9th circuit rules may issue unconstitutional in Peruta

[BB62]

The problem here is that this may be part of the endgame. The SCOTUS already refused to hear Woolard on the same question, despite an existing split. The SCOTUS can also see that the 9th and 7th have extended their decisions in the "right direction" and therefore conclude that there's no more need to grant cert on them. This is bad for folks in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th because those decisions are currently mandatory precedent...

FYI, it's Woollard.

 

[Grapeshot]

Only trouble is that the east coast circuits have rules just the opposite only CA and HI are really effected by this.

I tend to get excited when something like this happens that I didn't fully expect.

I understand the conflict/dilemma - still think it is a huge win.

Maybe if I hurry up and wait, I'll be able to visit Hawaii in this lifetime.

 

[CT Barfly]

I tend to get excited when something like this happens that I didn't fully expect.

I understand the conflict/dilemma - still think it is a huge win.

Maybe if I hurry up and wait, I'll be able to visit Hawaii in this lifetime.

no doubt...it could have gone the other way, after all.

 

[Saxxon]

Yes I am in shock, but actually not surprised by it.

When CA banned Open Carry in the last couple years they set themselves up for this - just like Illinois. When you ban one form and severely restrict the other to the point that citizens can't bear arms the Constitution is violated beyond anyone's denial. The liberal defense is only "public safety" at that point, to which one has only to look at respective crime rates to understand that the liberal lies like a rug when they assert it.

 

[We-the-People]

Yes I am in shock, but actually not surprised by it.

When CA banned Open Carry in the last couple years they set themselves up for this - just like Illinois. When you ban one form and severely restrict the other to the point that citizens can't bear arms the Constitution is violated beyond anyone's denial. The liberal defense is only "public safety" at that point, to which one has only to look at respective crime rates to understand that the liberal lies like a rug when they assert it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It would seem that the unloaded open carry folks who pushed the issue and "lost", have actually helped in the big picture. Without the (effectively) total ban on carry, this case would not have been as strong.

 

[We-the-People]

In other news:

Environmentalists in California are trying to determine why large numbers of crows are disappearing throughout the state. Some are disappearing entirely while there are isolated cases of little more than feathers being found where crows used to congregate. Mysteriously, bottles of ketsup, eating utensils, and even bar b ques have been found near many locations.

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

I tend to get excited when something like this happens that I didn't fully expect.

I understand the conflict/dilemma - still think it is a huge win.

Maybe if I hurry up and wait, I'll be able to visit Hawaii in this lifetime.

I'll take a win like this any time.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Right On!

Mr. Peruta said he'd fight this all the way if he has too and so far he is living up to his word.

Despite those of some of the "pro gun rights" organizations that demonized him for not playing their game.

 

[onus]

Despite those of some of the "pro gun rights" organizations that demonized him for not playing their game.

I know we aren't supposed to name names on this forum, but was one of those groups based out of California ?

 

[bigtoe416]

It would seem that the unloaded open carry folks who pushed the issue and "lost", have actually helped in the big picture. Without the (effectively) total ban on carry, this case would not have been as strong.

I concur. The open carry ban made the decision much easier for the courts. Without the ban the judges would have had to do analysis on unloaded carry which is a subject that there can't be much jurisprudence on given that it is a concept that only idiotic governments would consider. The part of this ruling I disagree with is the notion that an individual must pay to exercise a right. This is fundamentally incorrect and will not stand the test of time. If CCWs were free to obtain, then perhaps the added paperwork might pass constitutional muster, but as long as a fee is attached to the second amendment, it isn't a right in my book.

 

[OC for ME]

Martin Mayer, a lawyer for statewide organizations of law enforcement officers, endorsed Thomas' view. He said the ruling would lead to a proliferation of guns on the streets.

"The majority of peace officers killed in the line of duty are killed by guns," Mayer said. "If you have a domestic violence incident and a gun is available, it's more likely to be used. ... It increases the harm to law enforcement and to the public."

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Court-strikes-California-law-restricting-5232386.php

Uh, I think that dude needs to get himself a new paralegal to do his fact finding for him. Besides, he misapplied the term "peace officer" to his clients.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I concur. The open carry ban made the decision much easier for the courts. Without the ban the judges would have had to do analysis on unloaded carry which is a subject that there can't be much jurisprudence on given that it is a concept that only idiotic governments would consider. The part of this ruling I disagree with is the notion that an individual must pay to exercise a right. This is fundamentally incorrect and will not stand the test of time. If CCWs were free to obtain, then perhaps the added paperwork might pass constitutional muster, but as long as a fee is attached to the second amendment, it isn't a right in my book.

I agree and will go further ... one should not have to get any permit at all; any freeman should be able to carry openly or CC to their choice, not the guberment's. Just like the right to travel..we pick the mode, not the guberment.

 

[Grapeshot]

I agree and will go further ... one should not have to get any permit at all; any freeman should be able to carry openly or CC to their choice, not the guberment's. Just like the right to travel..we pick the mode, not the guberment.

That is the elusive Grail.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I know we aren't supposed to name names on this forum, but was one of those groups based out of California ?

Yep and even a guy who wanted his court case to be the "big win" and who think people who don't support the large gun organizations are immoral.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

In Peterson, the Tenth Circuit considered a Second Amendment challenge to
Colorado’s concealed handgun licensing regime, which restricted the issuance of
licenses to Colorado residents. The Tenth Circuit concluded that “[t]here can be
little doubt that bans on the concealed carrying of firearms are longstanding.” 707
F.3d at 1210. After conducting an historical analysis, the Court concluded that
“the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons.” Id.
at 1211.


Interesting quote from the dissent. Who was it that was complaining about others setting bad precedents ?

 

[CT Barfly]

having a government official exercise discretion over a citizen's fundamental/enumerated right...partly intended to function as a check on the government's power strikes me as the fox guarding the hen house.

 

[CT Barfly]

Hopefully the Mcdonald and Heller majority justices will start feelin' their oats by the time the 2nd, 3rd, 4th Circuit contravention of their precedent comes before them again. Only need four to grant cert.

 

[Grapeshot]

Hopefully the Mcdonald and Heller majority justices will start feelin' their oats by the time the 2nd, 3rd, 4th Circuit contravention of their precedent comes before them again. Only need four to grant cert.

Or to oppose. There are no guarantees.

 

[ConditionThree]

Yes I am in shock, but actually not surprised by it.

When CA banned Open Carry in the last couple years they set themselves up for this - just like Illinois. When you ban one form and severely restrict the other to the point that citizens can't bear arms the Constitution is violated beyond anyone's denial. The liberal defense is only "public safety" at that point, to which one has only to look at respective crime rates to understand that the liberal lies like a rug when they assert it.

^ This.

As unintentionally serendipitous as UOC movement was, the knee-jerk reaction (and punitive measure) that resulted, painted the court into a corner that the gun prohibitionists could not have foreseen to avoid. While this was not by design, it is entirely possible that the resulting C.F. accelerated litigation against California's discretionary licensing program by as much as a decade. The court would still be asserting that there was still open carry, even if no practical use could be made of it.

With Illinois falling as the last state with a complete ban on carry, California's atmospheric pressure dropped suddenly, in spite of all the efforts of our legislature.

There remains two other factors to overcome before California goes 'shall issue'. Hopefully, there will be short work made of them.

 

[bigtoe416]

In Peterson, the Tenth Circuit considered a Second Amendment challenge to
Colorado’s concealed handgun licensing regime, which restricted the issuance of
licenses to Colorado residents. The Tenth Circuit concluded that “[t]here can be
little doubt that bans on the concealed carrying of firearms are longstanding.” 707
F.3d at 1210. After conducting an historical analysis, the Court concluded that
“the Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons.” Id.
at 1211.


Interesting quote from the dissent. Who was it that was complaining about others setting bad precedents ?

Ouch.