The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 28, 2014, 12:15 PM   #376
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 3,853
I heard that past arguments them selves don't carry much weight , only the rulings do . I assume it's because one will say anything to win a case even if you don't believe it , so it would make sense not to put much weight into them .

That being said I do believe there was a ruling agreeing with the AG when she made that argument so lets see if that carries any weight .
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Old December 28, 2014, 06:00 PM   #377
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,148
Past arguments made by potential litigants in same or identical cases such as Peruta/Baker/Richards do carry weight with regard to their standing in those cases. A party can't even bring up new arguments on appeal not previously raised, let alone make an opposite argument in the same case(s).
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 8, 2015, 09:42 AM   #378
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 628
So does anyone have any idea what is happening with this case now? It seems that every time there's a time frame for some sort of decision it comes and goes with nothing happening. Just how long can they string this out for?

I've even had to check the "old thread warning" box to post this it's been so long!
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old March 8, 2015, 10:39 AM   #379
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
Still sitting with the will-it-go-en-banc problem. No news.

You can check the court's web site here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/..._id=0000000722
and Peruta's lawyer's web site here:
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old March 9, 2015, 12:58 PM   #380
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 3,853
From everything I've read about time lines . The court should have completed the vote on weather to go En-banc or not . We are just waiting for the results . Some are speculating that we are waiting on a very long dissent ( either way ) that is being written up now .


Like this dissent
http://notabug.com/kozinski/silveira_v_lockyer

Quote:
A party can't even bring up new arguments on appeal not previously raised, let alone make an opposite argument in the same case(s).
I did not mean in the same case . I was saying if the AG argued in a case 5 years ago that ( insert issue here ) was not a state issue . Then this year a similar case came up and she argued that the new case did impact the state . The new plaintiffs will not get far sighting her arguments from 5 years ago because the ruling is what matters in the 5 year old case not so much what the attorneys argued . Yes you can raise the issue of the arguments but the judges will just look at the courts ruling to see if they agreed or not . The rulings rule the day not the arguments
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY

Last edited by Metal god; March 9, 2015 at 01:07 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old March 10, 2015, 10:09 PM   #381
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 348
There are no hard and fast timelines for the Court of Appeals to act; at best, timelines are mere recommendations to keep things moving. My experience with the Ninth is that things happen "eventually," but not according to any defined schedule. If for example, a vote occurs declining to grant en banc, and one or more justice dissents, the result of the vote will not be released until the dissenting opinion is completed.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old March 26, 2015, 06:23 PM   #382
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 628
En banc rehearing ordered: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/...o-ccw-lawsuit/

This doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling!
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old March 26, 2015, 06:35 PM   #383
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,148
This is a very unhappy development. Who is appealing, i.e. who will argue for the state? Gore says he's out, AG Harris has not yet been granted intervention (though the order denying intervention has also been struck). What a mess.

I having trouble imagining any way this ends well, unless SCOTUS grants cert, but it it's probably 2 or 3 years from a cert petition now.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 26, 2015, 07:36 PM   #384
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,161
The chief judge is Thomas. Wasn't he the dissent the last time this was heard?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 26, 2015, 07:45 PM   #385
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,728
Holy Crap! Not only does this not look good, it also has no date of the hearing.
Any ideas how much longer the 9th can delay this?
And is it normal for the decision of the previous 3 judge panel to not be allowed as precedent?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by CowTowner; March 27, 2015 at 06:36 AM.
CowTowner is offline  
Old March 27, 2015, 12:23 AM   #386
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
Docs here: http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/

Oral arguments scheduled for the week of June 15, 2015.

It isn't quite clear whether the court has joined Peruta and Richards (v Prieto, Yolo County) for this hearing.

Yes, Thomas wrote the dissent from the 3-judge panel.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old March 27, 2015, 06:37 AM   #387
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,728
Thanks Librarian. At least we don't have to wait long for the hearing. The decision on the other hand.................
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old March 27, 2015, 06:25 PM   #388
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
is it normal for the decision of the previous 3 judge panel to not be allowed as precedent?
En-banc is not a normal thing that happens all the time . It's my understanding at this point the other ruling means nothing . It will be like it never happened . Reason being is the outcome of the en-banc will now be the final say in CA not the 3 judge panel
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Old March 28, 2015, 02:53 AM   #389
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 3,853
Quote from judge Thomas

Quote:
The three-judge panel opinion and order denying motions to intervene shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
OK so the court says Peruta can no longer be used as precedent , and you can't bring up knew arguments that were not raised in the case before .

Question :
How much of what we all thought was a well thought out , well researched ruling can we use . There was a lot of research and historical analysis in that ruling . I guess what I'm asking is how much of that ruling can they just cut and paste to there briefs or oral arguments ????
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Old March 28, 2015, 12:47 PM   #390
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,148
The Peruta arguments will be incorporated for the en banc review, as they emanated directly from Heller, McDonald, Moore, and even the (overturned on appeal) Woolard case in MD. The arguments are sound; are based squarely on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Heller and MCDonald and remain as compelling as ever.

I suspect when (not if) the ninth circuit overturns Peruta decision it will closely parallel Judge Thomas's dissent in the original three-judge panel decision.

They will seize on language in Heller, absent the essential context for it, that concealed carry is not protected under the second amendment. But in Heller, in each cited case where a concealed carry ban was upheld, there was open carry available to satisfy the right.

Setting aside the absurdity of relying on California's (then) unloaded open carry requirement, the original district court decision with Judge Irma Gonzalez relied on (unloaded) open carry to satisfy the right. It was used as justification for discretionary issuance of CCW licenses. But even unloaded open carry was since banned by the CA legislature, strengthening and simplifying the plaintiff's argument in Peruta.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; March 28, 2015 at 01:09 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 28, 2015, 01:56 PM   #391
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,148
It would be interesting to see how Thomas's logic would apply in a state like Florida or Texas where concealed carry is shall-issue but open carry is banned. Using this judge's logic, States would be forced to either allow open carry firearms in order to continue satisfying the right to bear arms or they could be permitted to foreclose the right altogether.

Of course, shall issue states could continue to license concealed carry, but if the right to bear is only a right to open carry it ignores the preference of almost all shall issue states and the vastly more common and accepted social norm today of discrete concealed carry.

The original basis for bans on concealed carry was that it was deemed by society to be underhanded, lacking in honor, and the practice of criminals.

In modern society, it is now open carry that is often deemed brutish and uncivilized, and it is far more often open carry that is feared and a claimed source of social disruption.

Based on the microscopic .007% revocation rate of licensees, it is clear that licensed concealed carry is hardly the practice of common criminals. . . in fact, the opposite could not be more true.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; March 28, 2015 at 02:11 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 28, 2015, 06:44 PM   #392
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
It would be interesting to see how Thomas's logic would apply in a state like Florida or Texas where concealed carry is shall-issue but open carry is banned. Using this judge's logic, States would be forced to either allow open carry firearms in order to continue satisfying the right to bear arms or they could be permitted to foreclose the right altogether.
This is what happened in Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitution guaranteed a right to bear arms, so if the legislature chose to prohibit concealed carry, then open carry was necessarily lawful. That led to the "open carry-ins" that resulted in the passage of concealed carry permit legislation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP
Of course, shall issue states could continue to license concealed carry, but if the right to bear is only a right to open carry it ignores the preference of almost all shall issue states and the vastly more common and accepted social norm today of discrete concealed carry.
It could go the other way. The 2nd Amendment (as well as the constitutions of many states) only mentions a right to bear arms, not the mode of bearing. It hasn't happened, but a state could theoretically allow permitless concealed carry but require a permit to open carry, and still be within the Constitution.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 28, 2015, 06:58 PM   #393
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,148
Quote:
This is what happened in Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the state's constitution guaranteed a right to bear arms, so if the legislature chose to prohibit concealed carry, then open carry was necessarily lawful. That led to the "open carry-ins" that resulted in the passage of concealed carry permit legislation.
Yup . . . and that is where Judge Thomas' arguments could lead, though I suspect Thomas would backpedal from protection of open carry as well. Once a zealot . . .

I've said it many times, but if there's one thing an anti-gun zealot abhors more than knowing his or her fellow citizen is armed, it is having to actually see the darn thing.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 29, 2015, 01:19 AM   #394
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,745
Quote:
Yup . . . and that is where Judge Thomas' arguments could lead, though I suspect Thomas would backpedal from protection of open carry as well. Once a zealot
I am no lawyer, and haven't read all the case arguments, but I would suspect more of the same "core right" and "in the home" nonsense or variations thereof than admitting that some form of carry must be allowed...unless they latch onto "unloaded carry."
raimius is offline  
Old March 29, 2015, 01:42 AM   #395
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
.unless they latch onto "unloaded carry.
If that's all I can get , I'll take it . Well only if I can carry a full mag in my left pocket while my gun is on my right hip . My guess is there will be no way they allow the person to also carry ammo on there person as well .
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Old March 29, 2015, 09:47 AM   #396
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 9,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by raimius
I am no lawyer, and haven't read all the case arguments, but I would suspect more of the same "core right" and "in the home" nonsense or variations thereof than admitting that some form of carry must be allowed...unless they latch onto "unloaded carry."
I don't remember for sure, but I believe Justice Alito in the McDonald decision stated pretty plainly that the core right protected by the Second Amendment is the right to be armed for self defense. Nowhere in either Heller or McDonald did Justice Scalia or Justice Alito limit the scope of the 2A right to "in the home."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old March 29, 2015, 10:03 AM   #397
barnbwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 1,085
I believe they specifically called restricting it to the home a flagrant infringement, to boot.
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things."
-- Alex Rosewater
barnbwt is offline  
Old March 29, 2015, 10:36 AM   #398
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,148
Heller invalidated the requirement that a firearm be disabled. The right is to a functional firearm for ""immediate use for self-defense." Just because the scope of the Heller case was the home does not mean that a defensive firearm outside the home can be required to be nonfunctional, i.e. unloaded.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 29, 2015, 02:07 PM   #399
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,745
I agree completely, but we've seen a lot of judges use the "in the home" verbiage and twist that to mean outside the home gets "intermediate scrutiny"--which then turns into rational basis by another name...and they rule against us.
raimius is offline  
Old March 29, 2015, 02:53 PM   #400
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 3,853
Should the argument not be as simple as "does a person have the RIGHT (not choice)to defend ones self outside the home" ? That question need not include any weapon . Do we have a RIGHT not to die at the hands of another ? That question must be answered first before we move on to the next step . The next step is , does the person defending his or her self have the RIGHT (not choice)to use at least equal force if not overwhelming force to save ones own life .

If the answer to both is yes (which I believe it already is ) the case should be closed . Give me my holster please
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15770 seconds with 9 queries