Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   7th Circuit Win, Posner ruling stands (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=709570)

bridgeport 02-22-2013 8:52 AM

7th Circuit Win, Posner ruling stands
 
http://www.saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=423

The Shadow 02-22-2013 8:55 AM

This is great. It affirms what I've been saying all along. I have no doubt that Illinois will have shall issue before California.

Congratulations to Illinois.

not-fishing 02-22-2013 9:07 AM

Sometimes I'm a little slow, it just hit me.

Free speech but only in the home.

Freedom of religion but only in the home.

Freedom to assemble but only in the home.

Due Process but only in the home.

Ruling against Judge Posner's Decision would have a few hurdles (unless they are ignored like in Chicago and DC).

LoadedM333 02-22-2013 9:09 AM

This is a great news indeed.

ll-Rafael-ll 02-22-2013 9:12 AM

Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?

RobG 02-22-2013 9:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll (Post 10610753)
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?

:twoweeks:

speedrrracer 02-22-2013 9:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobG (Post 10610766)
:twoweeks:

QFT

just ask Kachalsky

Nor Cal Guy 02-22-2013 9:17 AM

good job SAF

:King:

rsacks 02-22-2013 9:27 AM

F*** Yes! Feels good to win, doesn't it? :D

thedrickel 02-22-2013 9:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll (Post 10610753)
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?

Year and a half

Damn True 02-22-2013 9:39 AM

Great news....now, let's git-er-done in CA!

ll-Rafael-ll 02-22-2013 9:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobG (Post 10610766)
:twoweeks:

Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but 2 weeks for what exactly?

goodlookin1 02-22-2013 9:42 AM

Quote:

A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.
Quote:

"It is now up to the legislature,” Gottlieb said, “to craft a statute that recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to carry outside the home, without a sea of red tape or a requirement to prove any kind of need beyond the cause of personal protection.
There's so much WIN in this! Amazing!

Self Defense = Good Cause in CA, here we come!

jorgyusa 02-22-2013 9:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll (Post 10611033)
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but 2 weeks for what exactly?

We should be seeing the ruling of the 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit on the multiple challenges of May Issue. I don't know if it is in 2 weeks but certainly hope so. They now have some cover to do the right thing with this confirmation of the ruling from the 7th circuit.

goodlookin1 02-22-2013 9:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgyusa (Post 10611112)
We should be seeing the ruling our of the 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit on the multiple challenges of May Issue. I don't know if it is in 2 weeks but certainly hope so. They now have some cover to do the right thing with this confirmation of the ruling out of the 7th circuit.

They're not looking for cover to rule in favor for Shall Issue.....they are looking for an excuse to rule against it.

This didnt help their cause one iota :D

CAL.BAR 02-22-2013 9:58 AM

Now we just have to sit back and wait to see how onerous a process they will concoct to actually GET a CCW. And once they make it suitably onerous no one will bother to get and keep such a permit and the process will be constitutionally unassailable.

rootuser 02-22-2013 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll (Post 10610753)
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?

The ruling is very welcome and not surprising. Illinois having no law on the subject at all (basically not allowing it) is what got them in to trouble. My concerns with the Posner ruling is what is considered "Reasonable". There isn't a hard litmus test defined as to what is reasonable from what I read.

I don't personally know what this will mean for CA, but I get the personal feeling it will have very little meaning in the short run. In the long run, one could argue CA doesn't have a reasonable method, and thus the only reasonable method is shall issue, but I don't see how we get from the Posner ruling to that in CA in the next 5+ years. There will be a lot of delay tactic and no way to enforce compliance regardless of what the rulings are (again in a short to near term, long term this is a good win).

Kharn 02-22-2013 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll (Post 10610753)
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?

I would expect a Supreme Court ruling on carry in June 2014. Depending on the exact wording, shall-issue could start the next day, but I would assume more likely 90-180 days after that.

ojisan 02-22-2013 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll (Post 10611033)
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but 2 weeks for what exactly?

"Two weeks" is a old joke around here.

It was originally said by an anti-gun LEO who did not like the idea of Off List Lowers for ARs...when he found out about them he promised they would be added to the ban list in two weeks...which never happened.

It currently means an indeterminate amount of time (with a dash of both humor and exasperation implied).

voiceofreason 02-22-2013 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll (Post 10611033)
Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question, but 2 weeks for what exactly?

TWO WEEKS

is a running joke on Calguns meaning pretty much never or a really, really long time

from the Tom Hanks movie "The Money Pit"

Moonshine 02-22-2013 10:10 AM

There's definitely going to be SOMETHING in the SCOTUS as a result of this latest round of "go for broke" bans.

IVC 02-22-2013 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rootuser (Post 10611248)
The ruling is very welcome and not surprising. Illinois having no law on the subject at all (basically not allowing it) is what got them in to trouble. My concerns with the Posner ruling is what is considered "Reasonable". There isn't a hard litmus test defined as to what is reasonable from what I read.

There is now a confirmed "circuit split." This ruling goes way beyond what happens just in IL or CA. It's a strategic piece that all but guarantees the SCOTUS takes a "carry" case very soon.

The "reasonable" and most of the details will come directly from SCOTUS, not circuits. They will, as usual, rule in a minimalistic way, but it will provide a completely new framework for any law regarding "carry." If the antis overreach *again*, we'll have even more rulings from the SCOTUS.

Bsandoc40 02-22-2013 10:15 AM

Great job, SAF!!!

Another reminder that people might not agree with the 2nd Amendment. But you can't ignore it or dismiss it, either!!

Wildhawk66 02-22-2013 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ojisan (Post 10611287)
"Two weeks" is a old joke around here.

It was originally said by an anti-gun LEO who did not like the idea of Off List Lowers for ARs...when he found out about them he promised they would be added to the ban list in two weeks...which never happened.

It currently means an indeterminate amount of time (with a dash of both humor and exasperation implied).

Best explanation yet.

drd 02-22-2013 10:31 AM

Delays
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kharn (Post 10611264)
I would expect a Supreme Court ruling on carry in June 2014. Depending on the exact wording, shall-issue could start the next day, but I would assume more likely 90-180 days after that.

I've been wondering about this quite a bit. It's easy to understand why a lower court would stay their own decision to give time to appeal or even time to implement.

It's difficult for me to understand how the Supreme Court would go about such a stay or delay.

If the Supreme Court upholds a ruling granting carry outside the home then they would, in effect, be saying that any law that bars carry outside the home is unconstitutional. I can't imagine the Supreme Court writing an opinion where they find a law unconstitutional and then delaying the ruling for any period of time so those who were in violation of the constitution can continue to violate the constitution while they get their act together.

On when shall-issue starts, I expect the very first case to be filed will be one that challenges the time it takes to get a permit. Every delay in getting a permit, for whatever reason, is prior restraint of the right.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to come out and say "shall-issue" but you states take as long as you need to process the back-log or sudden influx of permit applications you receive tomorrow.

Assuming a Supreme Court ruling goes our way, and I expect it will, it's not going to be just the discretionary-issue states that will have a serious problem. Any state that doesn't allow unlicensed carry of some sort and has a delay in issuing licenses will have an issue.

Those states that allow unlicensed carry will have no issue if they take time to issue a license because the people still have the ability to carry in some manner.

Those states that don't allow some type of unlicensed carry and have a waiting period for a license will be restraining the right. Perhaps there will be a "balance" struck with strict scrutiny that a small delay is permissible but that's kind of a stretch.

When comparing to permits for a demonstration remember that such permits are applied for in advance, i.e., I want to hold a demonstration at some future date.

Licensing for carrying a firearm is for now, not because I want to be licensed in the future.

This will get very interesting and even more so for non-residents. Will California require California-issued licenses for out-of-state residents? What happens then when I have a personal emergency and have to be in the state before California can issue me my license - do I lose my right to carry a weapon in California?

NewGuy1911 02-22-2013 10:32 AM

Best explanation yet.

Agreed!

Stonewalker 02-22-2013 10:40 AM

Moore v Madigan is such a solid win. It's huge. I still get excited when I think about its implications.

Untamed1972 02-22-2013 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll (Post 10610753)
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?

CA will go shall issue just shortly after the sweeping gun confiscations are complete. So you're be able to get a CCW....you just wont be able to own a gun to actually carry.

rootuser 02-22-2013 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IVC (Post 10611343)
There is now a confirmed "circuit split." This ruling goes way beyond what happens just in IL or CA. It's a strategic piece that all but guarantees the SCOTUS takes a "carry" case very soon.

The "reasonable" and most of the details will come directly from SCOTUS, not circuits. They will, as usual, rule in a minimalistic way, but it will provide a completely new framework for any law regarding "carry." If the antis overreach *again*, we'll have even more rulings from the SCOTUS.

Thank you IVC. I understand the split and thanks for reminding me. This gives more cause for the Supreme Court to take up the issue.

The Supreme Court can go several ways at this point:

1. Not hear the case and let the rulings stand, however they may be. The SCOTUS doesn't HAVE to take the case even with a split in the circuit.

2. Judge that the plantiffs have no standing, but I would think this is not one of those situations, particularly because it is a pretty clear constitutional issue.

3. Decide that Illinois does not have to have a carry law at all, and may be rights of the states opt to have one or not.

4. Decide very narrowly that Illinois must come up with a law that imposes reasonable regulation (basically affirm the original ruling) but leave open for definition the effect of Shall Issue vs May Issue by leaving latitude as is customarily afforded to states in many issues, but not as much latitutde when the constitution is involved.

5. Decide broadly that Illinois must offer carry permits on a Shall Issue basis, with proviso that there will be a class of people (Felons for example) that will be disallowed.


If I had to guess right now, in light of Heller, we will get a decision that is something between 4 and 5. I doubt it will be broad enough to suddenly override all May Issue statutes. It may very well extend the right to protection outside the home, but I have a feeling that is as about as far as the court will go in a single ruling. Simply allowing protection outside the home won't be enough to change May Issue states to Shall Issue.

What a ruling like this would do however, is now bring cause to challenge the may issue states as being too restrictive to allow for protection outside the home and thus force a battle directly between May Issue provisions and Shall Issue. This is where I see the 5+ years in total coming in.

I hope that I am wrong, but I always prepare for the long fight because I know I am fighting for my children's right to protect themselves, not only my own, so patience is key.

Untamed1972 02-22-2013 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drd (Post 10611575)

This will get very interesting and even more so for non-residents. Will California require California-issued licenses for out-of-state residents? What happens then when I have a personal emergency and have to be in the state before California can issue me my license - do I lose my right to carry a weapon in California?

Will likely have to be some follow-up litigation on things like that based on things like "full faith & credit" and "right to travel", etc. You dont have to surrender any other of your rights under the BoR just because you cross state lines. Why should the 2A be any different? Are not tourists often specifically the targets of crime?

billofrights 02-22-2013 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildhawk66 (Post 10611536)
Best explanation yet.

I always thought it was from that scene in Total Recall when the 'fat lady' mask went haywire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V17duGlHEYY

Legasat 02-22-2013 11:13 AM

GREAT NEWS!

:jump::mnl::party:

Kid Stanislaus 02-22-2013 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ll-Rafael-ll (Post 10610753)
Real talk, how soon will California have shall issue CCW?

Don't hold your breath!;)

Kid Stanislaus 02-22-2013 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djandj (Post 10611224)
Now we just have to sit back and wait to see how onerous a process they will concoct to actually GET a CCW. And once they make it suitably onerous no one will bother to get and keep such a permit and the process will be constitutionally unassailable.

And that same 7th Districk Court will kick'm right in the azz.;)

Tripeaks69 02-22-2013 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untamed1972 (Post 10611792)
CA will go shall issue just shortly after the sweeping gun confiscations are complete. So you're be able to get a CCW....you just wont be able to own a gun to actually carry.

^^^ This ^^^ CA Socialist (democrats) are doing exactly this. They will have shall issue after they confiscated out firearms hahahahahah


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

stix213 02-22-2013 12:37 PM

This is big for the Kachalsky case, because if this judgement was thrown out it would have undercut Gura's chances at cert.

What I wonder is if Illinois will themselves appeal to the SCOTUS.

CAL.BAR 02-22-2013 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus (Post 10612050)
And that same 7th Districk Court will kick'm right in the azz.;)

Don't count on that. There is a HUGE legal difference between having a NO ISSUE policy and a policy that imposes "reasonable restrictions and requirements".

Kharn 02-22-2013 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drd (Post 10611575)
I've been wondering about this quite a bit. It's easy to understand why a lower court would stay their own decision to give time to appeal or even time to implement.

It's difficult for me to understand how the Supreme Court would go about such a stay or delay.

If the Supreme Court upholds a ruling granting carry outside the home then they would, in effect, be saying that any law that bars carry outside the home is unconstitutional. I can't imagine the Supreme Court writing an opinion where they find a law unconstitutional and then delaying the ruling for any period of time so those who were in violation of the constitution can continue to violate the constitution while they get their act together.

On when shall-issue starts, I expect the very first case to be filed will be one that challenges the time it takes to get a permit. Every delay in getting a permit, for whatever reason, is prior restraint of the right.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to come out and say "shall-issue" but you states take as long as you need to process the back-log or sudden influx of permit applications you receive tomorrow.

Assuming a Supreme Court ruling goes our way, and I expect it will, it's not going to be just the discretionary-issue states that will have a serious problem. Any state that doesn't allow unlicensed carry of some sort and has a delay in issuing licenses will have an issue.

Those states that allow unlicensed carry will have no issue if they take time to issue a license because the people still have the ability to carry in some manner.

Those states that don't allow some type of unlicensed carry and have a waiting period for a license will be restraining the right. Perhaps there will be a "balance" struck with strict scrutiny that a small delay is permissible but that's kind of a stretch.

When comparing to permits for a demonstration remember that such permits are applied for in advance, i.e., I want to hold a demonstration at some future date.

Licensing for carrying a firearm is for now, not because I want to be licensed in the future.

This will get very interesting and even more so for non-residents. Will California require California-issued licenses for out-of-state residents? What happens then when I have a personal emergency and have to be in the state before California can issue me my license - do I lose my right to carry a weapon in California?

I do not think the court will go that far, I would expect they require states pick from a minimum of open carry or shall-issue CCW. States that wish to do CC, or both shall-issue and unrestricted OC may do so at their own choice.

Southwest Chuck 02-22-2013 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 10612790)

What I wonder is if Illinois will themselves appeal to the SCOTUS.




You can bet on it !

sholling 02-22-2013 1:06 PM

It'll be interesting to see what comes out of the state legislature. I'm sure that democrats will demand high licencing fees, massive expansion of defined sensitive places to include 80% of Chicago, keeping the FOID law intact, and continuation of Chicago's home rule. The question is whether the Republicans there will hang tough or cave. If they can't get an end to FOID and home rule then they should just refuse to pass anything because Chicago will throw up a never ending series of roadblocks, restrictions, and taxes each requiring years of litigation much as they have for those trying to buy a handgun. The real key to Illinois politics is "what's in it for me" and from local officials to the state house it's as corrupt as Mexico.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.