• 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.

Non-Resident California CWP

SargentMac

SargentMac

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
100
Location
Vancouver, Washington, United States
Anyone here think that Heller or McDonald are substantial enough to allow a lawsuit against California in hopes of them offering a non-resident CWP? Also wondering what people think California would do if such a case was brought against it.
 
gogodawgs

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
SargentMac said:
Anyone here think that Heller or McDonald are substantial enough to allow a lawsuit against California in hopes of them offering a non-resident CWP? Also wondering what people think California would do if such a case was brought against it.
Click to expand...

It's already underway. There are several lawsuits across the country. Including Gray's lawsuit in Co.
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
SargentMac said:
Also wondering what people think California would do if such a case was brought against it.
Click to expand...

They would without a doubt vigorously defend against it. Their officials would have to or loose all the support at the ballot box from their liberal voters. You don't think that these legislators and government functionaries make all these laws without support of their constituents, do you? Just remember that most looney ideas strart out in CA and eventually end up as a pain in OUR butts. These morons have to get elected first. THAT's where the problem lies in that CA voters either are too stupid or could care less. Pick one.

Yeah. California will no doubt fight any attempt to restore their citizen's rights. To do so would diminish the power of those in power.
 
amlevin

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
SargentMac said:
Also wondering what people think California would do if such a case was brought against it.
Click to expand...

They would without a doubt vigorously defend against it. Their officials would have to or loose all the support at the ballot box from their liberal voters. You don't think that these legislators and government functionaries make all these laws without support of their constituents, do you? Just remember that most looney ideas strart out in CA and eventually end up as a pain in OUR butts. These morons have to get elected first. THAT's where the problem lies in that CA voters either are too stupid or could care less. Pick one.

Yeah. California will no doubt fight any attempt to restore their citizen's rights. To do so would diminish the power of those in power.
 
Gray Peterson

Gray Peterson

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
2,236
Location
Lynnwood, Washington, USA
SargentMac said:
Know of any good articles outlining this case?
Click to expand...

Just the man here to answer:

Peterson v. LaCabe wiki article

Here ya go. As you can see, Denver is very poorly defending the law's constitutionality, instead relying on procedural misdirection and criticism of my lawyer's briefs, and pointing the finger at the state. My 6/30 response to them makes it clear that they did not defend the law's constitutionality, and asks for a granting of my MSJ and the issuance of the license.

My case would not be fully binding authority on California's situation unless we make it to the US Supreme Court, it would be persuasive authority, just as the denial of the motion to dismiss in the Peruta's case helped us.

Denver, CO was specifically targetted as A) I like going there frequently and B) Self defense is codified in the concealed handgun license statute. Makes it difficult for a local issuing authority to say that a CHL is not for self defense purposes. Thus Denver's desperate procedural falsehoods and whining.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peterson_v._LaCabe
 
P

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
Gray Peterson said:
Just the man here to answer:

Peterson v. LaCabe wiki article

Here ya go. As you can see, Denver is very poorly defending the law's constitutionality, instead relying on procedural misdirection and criticism of my lawyer's briefs, and pointing the finger at the state. My 6/30 response to them makes it clear that they did not defend the law's constitutionality, and asks for a granting of my MSJ and the issuance of the license.

My case would not be fully binding authority on California's situation unless we make it to the US Supreme Court, it would be persuasive authority, just as the denial of the motion to dismiss in the Peruta's case helped us.

Denver, CO was specifically targetted as A) I like going there frequently and B) Self defense is codified in the concealed handgun license statute. Makes it difficult for a local issuing authority to say that a CHL is not for self defense purposes. Thus Denver's desperate procedural falsehoods and whining.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peterson_v._LaCabe
Click to expand...

Aren't cali and colo both in the ninth circuit? Wouldn't that level of fed court also be binding without going all the way to SCOTUS?:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top