Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: California battle over concealed-weapon rights could be headed for Supreme Court

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    California battle over concealed-weapon rights could be headed for Supreme Court

    Man you folks there have a lot of problems. What part of 'Shall not be infringed' doesn't the state get? Besides, that supposed sheriff needs to be booted out of office. Here in our county our sheriff is facing a Constitutional challenger, but since WI passed ACT 35 she has no choice, but refuses to say if she will actually defend your rights. Now I hope the folks involved with this lawsuit will prevail in SCOTUS and not mess up the Heller and McDonald rulings. Good luck to them and God speed.


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews

  2. #2
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Man you folks there have a lot of problems.
    Yes we do, this is California.

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    What part of 'Shall not be infringed' doesn't the state get?
    The US Supreme Court has already held that concealed carry is not a right and one of the complicating factors in whether or not to hold an en banc hearing is whether or not the decision implicated any state law. If enough circuit court judges thinks that it did then the case likely gets kicked back to the district court for a do-over or is dismissed with prejudice leaving SCOTUS as the only avenue to continue the case. Given that SCOTUS has turned down every concealed carry appeal there is no reason to believe that Peruta/Richards won't be turned down as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Besides, that supposed sheriff needs to be booted out of office.
    Not going to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Now I hope the folks involved with this lawsuit will prevail in SCOTUS and not mess up the Heller and McDonald rulings.
    Assuming that any of these concealed carry cases prevail in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a really big assumption. Even the NRA lawyer in the Peruta case thinks he is going to lose -> http://youtu.be/UaxxuyBvB-M Contrary to what the NRA lawyer says in the video, there is no reason for SCOTUS to hear his appeal. All of the pending concealed carry cases will die a slow death on appeal. Once there is a binding decision upholding the constitutionality of the state concealed carry law, any newly filed appeals will be quickly dispatched to the judicial graveyard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Good luck to them and God speed.
    The Peruta v. San Diego lawsuit is funded by the NRA and the official state organization of the NRA is one of the plaintiffs. The Richards v. Prieto lawsuit is funded by the SAF and CalGuns. The NRA, SAF, CalGuns are all opponents of Open Carry and argued in their cases that states can ban Open Carry. Do you still wish them luck?


    Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don't carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be prohibited.

    "[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2809.

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 - Supreme Court (2008) at 2816.

    "We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 - Supreme Court (2010) at 3050.

    "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..." Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 - Supreme Court (1897) at 282


    Charles Nichols – President of California Right To Carry
    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

  3. #3
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    The NRA, SAF, CalGuns are all opponents of Open Carry and argued in their cases that states can ban Open Carry.
    Inasmuch as you can keep saying this, it doesn't make it the least bit true.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Inasmuch as you can keep saying this, it doesn't make it the least bit true.
    I was wondering how long it was going to take before someone from CalGuns.nuts butted in.

    For the benefit of those of you who have never heard of the CalGuns Foundation its Chairman, Gene Hoffman, is the most vocal opponent of Open Carry in the state of California. ConditionThree, has been a long time critic here and at the Calguns forum of me, my Open Carry lawsuit against the state of California, and a critic of Open Carry in general.

    Anyone who has read the NRA briefs in Peruta v. San Diego and the SAF briefs in Richards v. Prieto knows that the leadership of those two groups oppose Open Carry. The SAF doesn't even pretend to hide to the public its opposition to Open Carry.

    I've posted the following many times but here it is again. Here is a link to the NRA opening brief in its appeal of Peruta v. San Diego.

    Note that PC 12031, defended multiple times by the NRA in the brief, is the 1967 Loaded Open Carry ban enacted by the California legislature after approximately 30 members of the Black Panther Party staged an Open Carry protest in the state Capitol building. PC 626.9 is California's Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995. In footnote 27 on page 41 the NRA lawyer "warned" the court that if he didn't get his shall-issue concealed carry permits then it would place California's Gun Free School Zone law at risk, which the NRA said would be a drastic result.

    When the history of the death of the Second Amendment is written, it will begin and end with the fact that the leadership of the so called gun-rights groups caused its demise and they would have been nowhere had it not been for the millions of simple minded fools who drank their Kool-Aid by the gallon.
    Last edited by California Right To Carry; 08-10-2014 at 03:11 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by California Right To Carry View Post
    [ ... ]When the history of the death of the Second Amendment is written, it will begin and end with the fact that the leadership of the so called gun-rights groups caused its demise and they would have been nowhere had it not been for the millions of simple minded fools who drank their Kool-Aid by the gallon.
    Proudly paid for it! "Barkeeper! I'm a life member, so let me buy the bar a round. None here are so manly unless they can keep up with me!" Glug glug glug gulag gulag gulag.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by ConditionThree View Post
    Inasmuch as you can keep saying this, it doesn't make it the least bit true.
    There is a significant element of truth in what California Right to Carry says.

    None of these CC cases have been taken up by the Supreme Court. No circuit will declare an unfettered open carry right.

    We need a Bear Arms case to get to SCOTUS. If DC is brain dead enough to appeal Palmer to the DC Circuit, then we will have it. Clearly Supremes want to ensure the right to bear arms before they go into any other detail.

    Peruta is a good case, but it is a very tenuous case upon which to hang our right to bear arms. 9th circuit has a way of turning a gun rights victory into a very hollow victory.

    Nichols is a good case, but the results of a gun owners victory would almost surely induce the court to apply the 2A 2 step.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  7. #7
    Regular Member California Right To Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    463
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    There is a significant element of truth in what California Right to Carry says.
    Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    None of these CC cases have been taken up by the Supreme Court.
    And no concealed carry case will be taken up by SCOTUS. That should be obvious to everyone by now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    No circuit will declare an unfettered open carry right.
    My lawsuit does not seek an unfettered right to Open Carry nor have I ever claimed that there is one. The scope of my case is very narrow. It is limited to the curtilage of one's home, one's motor vehicle including any attached camper or trailer and in public places where hunters are exempt from the bans. More precisely, in a subset of places where hunters are exempt from the bans. Moreover, the unloaded Open Carry bans exempted a host of special interest groups. None of these groups requires a permit to openly carry firearms. California's bans are on the carrying of firearms for the purpose of self-defense, not on the carrying of firearms for other purposes. As anyone who has read the Heller decision knows, self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    We need a Bear Arms case to get to SCOTUS. If DC is brain dead enough to appeal Palmer to the DC Circuit, then we will have it. Clearly Supremes want to ensure the right to bear arms before they go into any other detail.
    I would not count on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the district court's decision. There is a serious defect with the Palmer case. It challenged only the handgun carry ban. By failing to challenge the long gun ban, any cert petition will be dangerously close to the Drake cert petition and it will be written by Alan Gura who will once again try to dance around the fact that he seeks to carry handguns concealed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Peruta is a good case, but it is a very tenuous case upon which to hang our right to bear arms. 9th circuit has a way of turning a gun rights victory into a very hollow victory.
    Peruta's lawyer says that he will likely lose before an en banc rehearing which leaves yet another concealed carry for SCOTUS to deny cert.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    Nichols is a good case, but the results of a gun owners victory would almost surely induce the court to apply the 2A 2 step.
    Thank you again. I am familiar with the usage of the "2A 2 step" phrase by others bemoaning the loss of concealed carry cases but the actual "two-step" historical inquiry was used in the 7th Circuit to overturn an identical ban in Illinois to California's 1967 ban on carrying loaded firearms in public.

    The two-step historical inquiry was adopted as the framework for evaluating Second Amendment cases in the 9th Circuit last November in the US v. Chovan case. This makes Chovan the prior precedent which all subsequent three judge panels must adhere to. The Peruta court decided to ignore the Chovan decision and instead applied the vacated "substantial burden" framework from the Nordyke v. King case thereby creating an intra-circuit split between Chovan and Peruta. Yet another reason why the Peruta decision will be heard en banc. The 9th Circuit needs to resolve the split between Chovan and Peruta.

    Most of all, my Open Carry case has one thing in particular going for it that none of the California concealed carry cases has. None of the concealed carry cases has an in-home nexus. Not a single one of them claimed that there is an infringement of their right to carry firearms in their home. I argued in my case that my home includes the curtilage of my home and I am prevented from even sitting in a rocking chair on my porch carrying anything but an unloaded antique firearm thanks to the California courts substantially invalidating the residential property exemption. In support of my argument I cited a recent SCOTUS decision, Florida v. Jardines, which reaffirmed that SCOTUS has always held that one's home includes the curtilage of his home.

    As luck would have it, the Obama Administration was ordered by the court in Dearth v. Holder to address what "home" meant in the context of the Second Amendment. The Justice Department filed a brief which cited Jardines definition of "home." Do not underestimate the weight this will carry in my appeal.

    For me to win my case all I have to do is to prove that the Framers of the Second Amendment understood the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to apply to the curtilage of one's home and I win.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    When did the legal system 'go rogue' and interpret 2A to mean that they can prohibit OC or CC? They really have to stretch something in the constitution in order to do that. And all these 'doctrines' they have created doesn't mean they are always right. Me thinks they have twisted the constitution like wax to interpret it as they please. Shouldn't they be looking to the writings of the founders who wrote on what they meant when they crafted the constitution?

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    When did the legal system 'go rogue' and interpret 2A to mean that they can prohibit OC or CC? They really have to stretch something in the constitution in order to do that. And all these 'doctrines' they have created doesn't mean they are always right. Me thinks they have twisted the constitution like wax to interpret it as they please. Shouldn't they be looking to the writings of the founders who wrote on what they meant when they crafted the constitution?
    They should, but even intent doesn't matter as much to me as liberty and natural rights.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •