• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Open Carry Win in the 9th Circuit - Murphy v. CNMI Government

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
A pro se plaintiff managed to do what none of the so called gun-rights groups were able to do. Probably because all of the so called gun-rights groups were so busy trying to uphold prohibitions on Open Carry.

Plaintiff: Paul Murphy and CNMI
Case Number: 1:2014cv00026
Filed: December 24, 2014
Court: Northern Mariana Islands District Court
Office: NMI Office
County: Northern Mariana Islands
Presiding Judge: Ramona V. Manglona
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Here is an article on the partial win.

“Judge Manglona said that when Murphy properly renews his gun license, the CNMI government must return the weapons and ammunition he is entitled to possess consistent with this court decision.

She granted Murphy’s motion and declared unconstitutional the firearm registration requirement, the ban on rifles in calibers larger than .223, the ban on assault weapons, the ban on transporting operable firearms, and the $1,000 excise tax.

But Judge Manglona also granted the CNMI government’s motion with respect to the license requirement, the restrictions on storing firearms in the home and the ban on large-capacity magazines.”

108 – Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Link to case page at my website.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
I don't want to rain on the parade here (the guy basically won on all points where the court wasn't bound by CA9), but NMI will now surely impose some kind of a may issue scheme. Since they kind of seem clueless they may even institute a CCW only law, just like IL and DC.

Not accurate to say he did something the other gun rights group didn't. This is on par with Moore and Palmer.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
I don't want to rain on the parade here (the guy basically won on all points where the court wasn't bound by CA9), but NMI will now surely impose some kind of a may issue scheme. Since they kind of seem clueless they may even institute a CCW only law, just like IL and DC.

Not accurate to say he did something the other gun rights group didn't. This is on par with Moore and Palmer.

Good points all.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
I don't want to rain on the parade here (the guy basically won on all points where the court wasn't bound by CA9), but NMI will now surely impose some kind of a may issue scheme. Since they kind of seem clueless they may even institute a CCW only law, just like IL and DC.

Always a possibility but given that there is only one Federal district court judge for the islands, if the commonwealth bans Open Carry and institutes a concealed carry law in its place then it will be easy to knock down.

Not accurate to say he did something the other gun rights group didn't. This is on par with Moore and Palmer.

Because Illinois and the District of Columbia are located in the commonwealth?

And to answer your question posted at another forum, No! There is no way this case, or any other appeal can leap frog my California Open Carry appeal and not just because the commonwealth has apparently decided not to appeal the decision.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
Always a possibility but given that there is only one Federal district court judge for the islands, if the commonwealth bans Open Carry and institutes a concealed carry law in its place then it will be easy to knock down.



Because Illinois and the District of Columbia are located in the commonwealth?

And to answer your question posted at another forum, No! There is no way this case, or any other appeal can leap frog my California Open Carry appeal and not just because the commonwealth has apparently decided not to appeal the decision.

No, because it's a similar ban on public carry period. Only thing which makes it open carry is Peruta, which wasn't his doing. The heavy lifting will come in when may-issue is instituted and Drake & Woollard will be used as persuasive authority to justify it.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
No, because it's a similar ban on public carry period. Only thing which makes it open carry is Peruta, which wasn't his doing. The heavy lifting will come in when may-issue is instituted and Drake & Woollard will be used as persuasive authority to justify it.

Repeating something which isn't true doesn't make it true no matter how many times you repeat it.

The thing which makes it Open Carry is the Second Amendment and the fact that concealed carry does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.

The district court judge in this case cited Drake & Woollard and Kachalsky and Hightower and Masciandaro and...and...and....

Of all the cases the judge cited she settled on one "This Court finds Moore to be on point and persuasive, and follows its lead here." You know, the 7th Circuit case which said that Illinois could ban concealed carry as per the Heller decision.

Just because Illinois enacted an unconstitutional ban on Open Carry after the Moore decision struck the first ban down, this does not make the new ban constitutional.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Repeating something which isn't true doesn't make it true no matter how many times you repeat it.

The thing which makes it Open Carry is the Second Amendment and the fact that concealed carry does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.

The district court judge in this case cited Drake & Woollard and Kachalsky and Hightower and Masciandaro and...and...and....

Of all the cases the judge cited she settled on one "This Court finds Moore to be on point and persuasive, and follows its lead here." You know, the 7th Circuit case which said that Illinois could ban concealed carry as per the Heller decision.

Just because Illinois enacted an unconstitutional ban on Open Carry after the Moore decision struck the first ban down, this does not make the new ban constitutional.
Oh, like the permit required part to OC in Texas is a clear violation

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Repeating something which isn't true doesn't make it true no matter how many times you repeat it.

True.

The thing which makes it Open Carry is the Second Amendment and the fact that concealed carry does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Oh the irony.

Where, in the language of the 2nd amendment is the RKBA limited to OC only?


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Visible or discrete don't seem to be mentioned at all and certainly not in relation to exercising the right to keep and bear arms. I guess some infringements are ok for some people.

Charles
 
Last edited:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
True.



Oh the irony.

Where, in the language of the 2nd amendment is the RKBA limited to OC only?


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Visible or discrete don't seem to be mentioned at all and certainly not in relation to exercising the right to keep and bear arms. I guess some infringements are ok for some people.

Charles
Regulations on how to carry is an infringement.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
The real shame is that he was forced to represent himself, sans lawyer, because he couldn't get a single attorney in the CNMI to represent him. What does that say about the legal profession?

There aren't any 2A (qualified) attorneys in the CNMI. That's why in the earlier Radich case the lead attorney was from Chicago and was awarded Chicago-based fees because of this.
I thought I read somewhere Murphy was "supported" by the SAF, who said they were going to file a lawsuit after they won in Radich.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
There aren't any 2A (qualified) attorneys in the CNMI. That's why in the earlier Radich case the lead attorney was from Chicago and was awarded Chicago-based fees because of this.
I thought I read somewhere Murphy was "supported" by the SAF, who said they were going to file a lawsuit after they won in Radich.

Yes you did read that. Alan Gottlieb lied. I asked Murphy if he received any financial or legal support from anyone? He said no!

One doesn't need a qualified attorney in the CNMI. One needs a qualified attorney who can practice in the 9th Circuit which is pretty much any qualified attorney. The only time an attorney needs to be in the CNMI is if there is a motion hearing, which is rare, in which case he can get there by one of those new fangled contraptions called aeroplanes.

Everything else can be filed online by the attorneys or done over the phone.
 
Last edited:
Top