case, but Roberts likes guns in theory, but not in practice, so this doesn't end well. Don't win cases. Win elections. |
|
April 16, 2013, 04:42 PM | #204 | |||
Member
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
If you want guns, move to where guns are welcome. You can't have it both ways. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
April 16, 2013, 06:28 PM | #205 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Quote:
If local law enforcement is ordered to disobey a federal civil rights ruling...well "stuff" just got very, very real.
__________________
Jim March |
|
April 16, 2013, 06:32 PM | #206 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Quote:
If the case didn't include a general injunction, a separate suit could be brought if Illinois continues to enforce the law. In addition, every time local government, or individual acting under color of state law (including police) enforced that law, they could be sued for violating 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 (violation of civil rights) for damages and attorney fees. All of this would be in federal court and, believe me, a few hefty judgments would take care of the problem. None of this would require President Obama's assistance. |
|
April 16, 2013, 06:40 PM | #207 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"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 |
|
April 16, 2013, 08:24 PM | #208 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
|
||
April 17, 2013, 08:19 AM | #209 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
The Kachalski denial seems to have had an immediate effect on Illinois politics
Anti-gun lawmakers in Illinois introduced a may-issue carry bill in the form of an amendment - House Floor Amendment #1 to HB0831
It didn't take them long to choose the "may issue" strategy. I noticed the Illinois / Moore thread was closed so I thought I'd put this here. |
April 17, 2013, 08:25 AM | #210 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 10:12 AM | #211 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The Moore Thread is not closed! See Illinois Ban on Carry Ruled Unconstitutional (See Page 7) - Page 20 - The Firing Line Forums
|
April 17, 2013, 10:52 AM | #212 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
I must be losing my mind... I could have sworn the thread was closed
|
April 17, 2013, 12:28 PM | #213 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Not to worry Luger, I found it.
It should arrive in tomorrow's post...
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
April 17, 2013, 02:23 PM | #214 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,149
|
Was just reading this article on Kachalsky and was wondering if this dim view of Alan Gura is widely held? I don't know much about him but I've seen his name referenced reverentially plenty of times on 2A forums ("Gura says...").
I'm not ready to make an opinion based on one article but this one - written by another 2A Lawyer - seems to suggest that Gura isn't the man for the job. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-Take-Next-One |
April 17, 2013, 03:22 PM | #215 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
He's won two court cases in front of the Supreme Court.
I think the two big ones, too. Heller and McDonald not? Edit: Which, if I am remembering right, means he got the 2A to be an individual right incorporated against the States. |
April 17, 2013, 04:51 PM | #216 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
As Jim pointed out, Gura knows what he's doing, and he's been a spectacular advocate. He won the biggest 2A case in pretty much forever, and he followed it with a second a year later.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 17, 2013, 05:32 PM | #217 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,149
|
Quote:
But if you read the article in my post, the author suggests that the amicus briefs played a bigger role in Heller and that Gura's in-court performance wasn't up to snuff. Again, I'm not making an arguement here, I'm just seeing if this opinion of Gura is an isolated thing. |
|
April 17, 2013, 05:42 PM | #218 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The writer, Ken Klukowski, wrote the following:
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 06:50 PM | #219 | |
Member
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 33
|
Gura is selling hope, and that's what many here want. They desperately want to think that they'll be able to carry a gun on the streets of Los Angeles and New York City, and they'll back anyone who smokes that pipe with them.
I heard Professor Lund's argument in person, and it was, indeed, brilliant, economical, justifiable and correct. For now, the folks at SAF and especially CalGuns must STOP! filing lawsuits, as these are destined for adverse rulings or hopefully only dismissal with prejudice. Quote:
Note: Gura has done much work, advanced many strong arguments, and raised much awareness for this right. He deserves a great deal of credit and gratitude. When his client poses with a big check, however, it taints the movement. When Gura deliberately omits open carry arguments, some question his motives. Last edited by smoking357; April 17, 2013 at 08:23 PM. |
|
April 17, 2013, 06:57 PM | #220 |
Member
Join Date: November 27, 2012
Posts: 33
|
Some of the comments were interesting. I saw Charles Nichols posted. While he may lose his case, as he's in California, at least he's presenting a clear, complete and correct argument.
|
April 17, 2013, 11:31 PM | #221 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
|
|
April 18, 2013, 09:14 AM | #222 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
And gave us In the Common Use For Lawful Purposes used as part of the floor argument against the AWB amendment to S.649? The SAF and the NRA approach the "problem" from two different ends. Neither is perfect, neither should be the sole avenue for redress. Both will have victories and losses. Both can nullify the other's loss- either through legislative mooting of a judicial case, or judicial challenge to a legislative misstep. We need them both, and we need them to work together. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|