Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #441  
Old 02-22-2013, 2:44 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Look on the bright side, the opinion beefs up the argument that concealed carry isn't constitutionally protected! That's gotta be some kind of briar patch right?
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 02-22-2013, 2:58 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,865
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

WOW... Just WOW !

Quote:
In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the
Supreme Court stated in dicta that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not
infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Id. at 281-82. More
recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court noted that “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,” and explained that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions.”
...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:10 PM
mikestesting's Avatar
mikestesting mikestesting is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 442
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

so what happens now? case is dead and ruling stands or will it be appealed to SCOTUS? what are the chances of that?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Random CNN Commenter
You represent what's wrong with America. A sheep. Waiting on your welfare so that you don't have to think or work, and be part of a movement. Now, get out of the library and let someone else use the government's computer.
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:11 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,832
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

And people accuse kcbrown of being overly pessimistic.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:16 PM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Have to agree with Fabio here. A missed opportunity indeed.

Quote:
Peterson has repeatedly expressed, however, that he is not challenging the Denver ordinance. After Suthers advocated for the constitutionality of the Denver ordinance in his motion for summary judgment, Peterson clarified that he was not arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutional, but that it is Colorado’s “refusal to allow Plaintiff to obtain a CHL that is unconstitutional.” Claiming that Suthers was attempting a “back door attack of Denver’s ban on open carry of firearms,” Peterson stated that “this case is not the proper vehicle for his attack.”

In light of Peterson’s explicit statement that “this case is not the proper vehicle” for an attack on the validity of the Denver ordinance, Peterson has clearly waived any such challenge....Because the district court accepted Peterson’s formulation of the case in ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, Peterson cannot be heard to complain of any alleged error he himself invited. ...We see no reason that a plaintiff could not challenge both the statute and the ordinance in the same suit, but Peterson has made a conscious decision not to challenge the constitutionality of the Denver ordinance.
I don't really agree with, or like the 2-pronged test developed by the 10th Cir.

Quote:
Accordingly, we must conduct our two-step Second Amendment analysis based on the effects of the state statute rather than the combined effects of the statute and the ordinance. As we held in Reese, “a reviewing court first asks whether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.” 627 F.3d at 800 (quotation and alteration omitted, emphasis added). This case demonstrates the need for such an analytical framework. Peterson seeks a ruling that Colorado may not restrict CHLs to residents of the state. If he succeeds in this challenge, he would be free to obtain a CHL and carry a concealed weapon throughout the state.

By contrast, had Peterson challenged the Denver ordinance, he may have obtained a ruling that allows him to carry a firearm openly while maintaining the state’s restrictions on concealed carry. The specific constitutional challenge thus delineates the proper form of relief and clarifies the particular Second Amendment restriction that is before us. Because only the Colorado statute has been challenged, and thus only the statute is at issue in the case at bar, we must look to the effect of that statute in conducting our Second Amendment assessment
Quote:
Accordingly, to determine “whether the challenged law imposes a burden on
conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee,” Reese, 627 F.3d at 800, we first ask whether the Second Amendment provides the right to carry a concealed firearm. We conclude that it does not.
^ And there lies the crux of the problem. I think this will all be straightend out (swept away) by SCOTUS with it's next landmark ruling coming hopefully by June 2014.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:22 PM
mikestesting's Avatar
mikestesting mikestesting is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 442
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
we first ask whether the Second Amendment provides the right to carry a concealed firearm. We conclude that it does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
^ And there lies the crux of the problem. I think this will all be straightend out (swept away) by SCOTUS with it's next landmark ruling coming hopefully by June 2014.
Do you think the court is hinting that the 2A does not expressively provide the right to a concealed carry specifically, but could possibly provide the right to carry in general, either concealed or open?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Random CNN Commenter
You represent what's wrong with America. A sheep. Waiting on your welfare so that you don't have to think or work, and be part of a movement. Now, get out of the library and let someone else use the government's computer.
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:26 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This opinion can only help the 9th circuit carry cases, you know, the ones that Gray and hoffmang explained were so bungled by the NRA lawyers' procedural mistakes!
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:30 PM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 555
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Suppose the plaintiff had challenged both Denver city and Colorado state law together, as the Judges indicate he could have. Further suppose that the judges then ruled that his second amendment rights were violated.

Because the judges could then strike either the Denver law OR the Colorado state law down to provide relief to the plaintiff, on what basis would they make their decision on which to strike? If either alone is not a 2nd amendment violation, then striking both would not be appropriate.
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:38 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm curious?

Did anyone really have high expectations of a victory at the Circus level?

I thought this case was designed all along to go on up through the appeals process and be set up for a cert petition if that proved necessary.

I'm not at all surprised or disheartened - maybe because I've absolutely no legal training?
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:44 PM
CBruce's Avatar
CBruce CBruce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,995
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikestesting View Post
Do you think the court is hinting that the 2A does not expressively provide the right to a concealed carry specifically, but could possibly provide the right to carry in general, either concealed or open?
What other options are there?
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:56 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,782
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikestesting View Post
Do you think the court is hinting that the 2A does not expressively provide the right to a concealed carry specifically, but could possibly provide the right to carry in general, either concealed or open?
Seems to me they're suggesting the 2A protects ONLY open carry because only 1 Judge(Lucero) said that he'd rule the same way even if concealed carry were protected under the 2A. It strongly suggests the other 2 judges may lean the other way if Denver's OC ban were on the table. Not to mention the panel seemed borderline obsessed with Robertson v. Baldwin, which wasn't even a 2A case to begin with.
I'm not sure what the failure of this case was procedurally, I thought this was a challenge on both the Denver ordinance and the CO CHL issuance(give us one or the other)?
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 02-22-2013, 3:58 PM
mikestesting's Avatar
mikestesting mikestesting is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 442
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBruce View Post
What other options are there?
they may be hinting that the 2A does protect carrying outside the home, but doesn't specifically protect concealed or open. if the state provides one option, the state can deny the other.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Random CNN Commenter
You represent what's wrong with America. A sheep. Waiting on your welfare so that you don't have to think or work, and be part of a movement. Now, get out of the library and let someone else use the government's computer.
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 02-22-2013, 4:01 PM
Scarecrow Repair's Avatar
Scarecrow Repair Scarecrow Repair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Internet Tough Guy(tm), them thar hills
Posts: 2,426
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Look on the bright side, the opinion beefs up the argument that concealed carry isn't constitutionally protected! That's gotta be some kind of briar patch right?
on you, I think. The argument has always been that carry is protected, but not specifically open or concealed.

Welcome to the briar patch, you fabiouso lawslinger!
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 02-22-2013, 4:13 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Maybe one day we'll get unloaded open carry in California, then we cam really celebrate!
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 02-22-2013, 4:30 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,788
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I'm curious?

Did anyone really have high expectations of a victory at the Circus level?
Not really, though this ruling does come as something of a surprise to me, because I'd been led to believe that the 10th Circuit was generally pro-rights, particularly with respect to that of self-defense and arms.

Obviously, those who made that claim were quite badly mistaken.


Quote:
I'm not at all surprised or disheartened - maybe because I've absolutely no legal training?
No, it's because you're (finally?) gaining the level of cynicism necessary to be a True Realist.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 02-22-2013, 4:37 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Maybe one day we'll get unloaded open carry in California, then we cam really celebrate!
Made me laugh!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 02-22-2013, 4:44 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
.
.
.
No, it's because you're (finally?) gaining the level of cynicism necessary to be a True Realist.
Was that an insult or a compliment?

The way I see it is that at this time the weight of the jurisprudence is that the RKBA is limited to within the home.

It doesn't matter that I disagree vehemently, that's the way in which most district and circus courts are going to view it simply because there are more opinions which go that way - and because they want it to go that way.

So when we get a favorable opinion out of a lower court I am pleasantly surprised. But even then I figure the benefit is mostly to get a circuit split in hopes that this will increase the probability that SCOTUS will take a good case in the near future - and say the things I hope they will say.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 02-22-2013, 4:56 PM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 303
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Briefly, CA7 just denied a challenge to Judge Posner's opinion against the Illinois "in the home" limitation. Doesn't the recent CA10 opinion create yet another split? If so, won't this help move Moore vs Madigan toward SCOTUS?
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 02-22-2013, 5:23 PM
Cirdan Cirdan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://www.thegunmag.com/7th-circuit...arry-says-saf/

Quote:
The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 02-22-2013, 5:59 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,788
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Was that an insult or a compliment?
Very much a compliment. I'm proud of you!


Quote:
The way I see it is that at this time the weight of the jurisprudence is that the RKBA is limited to within the home.

It doesn't matter that I disagree vehemently, that's the way in which most district and circus courts are going to view it simply because there are more opinions which go that way - and because they want it to go that way.
Precisely. And that was entirely predictable.


Quote:
So when we get a favorable opinion out of a lower court I am pleasantly surprised. But even then I figure the benefit is mostly to get a circuit split in hopes that this will increase the probability that SCOTUS will take a good case in the near future - and say the things I hope they will say.

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. One wonders what SCOTUS would do if the lower courts unanimously denied the right's existence outside the home. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that, because the 7th Circuit has upheld the right outside the home. And so far, it's the only one that has.


Look, people, can it be made any more plain than it has? The judiciary hates the right to keep and bear arms. Plan accordingly.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-22-2013 at 6:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #461  
Old 02-22-2013, 6:13 PM
navyinrwanda's Avatar
navyinrwanda navyinrwanda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 585
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Anyone who read appellant's briefs and listened to oral arguments foresaw this outcome. This case was bungled from the beginning, both by the ineptitude of counsel and the hubris of its patrons.

Failure was totally self-inflicted.
Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 02-22-2013, 6:29 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,832
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navyinrwanda View Post
Anyone who read appellant's briefs and listened to oral arguments foresaw this outcome. This case was bungled from the beginning, both by the ineptitude of counsel and the hubris of its patrons.

Failure was totally self-inflicted.
You're missing the bigger picture. There is zero room for error, but only on the side that isn't anti-gun.

The anti-gun side can get away with an infinite level of incompetence with zero repercussions.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 02-22-2013, 6:48 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navyinrwanda View Post
Anyone who read appellant's briefs and listened to oral arguments foresaw this outcome. This case was bungled from the beginning, both by the ineptitude of counsel and the hubris of its patrons.

Failure was totally self-inflicted.
I hate reading such an assessment. Unfortunately, I don't know that you are wrong.

But it is disturbing to see that we have several people who have a lot of legal knowledge suggesting the case was bungled.

Rather disappointing as well, because if that is the case I'm betting that there is little value to the case in getting cert for either this case or for another.

I'm hoping your evaluation is wrong, but I consider you to be a serious guy and I certainly can't say that you are wrong.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 02-22-2013, 6:57 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,832
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
But it is disturbing to see that we have several people who have a lot of legal knowledge suggesting the case was bungled.
What disturbs me the most is that the people doing the armchair quarterbacking don't seem to be the ones arguing cases.

Look. All cases have flaws. All lawyers make mistakes. For any given case, there are million things that the peanut gallery can say "omg their dum! i coulda done better!"

And rest assured every single one of those whiners will never help in any substantive fashion, because they will never be in court arguing those cases or anything even remotely like them.

To make matters worse, the mistakes that were made are ONLY damaging in courts where you are arguing for 2A rights. All mistakes made by the other side (which the peanut gallery never seems to point out) are glossed over by the court in their eagerness to get yet another 2A case off of their docket in a way that does not endanger the status quo.

The situation is completely unacceptable, no matter how you look at it.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:08 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I guess we will just wait patiently for a land mark CGF supported case to have an impact on 2A rights. I believe in the chess not checkers mentality. As long as those playing chess know how to actually play chess. Perhaps Richards.
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:14 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,832
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
I guess we will just wait patiently for a land mark CGF supported case to have an impact on 2A rights. I believe in the chess not checkers mentality. As long as those playing chess know how to actually play chess. Perhaps Richards.
According to the peanut gallery, CGF isn't qualified. Only the peanut gallery knows how to play chess.

But will we see them litigating any time soon?

To quote a notable member: "lol''™
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:17 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Denver's ordinance that requires a license to openly or concealed carry was specifically challenged by getting denied by the Denver licensing official. See Count five and fact paragraph 15 of the amended complaint. http://www.archive.org/download/gov....117112.4.0.pdf

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:23 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
According to the peanut gallery, CGF isn't qualified. Only the peanut gallery knows how to play chess.

But will we see them litigating any time soon?

To quote a notable member: "lol''™
CGF is not a law firm. I back their efforts! I'm just saying that perhaps some of the chess players (lawyers). Might need to re think strategy.
Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:27 PM
highbrass highbrass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gura brings some good cases and some horrible cases. This was a horrible case that shouldn't have been brought and sets the gun legal movement back a few paces.

Thanks to this case, we now have this cite in the permanent legal record:

"With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause."

This is going to hurt us for a long time.

We got this very unfavorable ruling in a very pro-gun state. This language is really going to hurt the Illinois efforts, because they don't have to allow concealed carry now, and they really don't want open carry.

I wish Gura had decided against bringing this one. In the Kachalsky New York case, I'll agree that he's getting some bad rulings, but he's saying the right things. In this case, I don't think anyone involved said the right things or was on the right side.

Time to pick ourselves up and move on. I hope they don't try to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. We need to focus on beating bad state laws in NY, CA, IL and the new crazy ones being proposed in MD.

SAF is doing a lot of good work, especially in Illinois. I just got an e-mail from them saying that the 7th Circuit won't exempt Illinois from being forced to enact some form of carry within 180 days. I hope this case doesn't pull some of that down.
Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:30 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
What disturbs me the most is that the people doing the armchair quarterbacking don't seem to be the ones arguing cases.

Look. All cases have flaws. All lawyers make mistakes. For any given case, there are million things that the peanut gallery can say "omg their dum! i coulda done better!"

And rest assured every single one of those whiners will never help in any substantive fashion, because they will never be in court arguing those cases or anything even remotely like them.

To make matters worse, the mistakes that were made are ONLY damaging in courts where you are arguing for 2A rights. All mistakes made by the other side (which the peanut gallery never seems to point out) are glossed over by the court in their eagerness to get yet another 2A case off of their docket in a way that does not endanger the status quo.

The situation is completely unacceptable, no matter how you look at it.
You are a smart guy and I enjoy reading what you post.

But in this particular case did you carefully read the arguments, the opinions, and the latest ruling?

I am fairly sure FGG is not going to engage in litigation on behalf of the RKBA, but he has been pretty good (although not perfect, IIRC) at predicting what a court will do with a case.

I would not bet, however, that NIR will not engage in litigation. I've not seen a definitive statement, but the impression I have is that given the right circumstances he would. Not sure that calling him an armchair quarterback/whiner is accurate.

I may be going too far in my assessment of where NIR stands, but my impression is that he thinks there are some pretty fundamental flaws in the approach we currently favor. Until we get one of the CGF cases through SCOTUS we don't know that he is right - or wrong.

But I think NIR is a serious lawyer who understands the relevant law pretty well and has spent some fairly serious time looking over some of these cases. I don't think it wise to quickly dismiss his opinion of the case.

Again, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination (haven't even visited a law school), so I could be way off base.

I sorta doubt NIR or FGG are going to find it worth publishing a detailed analysis of the case and how it could/should be done better. But I doubt we'll get that from Gray's lawyer any time soon either.

I'll withhold my own opinion until I see more. And honestly, I'm not so sure we're going to see much more of this case. I know there were a lot of procedural issues (not sure that is the right term) and that may have made the case more complex than it should be for a cert petition.

I think this opinion was a panel and what I do anticipate is a request for en banc.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.

Last edited by OleCuss; 02-22-2013 at 7:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #471  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:30 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highbrass View Post
Gura brings some good cases and some horrible cases. This was a horrible case that shouldn't have been brought and sets the gun legal movement back a few paces.

Thanks to this case, we now have this cite in the permanent legal record:

"With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause."

This is going to hurt us for a long time.

We got this very unfavorable ruling in a very pro-gun state. This language is really going to hurt the Illinois efforts, because they don't have to allow concealed carry now, and they really don't want open carry.

I wish Gura had decided against bringing this one. In the Kachalsky New York case, I'll agree that he's getting some bad rulings, but he's saying the right things. In this case, I don't think anyone involved said the right things or was on the right side.

Time to pick ourselves up and move on. I hope they don't try to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. We need to focus on beating bad state laws in NY, CA, IL and the new crazy ones being proposed in MD.

SAF is doing a lot of good work, especially in Illinois. I just got an e-mail from them saying that the 7th Circuit won't exempt Illinois from being forced to enact some form of carry within 180 days. I hope this case doesn't pull some of that down.
What are you talking about?
Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 02-22-2013, 7:36 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
What are you talking about?
In related news, I agree with your inquiry here.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 02-22-2013, 8:57 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,788
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highbrass View Post
Gura brings some good cases and some horrible cases. This was a horrible case that shouldn't have been brought and sets the gun legal movement back a few paces.

Thanks to this case, we now have this cite in the permanent legal record:

"With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause."
We can't help it if the judges on the court can't/won't read, and/or can't/won't think.

The Denver ordinances require a license for any carry within Denver, be it concealed or open.


Given that fact, how would you, or anyone here, have phrased the complaint differently? Keep in mind that challenging multiple laws simultaneously is a much more complicated thing to do than is challenging a single law, and doing so would probably have short-circuited the obviously limited minds that occupied the panel in this case.


In any case, how many times do I have to say it? Courts will always issue the rulings they want to issue, no matter the jurisprudence they operate under, when they have strong preconceptions about the issue. That this one did precisely that should come as absolutely no surprise to you whatsoever, because the right to keep and bear arms is by far the one most dangerous to the government, and at the end of the day, the courts work for the government because they are part of it and get their funding from it.


This case also illustrates something that I have suspected for some time: if the interaction of multiple laws can be made sufficiently complex, courts even in traditionally "pro-rights" areas will fail to uphold even the strongest Constitutional rights as a result of the intersection between the "presumption of Constitutionality" the courts engage in and the impossibility of clearly and unequivocally identifying the laws which deserve to be overturned and the proper government officials who should be sued.


And you guys wonder why I think we're going to lose in the end (even though we will probably win in the intermediate term)...
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-22-2013 at 9:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #474  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:04 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,832
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And you guys wonder why I think we're going to lose in the end (even though we will probably win in the intermediate term)...
Losing rights is inevitable; it isn't just the 2A. Classic drunkards walk near a wall; statistically speaking, we can only lose freedom in the long term.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 02-22-2013 at 10:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:43 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highbrass View Post
Gura brings some good cases and some horrible cases. This was a horrible case that shouldn't have been brought and sets the gun legal movement back a few paces.

Thanks to this case, we now have this cite in the permanent legal record:

"With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause."

This is going to hurt us for a long time.
There's no such thing as "permanent legal record". If you've ever read something that says "Plaintiff v. Defendant, overruled on other grounds by the Supreme Court in this", you would know this.

Quote:
We got this very unfavorable ruling in a very pro-gun state. This language is really going to hurt the Illinois efforts, because they don't have to allow concealed carry now, and they really don't want open carry.
The 10th Circuit's geographical jurisdiction is not over Illinois. That is the 7th Circuit. The decision also cited the Kachalsky ruling repeatedly, along with Bach v. Pataki, but did not in any way cite to Moore, which was an excellent decision rendered by two judges who understood their role in the federal judiciary, unlike some others.

Quote:
I wish Gura had decided against bringing this one. In the Kachalsky New York case, I'll agree that he's getting some bad rulings, but he's saying the right things. In this case, I don't think anyone involved said the right things or was on the right side.
Mr. Gura did not bring the case. They were an amicus curiae in the case who were invited to do oral arguments.

I will say that curtisfong generally has it correct: Some lower courts (exception, 7th Circuit, 4th Circuit District Courts) will assign & call out errors of the plaintiffs that don't actually exist but for their supposed lack of understanding the issue, and will ignore the numerous errors of government defendants, in order to reach an opinion they want.

I question whether first challenging the Denver open carry ban in a direct fashion (rather than applying for a county issued state mandated license to carry so I can carry there) would have yielded a different result, or getting tossed for no "standing". Perhaps it would have resulted in a decision like the original Moore district court case in Illinois where they stated that the state could ban all carry if the state just repeats the incantation "public safety" enough times, rather than the Circuit Court doing everything to "avoid" my issue by handing a supposed win for OC. Cloud, meet silver lining. *shrugs*

Quote:
Time to pick ourselves up and move on. I hope they don't try to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It was never intended that the Peterson case be intended as first vanguard carry case to the Supreme Court. Originally it was intended to be Palmer in the DC District Court (that got interminably delayed for 3.5 years), then the April 2009 Nordyke case caused a scramble to get together what was then Sykes v. McGinness. Nordyke got vacated three months later, and then the district court judge held it for McDonald AND Nordyke en banc. McDonald happened, and then Nordyke happened again and 4 days later. During the middle of all that, Sacramento settled and the case became Richards v. Prieto.

Of course, by the time Sacramento settled the case, because of McDonald, opened up carry lawsuits for the entire country rather than just federal districts. As a result, Woollard (a win for us in district court), Bateman (a win in district court and the state didn't appeal), Kachalsky in NY, and then Illinois with Moore.

As I made it clear on other forums and to the Denver Post: The case is destined for either an en banc rehearing request or a cert petition to SCOTUS, behind & likely with a GVR order in light of Kachalsky (which I fully expect to be granted cert).

Quote:
We need to focus on beating bad state laws in NY, CA, IL and the new crazy ones being proposed in MD.
None as which has anything to do with carry whatsoever.

Quote:
SAF is doing a lot of good work, especially in Illinois. I just got an e-mail from them saying that the 7th Circuit won't exempt Illinois from being forced to enact some form of carry within 180 days. I hope this case doesn't pull some of that down.
Illinois is under the 7th Circuit, and my case has zero effect on the 7th Circuit. Illinois does not want open carry in their state at all. They will shall-issue pass concealed carry, and Todd (the NRA lobbyist) likely has enough votes to block a may-issue bill from passing there.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-22-2013 at 11:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 02-23-2013, 1:46 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,782
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm curious how exactly Kachalsky can help this case since the 10th is claiming the OC challenge was tossed? Could request for en banc/rehearing/cert only on the grounds that the court didn't get the details correct be the next step?
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:42 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I'm curious how exactly Kachalsky can help this case since the 10th is claiming the OC challenge was tossed? Could request for en banc/rehearing/cert only on the grounds that the court didn't get the details correct be the next step?
Read the concurring opinion, the one where Lucero goes off on his own saying that even if concealed carry were protected he would still rule against me, the one that the other two judges did NOT join with in the main opinion.

Kachalsky assists because New York prohibited open carry by pistol permit holders in 1963, and the state's entire defense is that it can prohibit individuals from carrying concealable weapons and require may-issue. The state of Colorado is also claiming that their "shall-issue" statute is actually a "may-issue" statute.

In order to hand Mr. Kachalsky and his co-plaintiffs (along with Mr. Gura) the win, Robertson v. Baldwin, the case that the 10th Circuit directly used against me (and ignored the whole "in the clothing or in the pocket directly from Heller), must be confronted. Perhaps the two judges besides Lucero knew of the Kachalsky cert and timed the release of the decision. We'll never know because we can't exactly directly ask them.
Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:50 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,657
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
What disturbs me the most is that the people doing the armchair quarterbacking don't seem to be the ones arguing cases.

Look. All cases have flaws. All lawyers make mistakes. For any given case, there are million things that the peanut gallery can say "omg their dum! i coulda done better!"

And rest assured every single one of those whiners will never help in any substantive fashion, because they will never be in court arguing those cases or anything even remotely like them.

To make matters worse, the mistakes that were made are ONLY damaging in courts where you are arguing for 2A rights. All mistakes made by the other side (which the peanut gallery never seems to point out) are glossed over by the court in their eagerness to get yet another 2A case off of their docket in a way that does not endanger the status quo.

The situation is completely unacceptable, no matter how you look at it.
This sounds like the usual "we're smart - you're all stupid - so shut up."

When its apparent, even to non-lawyer (but pretty damn smart) people that the "strategy" is too cute by half, and when the arguing attorney refuses to address direct inquiries from the Court on matters of law and the desired outcome, you can bet you are going to have your *** handed to you.

I made that bet (hoping I was wrong) after listening to the orals.

I wasn't wrong.

Who's the dummy now?
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 02-23-2013, 9:05 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,832
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
This sounds like the usual "we're smart - you're all stupid - so shut up."
Until smarter people like FGG actually litigate, we'll never know, will we?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 02-23-2013, 9:09 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Until smarter people like FGG actually litigate, we'll never know, will we?
What IS known is that "in this state" so far, we have not had any successful litigation with the current roster of litigators.

Hoping for a Richards win however.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:11 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.