February 21, 2014, 01:25 PM | #151 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
I don't know enough about california law on this. Does Cal. law permit open carry of such weapons? If so, then the ban on concealed carry is probably constitutional. But on you larger point, yes, "arms" include other things other than just firearms.
|
February 21, 2014, 01:40 PM | #152 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
|
Some yes with extremely narrow limits (like knife worn at the waist in a sheath) others not at all. Many weapons are expressly prohibited in the state. CPC 19910-22910 Then we have the unrecognizable, wallet, cane gun prohibitions in addition to a host of assault weapon laws.
Edit to add: For a very narrow set, they are not allowed for general public use but you can get permitted as a Security Guard and then you are limited to carry on the job and portal to portal. |
February 21, 2014, 01:42 PM | #153 | |
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 |
|
February 21, 2014, 01:44 PM | #154 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Agreed. And it would be best not to extend Peruta right now.
|
February 21, 2014, 01:54 PM | #155 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
|
Quote:
|
|
February 21, 2014, 02:18 PM | #156 | |
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 |
|
February 21, 2014, 03:26 PM | #157 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Quote:
Follow? With "may issue/good cause" off the table we can then fight back on all the other crap - the citizenship requirement in Tehama County that has been flatly illegal since 1972, the various games where you get buck-passed from sheriff to chief and back and forth in various ways, the bond requirement in Alameda County, all that junk. We don't have to take it anymore.
__________________
Jim March |
|
February 21, 2014, 04:44 PM | #158 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
There are two "tests" that I know of. The older one from United States v. Miller 307 US 174 said: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So if you want Peruta to extend to a KA-Bar, or an M9, you'd probably first have to establish the military still uses them- apparently more problematic and disputed than you would think- and that without the ban they would be in common use for a lawful purpose - Probably much easier than one would think because of the same disputation and the source of support for them- THEN convince the court that the ban is the only reason they're not in common use and the protection should be extended to those items not commonly used only because of a ban that would be unconstitutional to apply today if they were in common use in a cause/effect chicken/egg type of game. The people who do the legal thing for a living can correct anything I got wrong, but having watched this go on for a bit, it's all a step-by-step meticulous process where almost nothing is a gimme. They'll deny a weapon is "arms" and so not protected by the 2A if that gets it off the streets. Last edited by Frank Ettin; February 21, 2014 at 04:56 PM. Reason: Deleted off-topic material |
||||
February 21, 2014, 06:19 PM | #159 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
In a nation where civilian arms have always followed or mirrored military arms, there should be little distinction between common small arms in civilian vs military bearable small arms.
|
February 21, 2014, 07:14 PM | #160 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
San Diego Sheriff says SD will not appeal Peruta.
A judge at the 9th Circuit could still request a rehearing.
__________________
|
February 21, 2014, 07:48 PM | #161 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Here is the press release that librarian is taking his information from:
|
February 21, 2014, 07:50 PM | #162 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
|
February 21, 2014, 08:17 PM | #163 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
This is what I figured would happen. What is the likelihood that one of the judges will do something about it?
__________________
Semper Fi Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms |
February 21, 2014, 08:20 PM | #164 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Not over yet. General Order 5.8 of the 9th Circuit can still be involved by a judge acting sua sponte:
b. Sua Sponte Calls If no petition for rehearing en banc before the full court is filed, any judge may, within seven days after the date such petition was due, request a vote on whether the case should be reheard by the full court. This request shall be accompanied by a memorandum in support of full court consideration. Thereafter, the provisions of this chapter relating to petitions for rehearing en banc of three-judge panel cases shall apply. |
February 21, 2014, 08:37 PM | #165 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
The 'sua sponte' date is March 6, says one of the Michel and Associates lawyers (Peruta's lawyers).
Cannot even guess the likelihood of one judge asking for the rehearing, nor whether 9th would vote to do it. Note also this, from Sheriff Gore's letter to the Supervisors: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Librarian; February 21, 2014 at 08:43 PM. |
||
February 21, 2014, 08:40 PM | #166 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
wikipedia claims that:
Quote:
And what weight does "disfavored" carry? I guess we have until 3/6 to wonder |
|
February 21, 2014, 08:46 PM | #167 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
Ya, I figured it would be hard to guess whether or not one of the judges would act on this. Thanks for the info though, Librarian.
__________________
Semper Fi Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms |
February 21, 2014, 09:08 PM | #168 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
|
We are talking about the 9th Circuit. My money is on one or more of the judges stepping up to the plate.
|
February 21, 2014, 10:17 PM | #169 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Remember, that whatever Judge might call for en banc, he has to support his call with a written brief.
In light of the opinion from Judge O'Scannlain, it had better be damned good. |
February 21, 2014, 10:34 PM | #170 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
|
What's the best course of action right now for those of us that want a CCW in San Diego . Do we go start the paper work Monday or should we wait until all this legal stuff has played out . I just finished a CCW class here in San Diego that covers 38 states that had 4hr of class time and I had to show competence with a firearm . I'm not sure if that certificate will be good for CA . There was a guy in the same class renewing his CA ccw . Not sure if that means anything but thought I'd throw that out there .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
February 21, 2014, 11:12 PM | #171 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
|
Quote:
rehearing en banc. With the circuit splits and O'Scannlain's opinion directly calling them out on several salient points, doesn't that qualify under 35-1? I may not be a lawyer but the bar doesn't seem too high here. Besides, just because a judge or three may step up to the plate doesn't mean that they will make it on to first base. |
|
February 22, 2014, 06:03 AM | #172 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
You're right-this would be a situation where an en banc would be justified.
However, several reasons why in light of the obvious split they may pass(or simply not get a majority vote): The obvious time and resources spent on this, coupled with San Diego not wanting to move forward, they may just say the hell with it. Also, almost every 2A opinion after Heller I've seen always notes a sense of confusion, with some courts outright saying SCOTUS ought to clarify whether the right extends outside the home (MD Supremes in Williams). What better way to have SCOTUS weigh in than to keep the circuit split intact? |
February 22, 2014, 07:32 AM | #173 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
The AP released an article from the SF Chronicle by Bob Egelko.
In the article he claimed that state Attorney General Kamala Harris could intervene and request a hearing from the full court. Is this true, can the AG request a full court hearing? The article also said, Harris could request intervention from the full court and, if approved, could request a rehearing before an 11-judge panel, an action that would require a majority vote of the court's 27 judges. Is this true? Link. http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_6407/conte...detailindex=11 It says the AG has that power in this article as well. That means that if there is to be an appeal to the ruling of a three-judge panel, it will have to come from the state attorney general or another judge on the appeals court, said James Chapin, senior deputy county counsel for San Diego County. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...#axzz2u1SO0xq7 Last edited by steve4102; February 22, 2014 at 08:11 AM. |
February 22, 2014, 09:19 AM | #174 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
The AG can request an "en banc" hearing. One of our legal eagles can explain it better than I could ever dream to.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
February 22, 2014, 09:22 AM | #175 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
How can she? CA isn't a party to this lawsuit. Wouldn't it be like an amicus calling for an en banc?
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|