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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 05-10-2018, 8:52 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,641
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I thought they had 90 days from the hearing to issue their decision. Or am I mis-remembering?
I think there's no set time limit but it's generally a few months to a year or more.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 05-11-2018, 5:19 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I thought they had 90 days from the hearing to issue their decision. Or am I mis-remembering?

BTW. meant to ask earlier; was that you in the video for Young at orals?
Yes that was me arguing. I am currently on a diet. I look at my pictures from when I was in the Marines and it makes me sad. The law has expanded the waistline a little.

The Ninth Circuit has no timeline as to when to issue a opinion. The 90 days is for the CA Supreme Court.

Last edited by wolfwood; 05-11-2018 at 7:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 05-12-2018, 3:24 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Now that Flanegan has left the District Court I am curious to see if they stay the case pending Young or the lawyers decide for full briefing.

Young should be decided sometime this year.
They should stay the case, although Flanagan is still trying for a CCW even in light of Peruta, so who knows.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 05-12-2018, 5:04 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 476
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Yes that was me arguing. I am currently on a diet. I look at my pictures from when I was in the Marines and it makes me sad. The law has expanded the waistline a little.

The Ninth Circuit has no timeline as to when to issue a opinion. The 90 days is for the CA Supreme Court.
I can relate, I'm carrying an extra 40 lbs. I thought I might be mis-remembering the time frame for issuing an opinion. Hopefully it's soon rather than later, but knowing the 9th, it'll be later than later.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:48 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 476
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
The Ninth Circuit has no timeline as to when to issue a opinion. The 90 days is for the CA Supreme Court.
It's been 5 months since orals. I'd hope at this point you're considering a request to SCOTUS to issue a mandate for the 9th to release it's opinion. This is a Constitutional Right at issue in more than 1 State, what with Nichols also being stayed pending Young, and a Right delayed is a Right denied. Which is the whole point of both suits.

I don't know as I'd file such a request yet but I'd have it drafted and pending for filing after the summer break.

Might be an interesting idea for Nichols to file it instead of Young. Nichols has been pending longer overall I believe and his case has been stayed twice now. The question in his particular case is at what point does the repetitive delay become an abrogation or denial of his right to justice as well as a continued denial of his Constitutional Rights.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 06-21-2018, 1:36 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
It's been 5 months since orals. I'd hope at this point you're considering a request to SCOTUS to issue a mandate for the 9th to release it's opinion. This is a Constitutional Right at issue in more than 1 State, what with Nichols also being stayed pending Young, and a Right delayed is a Right denied. Which is the whole point of both suits.

I don't know as I'd file such a request yet but I'd have it drafted and pending for filing after the summer break.

Might be an interesting idea for Nichols to file it instead of Young. Nichols has been pending longer overall I believe and his case has been stayed twice now. The question in his particular case is at what point does the repetitive delay become an abrogation or denial of his right to justice as well as a continued denial of his Constitutional Rights.
Nowhere near time for that. Look at how long the Peruta opinions took. The 9th has sat on cases for years in some instances.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 06-21-2018, 3:53 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,966
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Nowhere near time for that. Look at how long the Peruta opinions took. The 9th has sat on cases for years in some instances.
Word.

What was it, Palmer, in Wash DC, that took something like 4 years and 2 requests by Gura to SCOTUS/Roberts to get them to rule?

FWIW, personally I'm expecting it sometime between Aug 01 and Feb 01. If it's sooner than that, great. If it's later than that it will be disappointing, but not surprising (and no where near the time to bug SCOTUS over it).

JMO
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 06-21-2018, 5:54 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
It's been 5 months since orals. I'd hope at this point you're considering a request to SCOTUS to issue a mandate for the 9th to release it's opinion. This is a Constitutional Right at issue in more than 1 State, what with Nichols also being stayed pending Young, and a Right delayed is a Right denied. Which is the whole point of both suits.

I don't know as I'd file such a request yet but I'd have it drafted and pending for filing after the summer break.

Might be an interesting idea for Nichols to file it instead of Young. Nichols has been pending longer overall I believe and his case has been stayed twice now. The question in his particular case is at what point does the repetitive delay become an abrogation or denial of his right to justice as well as a continued denial of his Constitutional Rights.

Young is a pro bono project. As such, I don't have time to take away from my normal practice for added motion practice.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 06-21-2018, 7:46 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,490
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Young is a pro bono project. As such, I don't have time to take away from my normal practice for added motion practice.
Thanks for what you do! 👍
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 06-22-2018, 9:58 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Word.

What was it, Palmer, in Wash DC, that took something like 4 years and 2 requests by Gura to SCOTUS/Roberts to get them to rule?

FWIW, personally I'm expecting it sometime between Aug 01 and Feb 01. If it's sooner than that, great. If it's later than that it will be disappointing, but not surprising (and no where near the time to bug SCOTUS over it).

JMO
Correct, and the motion was denied at that.

So if 4 years isn't too long, 5 months won't be.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 06-23-2018, 2:15 AM
marcusrn's Avatar
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 645
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Go Wolfwood, long live the Republic!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06-23-2018, 8:34 AM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 78 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusrn View Post
Go Wolfwood, long live the Republic!
Likewise! And Wolfwood, a big thank you sir!
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-24-2018, 2:05 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 476
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Correct, and the motion was denied at that.

So if 4 years isn't too long, 5 months won't be.
The problem, as I see it, is that Nichols filed his suit in November 2011. At what point can he legitimately complain that he hasn't had fair treatment or justice? 4 years? Already been there. 6 years? Yep, passed that mark too.

For Nichols, it's been nearly 8 years. And the court is still sitting on it's hands in his case. Now there's Young and it's been 5 months since Nichols had oral arguments and not a peep from the 9th.

Does Nichols have to wait ANOTHER 1-5 years for a decision?
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-24-2018, 2:10 PM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 476
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Correct, and the motion was denied at that.

So if 4 years isn't too long, 5 months won't be.
The problem, as I see it, is that Nichols filed his suit in November 2011. At what point can he legitimately complain that he hasn't had fair treatment or justice? 4 years? Already been there. 6 years? Yep, passed that mark too.

For Nichols, it's been nearly 8 years. And the court is still sitting on it's hands in his case. Now there's Young and it's been 5 months since Nichols had oral arguments and not a peep from the 9th.

Does Nichols have to wait ANOTHER 1-5 years for the courts to finally make a decision? I'd say he has a right to petition for a Writ of Mandate after SCOTUS' summer break.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-25-2018, 12:43 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,966
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
The problem, as I see it, is that Nichols filed his suit in November 2011. At what point can he legitimately complain that he hasn't had fair treatment or justice? 4 years? Already been there. 6 years? Yep, passed that mark too.

For Nichols, it's been nearly 8 years. And the court is still sitting on it's hands in his case. Now there's Young and it's been 5 months since Nichols had oral arguments and not a peep from the 9th.

Does Nichols have to wait ANOTHER 1-5 years for the courts to finally make a decision? I'd say he has a right to petition for a Writ of Mandate after SCOTUS' summer break.
Now you're seeing why it is and was foolish "to put all your [Carry] eggs in [the federal court] basket."

Instead of pursuing political, and then judicial, and then back to political, and then ... we should have been pursuing both at the same time at whatever level we have an opening. The problem is everyone wants "progress" (that directly benefits them) but they don't want to work for it. They want someone else to do it for them. Sorry. Life just doesn't work that way.... And you can't wait until there's an opening to organize a group and start fighting, you've got to "Be Prepared!" ahead of time so that when the opening comes, you're up and ready to exploit it. Which brings up another grip: gunnies aren't willing to work for small gains, let's say taking a county from light red to yellow, because they still won't be able to get a CCW under it. They are too inpatient, too self-centered and short sighted to see that they are now halfway to light green where many of them can get CCWs.

Despite our foolish strategy, we HAVE made SIGNIFICANT gains in CA in re. to CCWing, as seen by these two maps. The first one was and is, IMO, mistaken in having San Mateo and San Joaquin light green: they probably were light red, or yellow at best. (Only Gene H. and Gray or Brandon citing/quoting Gene said SM was light green. No other posters from 2010 to 2014 Feb 13 (CA9 3-judge opinion in Peruta), said they were light green.) If you want to see what it was like in early 2010 and before, make Sac dark red rather than dark green. (Sac was our first major win.)



So, now that you have that image in your mind as to what things were like in 2009 -- the coast from Sonoma and the SFBA to the Mexican border was one unbroken chain of anti counties --and look at the current map to see all the progress we have made. We're getting down to the "last holdout" anti counties in CA.

We are winning in CA! Start or keep fighting. Don't wait for the courts.


__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 07-07-2018 at 7:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-25-2018, 11:21 AM
CJ5&G23's Avatar
CJ5&G23 CJ5&G23 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 30
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
The problem, as I see it, is that Nichols filed his suit in November 2011. At what point can he legitimately complain that he hasn't had fair treatment or justice? 4 years? Already been there. 6 years? Yep, passed that mark too.

For Nichols, it's been nearly 8 years. And the court is still sitting on it's hands in his case. Now there's Young and it's been 5 months since Nichols had oral arguments and not a peep from the 9th.

Does Nichols have to wait ANOTHER 1-5 years for the courts to finally make a decision? I'd say he has a right to petition for a Writ of Mandate after SCOTUS' summer break.
Anything having to do with getting a CCW in no-issue areas of CA will not get fair treatment or justice. It's not just the courts, but starts with the Police:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=-wRgjsSHaGE

Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-25-2018, 4:56 PM
marcusrn's Avatar
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 645
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You have to love these cops talking out their arses. We have all experienced this arrogance. Great job getting it on camera! I wish I had taped some of the treatment I got at SDSO lic div in past. That's what's so great about Big ED Peruta in that he did tape all the staff at SD in 2009 and their heads exploded. He put it on his webpage and shared it with all. No one had ever really called bullshaet as loudly and openly as Peruta.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06-26-2018, 9:17 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,490
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I always wondered why imperial county is no issue... Seem pretty rural to me.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06-26-2018, 9:57 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,641
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
I always wondered why imperial county is no issue... Seem pretty rural to me.
Because demographics matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
Hispanic or Latino of any race were 140,271 persons (80.4%)
I found a census source that put it at 85% Hispanic. It's basically Mexico and Mexico is a collectivist society with no concept of gun rights or other individual rights. It's the same reason why California went from a Republican-leaning state of Reagan to a state that no Republican will ever win again. The last time a Republican won in Imperial County was in 1988. I couldn't find demographic data from back then but I assume that was the last time Imperial had enough white voters

Imperial is the most Hispanic county in California.

Uncontrolled immigration will turn the rest of California into Imperial County and the rest of the US into California.
__________________

Last edited by CCWFacts; 06-26-2018 at 2:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 06-26-2018, 4:23 PM
marcusrn's Avatar
marcusrn marcusrn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 645
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The reason we had CA. CCW law in circa 1920 was in large part to restrict mexican and chinese from carrying firearms. See arguments at that time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 07-06-2018, 1:31 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hey Wolfwood. It's looking like Young v. Hawaii has the right timing to be one of the first petitions to SCOTUS after the new justice is confirmed.

No pressure.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-06-2018, 4:12 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 237
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusrn View Post
The reason we had CA. CCW law in circa 1920 was in large part to restrict mexican and chinese from carrying firearms. See arguments at that time.
Now they include everyone outside of the very wealthy and government apparatchiks.

They had to. Otherwise, the racist and classist reasons for the original laws would have been overturned and then even blacks could carry.

Can't have that. The progressive mentality can't allow it.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-06-2018, 7:00 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 136
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Question: How common is it for en banc panels to overturn a unanimous three judge panel?
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-06-2018, 10:10 PM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 256
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Question: How common is it for en banc panels to overturn a unanimous three judge panel?
Unanimous? I don't know, but they went en banc with Peruta to prevent CA from becoming shall issue. However, their calculus may change with respect to 2A cases after Kennedy is replaced. They may prefer to have a pro-2A ruling stand in CA, rather than overturning it and risk SCOTUS taking up the case.

Last edited by pistol3; 07-06-2018 at 10:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-06-2018, 11:01 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,483
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Question: How common is it for en banc panels to overturn a unanimous three judge panel?
Kuug,

In every other circuit, it's fairly common for an en banc panel to overturn a panel decision. It's not difficult to understand the reasons for this. A majority of the judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals must vote in favor of rehearing the case en banc. That infers that a majority of those judges disagreed with the panel decision. Assuming that no (or not enough) of those judges change their view as a result of the re-hearing, their votes would be expected to remain the same.

The Ninth Circuit is a little different. Because of the large size of the court, they do not hold en banc rehearing in the traditional manner where all judges of the court participate. The Ninth Circuit uses an eleven judge panel to hear en banc cases. If a majority of those eleven were satisfied with the original holding, and remain unpersuaded after the rehearing, then the decision stands, even though a majority voted for the rehearing.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 07-06-2018, 11:12 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 14
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Kuug,

In every other circuit, it's fairly common for an en banc panel to overturn a panel decision. It's not difficult to understand the reasons for this. A majority of the judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals must vote in favor of rehearing the case en banc. That infers that a majority of those judges disagreed with the panel decision. Assuming that no (or not enough) of those judges change their view as a result of the re-hearing, their votes would be expected to remain the same.

The Ninth Circuit is a little different. Because of the large size of the court, they do not hold en banc rehearing in the traditional manner where all judges of the court participate. The Ninth Circuit uses an eleven judge panel to hear en banc cases. If a majority of those eleven were satisfied with the original holding, and remain unpersuaded after the rehearing, then the decision stands, even though a majority voted for the rehearing.
How is the 11-person panel determined?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 07-07-2018, 9:50 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
How is the 11-person panel determined?
Random, except for the chief judge.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 07-09-2018, 11:52 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
Hey Wolfwood. It's looking like Young v. Hawaii has the right timing to be one of the first petitions to SCOTUS after the new justice is confirmed.

No pressure.

I've got a little money saved up if I need to draft a cert petition. My plan is to try and take a couple weeks off work and just work on the petition. I worked on one opposition to cert a few years ago and those things take time.

Hopefully the gun rights orgs will file amicus briefs but I doubt it. I am pretty sure none of them want a lone wolf up there at the Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:27 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,490
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Seems like a lone wolf would resonate better than all the organizations.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:34 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,851
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Now you're seeing why it is and was foolish "to put all your [Carry] eggs in [the federal court] basket."

Instead of pursuing political, and then judicial, and then back to political, and then ... we should have been pursuing both at the same time at whatever level we have an opening. The problem is everyone wants "progress" (that directly benefits them) but they don't want to work for it. They want someone else to do it for them. Sorry. Life just doesn't work that way.... And you can't wait until there's an opening to organize a group and start fighting, you've got to "Be Prepared!" ahead of time so that when the opening comes, you're up and ready to exploit it. Which brings up another grip: gunnies aren't willing to work for small gains, let's say taking a county from light red to yellow, because they still won't be able to get a CCW under it. They are too inpatient, too self-centered and short sighted to see that they are now halfway to light green where many of them can get CCWs.

Despite our foolish strategy, we HAVE made SIGNIFICANT gains in CA in re. to CCWing, as seen by these two maps. The first one was and is, IMO, mistaken in having San Mateo and San Joaquin light green: they probably were light red, or yellow at best. (Only Gene H. and Gray or Brandon citing/quoting Gene said SM was light green. No other posters from 2010 to 2014 Feb 13 (CA9 3-judge opinion in Peruta), said they were light green.) If you want to see what it was like in early 2010 and before, make Sac dark red rather than dark green. (Sac was our first major win.)



So, now that you have that image in your mind as to what things were like in 2009 -- the coast from Sonoma and the SFBA to the Mexican border was one unbroken chain of anti counties --and look at the current map to see all the progress we have made. We're getting down to the "last holdout" anti counties in CA.

We are winning in CA! Start or keep fighting. Don't wait for the courts.


What exactly is being won?

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:42 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is online now
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,680
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
After Peruta, it is too late for that, unless SCOTUS finally accepts a case for review. The Ninth in Peruta says there is NO second amendment right to carry a concealed weapon, and SCOTUS declined review. I am waiting to see if the Ninth will go all out and declare that there is no second amendment right to bear arms outside the home, and that the right enunciated in Heller is a right only in the home. The other likely alternative, in my view, is a declaration that there is a LIMITED right to carry outside the home SUBJECT TO the power of the state to regulate the bearing of arms in the public interest. If SCOTUS were to deny review of such a holding, the Second is effectively dead in the Ninth, 2d, 3d, and 4th Circuits.
Yep. This new case is already DOA no matter WHAT the 3 judge panel says as it WILL go to the en banc and they WILL take one look at it and say NO WAY (just like in Peruta) and SCOTUS has already ignored THAT case and thus will likely IGNORE this one as well.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 07-09-2018, 1:31 PM
dwinters14's Avatar
dwinters14 dwinters14 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 587
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Yep. This new case is already DOA no matter WHAT the 3 judge panel says as it WILL go to the en banc and they WILL take one look at it and say NO WAY (just like in Peruta) and SCOTUS has already ignored THAT case and thus will likely IGNORE this one as well.
Right, but we're going to have a new conservative majority now. So that will most likely change.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 07-09-2018, 1:38 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is online now
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 4,680
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwinters14 View Post
Right, but we're going to have a new conservative majority now. So that will most likely change.
Don't count on it. Even when we had a majority under Scalia, SCOTUS only took one or two firearms cases. Historically, SCOTUS takes 1 or 2 every 50-100 years.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-09-2018, 1:41 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,490
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
What exactly is being won?

=8-|
About 10 years ago most of that map was dark red.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-09-2018, 1:45 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 44
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Now you're seeing why it is and was foolish "to put all your [Carry] eggs in [the federal court] basket."

Instead of pursuing political, and then judicial, and then back to political, and then ... we should have been pursuing both at the same time at whatever level we have an opening. The problem is everyone wants "progress" (that directly benefits them) but they don't want to work for it. They want someone else to do it for them. Sorry. Life just doesn't work that way.... And you can't wait until there's an opening to organize a group and start fighting, you've got to "Be Prepared!" ahead of time so that when the opening comes, you're up and ready to exploit it. Which brings up another grip: gunnies aren't willing to work for small gains, let's say taking a county from light red to yellow, because they still won't be able to get a CCW under it. They are too inpatient, too self-centered and short sighted to see that they are now halfway to light green where many of them can get CCWs.

Despite our foolish strategy, we HAVE made SIGNIFICANT gains in CA in re. to CCWing, as seen by these two maps. The first one was and is, IMO, mistaken in having San Mateo and San Joaquin light green: they probably were light red, or yellow at best. (Only Gene H. and Gray or Brandon citing/quoting Gene said SM was light green. No other posters from 2010 to 2014 Feb 13 (CA9 3-judge opinion in Peruta), said they were light green.) If you want to see what it was like in early 2010 and before, make Sac dark red rather than dark green. (Sac was our first major win.)



So, now that you have that image in your mind as to what things were like in 2009 -- the coast from Sonoma and the SFBA to the Mexican border was one unbroken chain of anti counties --and look at the current map to see all the progress we have made. We're getting down to the "last holdout" anti counties in CA.

We are winning in CA! Start or keep fighting. Don't wait for the courts.



San Mateo should be dark red.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-09-2018, 1:52 PM
dwinters14's Avatar
dwinters14 dwinters14 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 587
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Don't count on it. Even when we had a majority under Scalia, SCOTUS only took one or two firearms cases. Historically, SCOTUS takes 1 or 2 every 50-100 years.
Times were different under Scalia. The dems weren't trying to ban firearms as a whole. I mean I'm being optimistic, but I really can't imagine they're not going to make some vital rulings in the coming years with all the terrible laws that have been passed in liberal states.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 07-09-2018, 2:44 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,851
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
About 10 years ago most of that map was dark red.
You didn't answer the question that was directed at Paladin:

"What exactly is being won?"

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 07-09-2018, 3:31 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwinters14 View Post
Times were different under Scalia. The dems weren't trying to ban firearms as a whole. I mean I'm being optimistic, but I really can't imagine they're not going to make some vital rulings in the coming years with all the terrible laws that have been passed in liberal states.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I am expecting and/or hoping for a narrow ruling on Hawaii's complete ban on handgun carry which won't produce a decision that the liberals will want to take en banc.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 07-09-2018, 4:23 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,851
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I am expecting and/or hoping for a narrow ruling on Hawaii's complete ban on handgun carry which won't produce a decision that the liberals will want to take en banc.
If the 9th follows its own decision in Peruta - which complied with Heller in a cherry picking manner - then a narrow ruling will allow for Hawaii to continue to regulate concealed carry in the manner of a ban or in a may-issue manner.

Is that what you are hoping for?

Or are you hoping for an equal protection angle?

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 07-10-2018, 8:50 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 964
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
If the 9th follows its own decision in Peruta - which complied with Heller in a cherry picking manner - then a narrow ruling will allow for Hawaii to continue to regulate concealed carry in the manner of a ban or in a may-issue manner.

Is that what you are hoping for?

Or are you hoping for an equal protection angle?

=8-|

I am hoping that the law gets struck as my client wants. He is fine carrying either concealed or openly. Peruta did not rule on open carry. So it is possible that the Ninth says Hawaii's ban on open carry is unconstitutional and to leave it at that. What happens later is a matter for the Hawaii legislature and potentially a subsequent lawsuit.
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 7:46 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.