June 16, 2015, 08:33 PM | #426 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Quote:
Was it as big a deal as it appeared to me that the state and all on there side conceded that carrying outside the home is protected or a core right . That seems like a huge concession to me. Quote:
Quote:
I think it went well for are side but when it comes to the 9th , that does not mean anything .
__________________
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 . |
|||
June 16, 2015, 08:51 PM | #427 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Any idea on when they will actually rule on the case?
__________________
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) |
June 16, 2015, 08:58 PM | #428 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
oh and why did the judge on the lower left keep bringing up the point that the law had changed since the case was brought . Asking if they should rule as if the law was still the same as it was 5 years ago ????? Why would that even be an option ?? Lets reverse it and say the new law says you can carry CCW . Who in there right mind thinks it's OK to rule based on the 5 year old law that said you can't CCW . How does that ruling go . Sorry mr Peruta you can't have a CCW permit but everybody else can
Or a case that was brought before slavery ended . Well you were able to own slaves when this case was filed so you can keep yours . WTH am I missing something here was that as dumb a line of questioning as it sounded ????
__________________
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 . |
June 16, 2015, 09:49 PM | #429 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
The outcome seems a foregone conclusion to me. They drew a crummy panel (obviously) of appellate jurists. I guess the best we can hope for is that this just adds to the melange of contradictory lower court rulings that forces SCOTUS to either finish what it started with Heller and finally make it clear to lower courts that this bizarre notion that a foundational constitutional right does not end at our doorstop. Otherwise, it will reveal that Heller was never meant to be anything but a symbol, a paper tiger it never intended to give flesh and bones.
|
June 17, 2015, 12:08 AM | #430 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
June 17, 2015, 09:02 AM | #431 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 9, 2013
Posts: 116
|
Wow, after watching the court hearing, I have no idea which way this is heading. I am confused on why NOW the state is being allowed to chime in on this issue when they have already said, "we aren't involved" that this is a local Sheriff issue. Well if it is a local sheriff issue and the sheriff does not want to take it any further, than I don't see what right the state has in the dispute.
I would love to hear these justice ask those same questions that they asked about the 2nd Amendment; in a 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendment case. "what is your good cause for remaining silent?" "Do you have a permit to pray?" "You'll have to take a safety class before you can be secure in your persons, houses, papers and effects." " concealed verses open speech" Yep, it would be a interesting discussion. |
June 17, 2015, 09:33 AM | #432 |
Staff
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
|
I don't know whether it was in the briefs, but I would have liked to see one of the lawyers rip into the judges' questions about different kinds of places being justified in having different restrictions on carry.
The "unsafe" nature of carrying guns does not come from the carrying of guns, it comes from the fact that there are gangs, drug dealers, etc who carry guns, and use them, on purpose, to commit violent felonies. Almost without exception, the street crime that concealed carry restrictions might conceivably be intended to address is disconnected from anyone who would seek to get a permit. I realize that the 9th circuit is a dangerous place to be making ideological arguments about carry, but this whole open vs concealed carry thing is ridiculous. And anyone can see that it's stupid, because every place that bans either concealed or open carry, but not the other, has "good" reasons for doing so: Concealed is bad because if you're carrying a gun it should be visible so that you can't surprise anyone with your gun. Open carry is bad because it panics the general population (pun intended). It's insane to have two mutually exclusive "good" reasons to prohibit open vs concealed carry, without any evidence that the reasons are valid, and then suggest that the Constitution allows you to impose those arbitrary restrictions on one or the other mode of carry for those $reasons, because you're going to conveniently ignore the equally implausible reasons that other people put forward for banning the other mode of carry. Phoenix can deal with unlicensed open carry, and it has a lot of Los Angeles transplants. That should put to rest the "average citizen will be frightened" argument. And the vast majority of states allow licensed concealed carry for anyone who can pass a background check, which should put to rest the "concealed carry is only for sneaky criminals" argument. Any argument against any sort of carry at this stage is just academic ideological navel-gazing.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg) |
June 17, 2015, 01:02 PM | #433 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
I especially love the mouthpiece that the California AG's office put forth who, with a straight face, suggested that the only reason people walked in public places was to go to a place where carry was permitted in some form or fashion and that therefore a ban on public carry didn't significantly burden the right. It was a most extraordinary legal fiction concocted to maintain the fiction that California's laws reflect the citizenry's right to self defense in public places.
|
June 17, 2015, 07:13 PM | #434 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
So, (1) I unload and lock my gun in its case, take it to the car, and drive to my doctor's office. (Disarm) (2) I bring in that locked case, open it, reload the gun, place the easily handled paddle holster on my hip and holster the gun. (Arm) Having completed my appointment, I want to shop for groceries. Leaving the doctor, (1). Arriving at the grocery store, (2). Time for lunch - leave the grocery store, (1) and drive to the coffee shop, then (2). I need a haircut, so (1) to walk 1 building over in the little strip mall and (2) at the barbershop. After the haircut, (1), back to the car and a quick trip to the hardware store, (2) and then home again, (1) for the trip and (2) when I get home. Carrying an unloaded gun in a locked case is hardly 'having a firearm ready for use in self defense'.
__________________
|
|
June 17, 2015, 10:40 PM | #435 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
The "you can carry everywhere but on the street" is lame as all get out . It's one of those comments you just want to ask " did you just hear what you said"?
IMO , I think the state failed when they banned open carry (OC) , made it almost impossible to conceal carry (CC) then conceded in court yesterday that the right to bear arms extends outside the home . I can't see how any reasonable judge can think that's keeping with the 2nd . Yes this is the 9th but when the one judge asked " is it the states view that the core right extends outside the home" YES or NO ? When the state answered YES , that's when we won this case . What the state did there was say , yes the right extends outside the home but we will not give you an outlet . We win slam dunk case over in the real world .
__________________
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; June 19, 2015 at 12:23 AM. |
June 18, 2015, 01:16 AM | #436 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
I don't put much faith in the 9th. If I recall correctly they are the most reversed court out there.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
June 18, 2015, 06:52 AM | #437 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
They no longer hold that title and even the most reversed courts are not reversed all that often. Doesn't mean much.
The silliness at the oral arguments means more. "Public, except the street" just makes no sense to me but seems to make lots of sense to the panel. |
June 18, 2015, 08:53 AM | #438 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
|
Quote:
Better than 2009 with a 94% reversal rate........ post-gazette article link Last edited by SHR970; June 18, 2015 at 10:03 AM. |
|
June 18, 2015, 09:45 PM | #439 | |
Member
Join Date: October 6, 2012
Posts: 39
|
Quote:
|
|
July 14, 2015, 07:13 AM | #440 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
From the Post-Gazette article:
Quote:
Which is another way of saying that even the most reversed courts are not reversed all that often. Of the opinions reviewed by the Supreme Court, most are reversed in most circuits. Of all opinions from all circuits, only a small fraction are reviewed. |
|
July 14, 2015, 03:36 PM | #441 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I think a remand to district court is possible in light of Judge Irma Gonzalez reliance upon unloaded open carry to satisfy the right (leaving aside the stupidity of requiring an unloaded gun for defense). CA subsequently banned even unloaded open carry.
|
June 9, 2016, 12:11 PM | #442 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Peruta losses , conceal carry not constitutional
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20webcites.pdf 190 page opinion It seems they did not rule on the actual thing the case was brought for . Peruta claimed the good cause part of the statute was unconstitutional because one needs to show a better reason then other law abiding citizens . It it because they say conceal carry in not constitutional , therefore it can be regulated in any way ??
__________________
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; June 9, 2016 at 12:58 PM. |
June 9, 2016, 12:54 PM | #443 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Posts: 438
|
well you dont want to appeal this to a supreme court where a 4-4 tie results in the Appeals Court decision standing.
|
June 9, 2016, 02:34 PM | #444 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Interesting how these justices always cite historical examples when it suits their ideology (or when they think it does), but yet will overturn historical examples when it doesn't (such as same-sex marriage, women's rights, etc...)---which BTW, I actually am all for right to same sex marriage and women's rights, but there is little historical precedent for either, so going by history would be a bad idea for either one.
They are correct that historically, laws restricting concealed carry were normal, but not laws regarding open-carry. When they restricted concealed carry, they meant you had to carry openly, not that you couldn't carry at all. So at most, the 9th Circuit was selective in their history it seems, as I haven't read the ruling, but if they went fully by history, they would have said that historically, there were laws restricting the concealed carrying of arms, but not the open-carrying of arms because it was expected that if one carried, they'd do so openly. Being that California now bans open carry, and being that concealed carry today is seen as the equivalent of how open-carry used to be, i.e. the acceptable way of how to carry a firearm in public, then it can be ruled that concealed carry is in fact protected unless or until the state legalizes open-carry again. In addition, laws regarding concealed carrying were done before the Bill of Rights was applied to all of the states. The only thing I don't get is, why was this lawsuit brought in the first place? Didn't the plaintiffs realize that they would probably lose? It's not nicknamed the 9th Circus by gun rights proponents for nothing! |
June 9, 2016, 02:52 PM | #445 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 5, 2010
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 474
|
odd case. the plaintiffs won, the defendant (San Diego) announced they would not appeal, and then in came the AG wanting to be made a party to the suit, even though their time to do so had long passed, so they could appeal. the AG was eventually granted standing, and thus appealed and won.
i'd love to see this whole thing tossed out for lack of proper standing by the AG and revert to the lower court decision. |
June 9, 2016, 03:14 PM | #446 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Quote:
oh but wait there's a bigger problem with all that . When Peruta filed , open carry was still allowed in CA . All be it , open unloaded with ammo close by yep that was the law at the time Peruta filed his case . So the fact CA had "open carry" (cough cough , choke choke) . They could not argue they wanted any outlet because if they just asked to be able to carry . The court would have said " well you can open unloaded carry " so case dismissed . So they only argued for conceal carry and really all they really were arguing was the good cause part of the statute . Some time later CA banned open carry pretty much across the board . My understand is the fact Peruta did not argue for both open and concealed or at least some outlet . He could not bring up open carry as a main part of his suite when arguing at the 9th . This makes it easy on them because they don't have to address the open carry aspect of the law . Only what is brought before them and how it applied at the time of the filing . They said as much in the opinion Quote:
__________________
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; June 9, 2016 at 06:08 PM. |
||
June 9, 2016, 04:04 PM | #447 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
So now can they sue over the open carry ban?
|
June 9, 2016, 06:00 PM | #448 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Not only yes but there is a case at the 9th right now on open carry Nicholes vs something I think is the name . Sorry can't find a link right off hand .
__________________
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 . |
June 9, 2016, 09:12 PM | #449 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 9, 2016, 09:38 PM | #450 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Tom
That right there is a scary thought . Are country is in big trouble if a senate election would influence a 9 judge panel . Not saying it didn't or never has . Just pointing out that would be sad for not only the country but are side of the argument .
__________________
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 . |
|
|