|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 15, 2017, 05:14 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Fox reporting on this now. . .
Some experts painting a pretty optimistic outlook for a cert grant. I would breath just a little easier if there were a second Trump appointee already on the bench.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/15...eme-court.html |
May 15, 2017, 05:24 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I won't hope that a decision would bring on the gun rights utopia. You could easily see a decision that looks good but has ambiguous or poison pill language.
If they go negative, then we get the result that the NRA feared when you go to the court. It's still 4 to 4 with Kennedy being the pivot. I agree that having another progun justice would have been better than pushing this now.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 16, 2017, 08:05 AM | #53 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
That part of the Peruta decision comports with every other Federal Circuit Court of Appeals with the outlying exception of the 7th Circuit.. So there would appear, on the surface, to be no real judicial disagreement on the federal level. The problem with the En Banc decision of the 9th Circuit is that they, like the original panel, had the option to kick the case back to the District Court. Why? Because in the interim of the decision of the District Court and the original appeal to the 9th Circuit, the CA law on open carry had changed. Dramatically. Such a change in law is almost always kicked back to the originating court to be litigated. Here, the appeals panel decided the case as if that change had been fully litigated. The result was a decision that was well within the bounds of the second amendment and comported very well with the 7th Circuits decision in Moore. This decision resulted in an En Banc panel being called. At this point, the State of CA (who had declined to be heard at the District Court, because the lawsuit did not affect any CA law) wished to become a party, because they rightly saw that their open carry law could be overturned. Rightly or wrongly, the 9th Circuit allowed the State to become a party to the case(s). After everything was said and done, the En Banc decision said that concealed carry was not a right within the bounds of the second amendment. The decision did not touch on the issue of a right to carry in some form or manner, outside of the front door of your house. The court simply ignored that part of the question before it. Yes, it technically leaves the door open for a future case in deciding if a citizen has a right to carry openly. Yet at the same time, because the 9th circuit failed to kick the case back to the District court, and the court ignored that portion of the case tied to some form of carry, it has pretty much signaled how it would decide such a future case. The effect of that decision is that within the 9th Circuit (9 states and 2 territories), carry anywhere outside of your house may be banned and leaves the second amendment a virtual toothless right. You may "keep" your arms, but you may not "bear" them. So we are left with the possibility that the SCOTUS will not grant cert, thereby leaving the decision of the 9th circuit intact. That will have the affect of emboldening the other circuits to modify future decisions to employ the same results. Or, the SCOTUS may grant cert and we let the marbles fall where they may. That scares a lot of folks, Glenn. But I want to know, once and for all, whether or not the highest Court in the land says I can not protect myself against lethal threats outside of my domicile. That is what this case is about. |
|
May 16, 2017, 01:05 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
We have to remember that although Gorsuch has replaced Scalia, nothing has really changed on the Court. Kennedy is still the swing vote, and may have expressed his unwillingness to extend 2nd Amendment rights outside of the home.
The fact that we have four solidly pro-2nd Amendment justices on the Court means that at least one of them is, indeed, "kicking the can down the road" until the Court again changes with another conservative/strict constructionist justice replacing Kennedy or one of the liberals. Their continued relisting indicates to me that they want to take up the case, but are afraid they don't have the votes for the outcome they desire.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
May 16, 2017, 02:56 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,875
|
Al , that was a very good take on the case and is exactly how i understand it . I live in San Diego where the case originated . I was one of many that went down and applied for a CCW permit after the 9ths three judge panel ruled in are favor
After the en-banc panel ruling they quickly denied all applicants that were on that waiting list
__________________
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 . Last edited by Al Norris; May 16, 2017 at 09:20 PM. Reason: resized the image |
May 17, 2017, 11:30 AM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
May 18, 2017, 09:40 AM | #57 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Consider the following, Before the Heller decision, there were 6 states that had no constitutional provisions to bear arms: California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York.1Even assuming that those ten states remained as they were after the Heller decision, that still leaves forty state constitutions, or 80%, that an adverse Supreme Court decision would affect. In sum, there are a lot of different outcomes that the Justices will have to think on, before they decide to grant or not grant cert. 1Data taken from "State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms", Eugene Volokh, Texas Review of Law and Politics, 2007. |
|
May 18, 2017, 09:47 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The problem with state pushback is that Federal legislation could void all state laws. IIRC, Frank has pointed out that state laws offer little protection against a Federal law.
I also think it is quite important to break the hold that states like NY or CA have on their citizens. Those are major center of antigun activism and politicians. Rendering their restrictive laws null and void would be a major proactive step as compared to the current: Well, we are not Hillary - do nothing proactive strategy of the GOP.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 18, 2017, 11:29 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2017
Location: Colorado
Posts: 424
|
Okay, so I'm really late to this discussion and I'm not a lawyer or even terribly good at understanding laws (I went to Boy's State in high school, but that really doesn't help).
I cannot find what the actual original case was (presumably Peruta vs. County of San Diego?) and can only find the appeal (from the 9th circuit on upwards). I understand that at this point the SCOTUS is deciding whether or not to actually hear this appeal and make a decision (today, actually). Can someone help me out here? I think this has a big deal to do with the laws of the country (even though I'm in CO). I also read some of your comments on the laws in NY and being a former resident, I can't more agree. The problem comes that many of the laws and taxes and legislation that occurs in NY is due to the little corner that juts into the sea. Whilst not all of the rest of NY is conservative/Republican/pro-gun, when the voting is broken up by county, the rest of the state is *usually* more red than blue. Which I'm sure you already know, but to make anything move in that state, it has to affect or appeal to the residents of NYC, or it doesn't happen. Over half the population is in those 5 boroughs and it makes it difficult to make anything happen because many of those citizens don't even know that Niagara Falls is in NY(well part of it at least). Or that NY isn't the capitol. EDIT: Felt the need to clarify a statement that NYC holds greater than 50% of the total population; it doesn't. HOWEVER "Down state" as it's coloquially known, DOES (a look at the most populated counties in New York State add up to over 50% of the total populus.) Last edited by PlatinumCore16; May 18, 2017 at 11:39 AM. |
May 18, 2017, 02:57 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,875
|
Go to youtube and search Edward Peruta v. County of San Diego . This will bring up the en-banc proceeding . Im on my phone and can't figure out how to link it
__________________
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 . |
May 18, 2017, 03:28 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2017
Location: Colorado
Posts: 424
|
Awesome, thanks.
|
May 18, 2017, 11:35 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,875
|
The original 9th circuit three judge panels opinion This was a great win for us to only be overturned on en-banc
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOUR...10-56971-0.pdf Incase anyone wants to watch the en-banc , here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anKfVru1des&t=18s
__________________
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 . Last edited by Metal god; May 19, 2017 at 12:40 AM. |
May 19, 2017, 10:02 AM | #63 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The Peruta case at the District Court level is documented on the Internet Archive. The link will take you to the archived docket information and all the filings that were archived. The judgment is item #64.
|
May 19, 2017, 03:23 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
|
May 22, 2017, 09:01 AM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
|
May 22, 2017, 10:08 AM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2017
Location: Colorado
Posts: 424
|
Metal God and Al Norris, thanks for the reading. I had no idea judges/lawyers were so long winded, yet elegant. The initial decision by the 9th circuit seems EXTREMELY bulletproof (ha what a pun), so I am shocked that it was overturned in en banc, though I haven't seen the video yet.
I feel that my thoughts match the 9th circuit initial decision and the "good cause" portion of the San Diego law is a loop hole to deny as many people from carrying as possible. I'd like to see the SCOTUS actually take this case, for good or bad. |
May 22, 2017, 11:54 AM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,875
|
As Al pointed out . The way they over turned it was by ignoring the fact CA while the case worked through the courts banned open carry as well . By only focusing on conceal carry they were able to narrowly rule on the case . At worst the court should have sent the case back for trial based on open carry now being banned . When Peruta was first heard in 2012 unloaded open carry was still legal so Peruta still had an outlet to carry The state argues open carry is still allowed in unincorporated areas of CA and to be fare there is a lot of that area here .
The two glaring problems is 1) The likelihood of one needing a firearm for self defense out in the middle on nowhere is highly unlikely compared to needing one at Plaza Manor estates on Plaza Blvd in the heart of the city . I have personal experience with this location . After a back injury I did armed security for the place and we had some crazy things go on there . This was pushing 20 years ago but I still would not be there with out a firearm for self defense . 2) The regulations to carry in an unincorporated area are very restrictive . You literally must be out in the middle of the forest to open carry . So the states claim that you can still carry in the majority of areas in CA is a red herring .
__________________
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 . Last edited by Metal god; May 22, 2017 at 06:45 PM. |
May 24, 2017, 10:43 AM | #68 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Re-listed: May 22 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
|
May 30, 2017, 08:47 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
The 25th came and went, anything new?
|
May 30, 2017, 09:37 AM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
From SCOTUS Blog:
Quote:
|
|
May 30, 2017, 10:25 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
Did not act, means what?
The finally made a decision or kicked the can again? |
May 30, 2017, 11:11 AM | #72 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
Cert was not granted. Quote:
|
||
May 30, 2017, 11:18 AM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
|
Postponed again to next conference. Cert was neither granted nor denied.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70) NRA Life Member RMEF Life Member |
June 2, 2017, 07:17 AM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
It's June 2, anything happen yesterday ?
|
June 2, 2017, 08:35 AM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|