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
  #1  
Old 04-23-2011, 3:31 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default (CO/10th Circuit) Peterson v. Martinez Official Appeal Thread

This will be the "official thread" for the appeal of in the district court decision of Peterson v. LaCabe. The case is now Peterson v. Martinez et al, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Case #11-1149.

As RECAP does not work on appellate courts, I will be posting .pdf files in this thread.

As an aside, I wish to give my thanks to those who have supported, both in spirit and financially, to the case, and give the greatest thanks to the CalGuns Foundation for supporting this critical litigation going upwards to the 10th Circuit. When Judge Miller made his decision quicker than expected and we needed to go up to the Tenth Circuit, CGF stepped in order to keep the litigation going up to the appellate level.

UPDATE 12/17/2011: All pertinent Appellate Files are now uploaded to the following location to save you money looking at PACER. Also, for your convenience, the MP3 file of the oral argument is uploaded there for your listening.

Peterson Appeals Folder

Also, I took a few hours tonight to do an unofficial transcription, for the folks here who are more readers than listeners. It is attached to this post as "Peterson v. Martinez Unofficial Transcript" in pdf format...
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 11-1149_Documents.pdf (195.5 KB, 269 views)
File Type: pdf PetersonvMartinezUnOfficialTranscript.pdf (70.0 KB, 94 views)

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 09-09-2012 at 6:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-23-2011, 5:03 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,533
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

I have high hopes, and feel strongly that you will prevail in this case.

I think you said 10 months to a hearing?

Is it possible that you get a MSJ in your favor without the need for a hearing?

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-24-2011, 10:44 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
I have high hopes, and feel strongly that you will prevail in this case.

I think you said 10 months to a hearing?

Is it possible that you get a MSJ in your favor without the need for a hearing?

Erik.
MSJ's are not issued by appellate courts. They are a court of reversal of legal and factual errors, essentially. What would happen is an order of reversal, essentially directing the lower court to issue an MSJ after coming to their legal conclusions of the proceedings.

As for "10 months to a hearing". Try "4 to 6 months" (oral argument will occur either in September 12th week or November 14th week).

Thinking about the scenarios here, the potential of a Williams v. State of Maryland cert grant might hold things up at some point. We will, however, proceed as normal and assume an upward trajectory. I am not actually hopeful for a Tenth Circuit win because not one lower court in the federal system has gotten the carry issue correct. I think really think that either as a first civil SCOTUS case for carry, or the map up for non-residency, both issues will be a "5 of 9" situation.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-18-2011, 10:33 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
MSJ's are not issued by appellate courts. They are a court of reversal of legal and factual errors, essentially. What would happen is an order of reversal, essentially directing the lower court to issue an MSJ after coming to their legal conclusions of the proceedings.

As for "10 months to a hearing". Try "4 to 6 months" (oral argument will occur either in September 12th week or November 14th week).

Thinking about the scenarios here, the potential of a Williams v. State of Maryland cert grant might hold things up at some point. We will, however, proceed as normal and assume an upward trajectory. I am not actually hopeful for a Tenth Circuit win because not one lower court in the federal system has gotten the carry issue correct. I think really think that either as a first civil SCOTUS case for carry, or the map up for non-residency, both issues will be a "5 of 9" situation.
The above underlined is no longer my current belief. Also, now that Williams and Masciandaro have been denied certiorari, there is nothing holding up my case except for the 10th Circuit's rehearing. I also think that because they'll have to specially convene the panel, a decision will actually come quite quickly after rehearing.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-18-2011 at 10:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-24-2011, 8:34 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,533
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

Bump so this doesn't drop off so soon (being honest, since it's Easter Sunday ), but to also advise all;

I've modified my signature to link Peterson to this thread rather than the Archive page, that way a search doesn't need to be done for access, all they have to do is click on Peterson v. Garcia.

And it looks like people can still donate to support your case.

Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 04-24-2011 at 9:50 AM.. Reason: Linky get fixied
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-24-2011, 9:03 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,896
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

donate to support your case

Linky no worky
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-24-2011, 9:50 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,533
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
Fixied!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-24-2011, 9:09 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
✰ Sometimes I Fly Armed
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,135
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Filed Jan 2010??? I had no idea this had been going on for that long! Looking forward to the progress.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-24-2011, 9:38 AM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 4,167
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

good thing they stepped in and appealed quick. That way the right cases make it up the ladder asap instead of crappy cases.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-24-2011, 10:57 AM
AndrewMendez's Avatar
AndrewMendez AndrewMendez is offline
C3 Leader
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 626
Posts: 6,778
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Is a SCOTUS case the ultimate game plan, or does the team just want a win and are ok with it being in a lower court?
__________________
Need A Realtor in SoCal? Shoot me a PM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-24-2011, 3:32 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewMendez View Post
Is a SCOTUS case the ultimate game plan, or does the team just want a win and are ok with it being in a lower court?
The loser of a case at appeal controls whether or not an appeal is filed.

Given that I lost in district court, it was I who could appeal upwards to the Tenth Circuit.

If any of you remember the Parker case in 2007 in the DC Circuit. We won that one. There was a big question of whether or not DC would appeal to the Supreme Court. They attempted to get it up to en banc, but they were smacked down 6-4.

Though the Brady Campaign, Mayor Daley, and numerous others were begging DC not to appeal, Mayor Fenty decided to appeal because politically, a strike down of the handgun ban without taking EVERY available option was not in political cards for Mayor Fenty. Whereas the power brokers of the gun control movement wanted him to not appeal, the local politics did not support the last ditch effort. Fenty appealed, and the rest is history.

It's possible that we could win in the Tenth Circuit, and Colorado/Denver will not appeal to the SCOTUS. If we lose though, a SCOTUS appeal is in the cards, and yes it's being tee'd up for it.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 04-24-2011 at 3:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-24-2011, 3:40 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Refresh my memory, the goal is one of two things: Either Denver must allow OC like the rest of CO, or, non-residents must be allowed to get a CO CCW. The odd CO law not honoring non-resident(3rd party) is not in play, as this would moot the case but provide little in the way of a usable precent. Is this correct?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-24-2011, 3:51 PM
AndrewMendez's Avatar
AndrewMendez AndrewMendez is offline
C3 Leader
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 626
Posts: 6,778
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The loser of a case at appeal controls whether or not an appeal is filed.

Given that I lost in district court, it was I who could appeal upwards to the Tenth Circuit.

If any of you remember the Parker case in 2007 in the DC Circuit. We won that one. There was a big question of whether or not DC would appeal to the Supreme Court. They attempted to get it up to en banc, but they were smacked down 6-4.

Though the Brady Campaign, Mayor Daley, and numerous others were begging DC not to appeal, Mayor Fenty decided to appeal because politically, a strike down of the handgun ban without taking EVERY available option was not in political cards for Mayor Fenty. Whereas the power brokers of the gun control movement wanted him to not appeal, the local politics did not support the last ditch effort. Fenty appealed, and the rest is history.

It's possible that we could win in the Tenth Circuit, and Colorado/Denver will not appeal to the SCOTUS. If we lose though, a SCOTUS appeal is in the cards, and yes it's being tee'd up for it.

Exactly I thought. We shall know...in
__________________
Need A Realtor in SoCal? Shoot me a PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-24-2011, 7:24 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,208
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Some Clarification.

This case is more than just 2nd amendment, it is 9th amendment(right to travel) and equal protection(14th amendment).

Let's step back for a minute and forget the 2nd amendment.

Colorado's law discriminates against people strictly based on their state of residence.

A California resident cannot CCW legally in Colorado because Colorado doesn't recognize California CCW permits and if that Californian had a Utah or FLorida permit, those would be no good either even though Colorado will recognize permits issued by Florida or Utah for their state residents.

Could this case hit the SCOTUS, who knows. If it does, it opens alot of issues.

The 4 justices who can't seem to read the 2nd amendment might do better on the 14th amendment.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-25-2011, 12:46 AM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 4,167
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

@nicki...."A California resident cannot CCW legally in Colorado because Colorado doesn't recognize California CCW permits and if that Californian had a Utah or FLorida permit, those would be no good either even though Colorado will recognize permits issued by Florida or Utah for their state residents."....what the hell! That doesn't make any sense. Oh these damn laws.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-25-2011, 2:13 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawk556 View Post
@nicki...."A California resident cannot CCW legally in Colorado because Colorado doesn't recognize California CCW permits and if that Californian had a Utah or FLorida permit, those would be no good either even though Colorado will recognize permits issued by Florida or Utah for their state residents."....what the hell! That doesn't make any sense. Oh these damn laws.
Gray may have to answer this, because if I recall they didn't pursue that particular angle. I suspect that, yes, it would have forced CO to honor non-resident reciprocal permits, but in the 2A "master plan" by doing this wouldn't move the ball forward(getting all states to go shall-issue and issue to non-residents). It would affect only CO, and be persuasive against SC, due to the fact that SC, like Denver, outlaws OC, and like CO requires a permit for CCW and honors only specific resident permits, and doesn't generally issue to non-residents.
The stupid lawmakers' intent in CO was to simply have CO residents carry only on a CO permit, but sloppily wrote the law so now non-residents are also affected. I heard rumors NM was also thinking about doing this as well. They can't seem to figure out that they can just single out their own residents for this rule and leave non-residents out, just like it is in many other states.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-25-2011, 8:28 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Gray may have to answer this, because if I recall they didn't pursue that particular angle. I suspect that, yes, it would have forced CO to honor non-resident reciprocal permits, but in the 2A "master plan" by doing this wouldn't move the ball forward(getting all states to go shall-issue and issue to non-residents). It would affect only CO, and be persuasive against SC, due to the fact that SC, like Denver, outlaws OC, and like CO requires a permit for CCW and honors only specific resident permits, and doesn't generally issue to non-residents.
South Carolina, Denver (Colorado), New York, and Michigan are the only four jurisdictions with this particular problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
The stupid lawmakers' intent in CO was to simply have CO residents carry only on a CO permit, but sloppily wrote the law so now non-residents are also affected. I heard rumors NM was also thinking about doing this as well. They can't seem to figure out that they can just single out their own residents for this rule and leave non-residents out, just like it is in many other states.
In the early stages of this bill, I actually reached out to Senator Morse (the author of this bill and advised them of the consequences to the residents of the 22 states, and gave suggested language from Washington State and Arizona to fix the evil they were trying to address (which was Colorado residents using out of state licenses to avoid the local process). They made one change (people moving into Colorado have 90 days to change over to a Colorado license), but they completely ignored the rest of my suggestions.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-26-2011, 12:24 AM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
South Carolina, Denver (Colorado), New York, and Michigan are the only four jurisdictions with this particular problem.



In the early stages of this bill, I actually reached out to Senator Morse (the author of this bill and advised them of the consequences to the residents of the 22 states, and gave suggested language from Washington State and Arizona to fix the evil they were trying to address (which was Colorado residents using out of state licenses to avoid the local process). They made one change (people moving into Colorado have 90 days to change over to a Colorado license), but they completely ignored the rest of my suggestions.
i don't see how that would have changed anything for residents that wasn't VERY EASILY remedied.

if you live there, you have some form of ID as proof. IIRC a out of state CCW was enough to prove you had gone through CCW class. So it was just a question of finger print back ground check, fill out application (i dont remember if i brought in pic's or they took them).....

But the process took under a 1/2 at the police station. Actually, I think it took under 15 mins.

I don't see that being any more intrusive then, and less of a hassle then having to change your D/L when you move there.

I understand this fight is all about getting Co/Denver into reciprocity, and I'm all for it.

I just don't see how parker applies. Denver/Co has a very liberal shall issue CCW policy, thereby providing a mechanism for law abiding residents to carry a handgun in public for self defense

Sorry if I'm peeing on your parade, and truly don't mean to. Maybe I'm missing something here with respect to your post, not your case.

I get that your case hinges on equal protection clause now that the 2a is incorporated, you are trying to expand Mcdonald's "keep", to "BEAR".

Last edited by sreiter; 04-26-2011 at 12:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-26-2011, 4:58 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post

I just don't see how parker applies. Denver/Co has a very liberal shall issue CCW policy, thereby providing a mechanism for law abiding residents to carry a handgun in public for self defense
That's nice that Denver is a very liberal shall-issue carry policy. They don't issue to out of state residents (nor does any county in the state). That's the problem.

Residents are not effected by this lawsuit, except violations of their civil rights in the future would now be addressable in federal court rather than just purely state court, especially if we win in the 10th Circuit.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-26-2011, 12:10 AM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Denver had [has?] its own crazy set of laws when i lived there 7 yrs ago. Like if you lived in Denver, you couldn't buy a AW, but the rest of Co you could. IIRC, you need a DENVER CCW to CCW in Denver, and be a resident of Denver to get a Denver CCW or something like that.

The good news though, is if you have a face, you can get a Denver CCW. Clean background check, proof you're a resident, a CCW course. Very minimal.



There was a law suit against denver because people driving through denver would become criminals for some gun related something (i thought it was ccw, maybe a AW), but because it was legal in the rest of CO, it was like "people driving through might miss the city limit.

Anyway, I know Denver, has/had its own unique set of bazaar laws that needed to be dealt with.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-26-2011, 12:44 AM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

question, is the wiki wrong, or I'm i reading the constitution wrong


"GeorgiaCarry.org v. Toomer is a cousin case filed against a county probate judge (who are the issuing authorities for firearms licenses in Georgia). Peterson differentiates from the GeorgiaCarry.org case due to the plaintiff applying for and being denied the license by Denver, and a denial of a license or registration is considered automatically an injury under Article III of the United States Constitution."

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
Section 3 - Treason

is this more applicable/what you mean?

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


Or more to the point, the 14a Equal protection?

Again, apologies if i'm missing something/totally misconstruing everything/don't understand one word i read

Last edited by sreiter; 04-26-2011 at 12:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-02-2011, 8:38 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good points, but I think that Gray and company are working at a pretty strategic level. I'm not sure exactly how this ties into everything else that is going on, but Peterson v Garcia seems likely to be of significance at the national level in ways that may not be immediately apparent.

I don't even bother to track exactly how or why. Gray and company are very sharp operators and I'm happy to leave the lead to them on these things. My expertise is elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-02-2011, 6:48 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

i know i'm still focused on right to travel, even though you keep saying the AG changed the scope to 2a....but i can't think of a valid 2a argument, other then the "bear" section. And, maybe i'm not smart enough to see this as the "perfect" case to challenge bear at the SCOTUS level, again, IANAL, but from the few scotus case's i've read, etc. I don't know if this case rises to the level of being granted cert.



again, maybe i'm just not smart enough to be catching on.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-02-2011, 9:25 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,897
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
i know i'm still focused on right to travel, even though you keep saying the AG changed the scope to 2a....but i can't think of a valid 2a argument, other then the "bear" section. And, maybe i'm not smart enough to see this as the "perfect" case to challenge bear at the SCOTUS level, again, IANAL, but from the few scotus case's i've read, etc. I don't know if this case rises to the level of being granted cert.



again, maybe i'm just not smart enough to be catching on.
As far as the SCOTUS level? I like to think about it this way: Ignore preconceptions about right to travel, ignore state sovereignty, think strictly about 2A. SCOTUS would be deciding whether 2A grants a right to carry. Does it? If it does, will SCOTUS say that the right only applies when one is in their home state?

I say yes it does grant the right to carry. Assuming that it does, SCOTUS simply cant say that one only has that right in their state of residence. Depending on wording states would likely still be able to require licenses, and still decide what licenses to recognize. However they would have to allow some way to exercise the right, whether through reciprocity or through non-resident permits.

Admittedly this is a very brief, simple, and inexperienced analysis. The important thing to take away is that its less about right to travel than it is about 2A. Why is it the best? I can't say with any degree of certainty that it's the best, but its good, and Gray is a solid plaintiff. I don't have a deep enough understanding of all the cases working their way up to formulate an opinion as to which is best.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon

Last edited by Connor P Price; 05-02-2011 at 9:58 PM.. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-03-2011, 12:14 AM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter
I'm looking at this from a article iv perspective. States are [supposed to be] sovereign. article iv goes on to say one state has to treat citizens of another state the same (expanded by the 14th).

True, therefore CO has to treat residents of other states the same as it treats its own. Since CO is shall issue for residents, wouldn't one reasonably believe that this means they must be shall issue for non residents as well?

Thats only half right. I do understand that the law was written to stop prejudice of a states citizens over that of another, especially in business. But, the other side is if you had a right in your state, you should be afforded the same rights in other states. There were several slavery cases that came up because in the SCOTUS because slave holders would travel to free states, and bring their slaves. The slaves brought suit that claimed, now thay i'm in a free state, i should be freed. they lost.

This is at the core of the argument, IMO (IANAL), because the SCOTUS has not given us BEAR, only KEEP.

True, they'll need to be the ones to give us BEAR if it is to be binding for the entire nation. Its possible that this case could be the one to do that.

which is what i'm wondering about. I think on its merits at the state/district level, it won't stand, but if the end game is SCOTUS, then who knows

So it comes down to equal protection. How can you argue equal protection when not all states are equal in this regard.

Since the suit is in Denver CO specifically, that is the only place that matters if one tries to make an equal protection claim. Denver is shall issue for its residents, it would be violating equal protection by not issuing to non residents. Other states not being equal holds no bearing on the argument as it applies to Denver's conduct. However this case is less about equal protection than it is about 2A

Fair enough. I would think it EP would only matter to residents.ie not being able to get a CCW in denver if you have blond hair. Why can't you get a non-resident D/L ? And before you say a CCW is a right,I would disagree with you. It's a policy. I didnt believe Denver shall issue is in the states constitution.


Since there is no national reciprocity, and since all rights not reserved by the fed become reserved by the states, the states can enter into agreements with other states about reciprocity. They can choose who the want to deal with and who they don't.

Very true. They can decide what states they would like to recognize. That doesn't mean they can deny people their fundamental right to armed self defense by virtue of the state they live in. For example, they can decide they don't to recognize CA permits, but that doesn't mean they can deny my rights there. They just have to recognize them another way (most likely by issuing me a non-res permit.)

exactly when was it established the people had the right to bear arms in public as being a fundamental right? As 2a advocates, evangelistic, etc., we like to believe that, thats what the framers had in mind, and thats what i believe they had in mind. However, this fight has been going on a long time, and sine the scotus hasnt ruled bear is ok, as in not one of the things that can be totally regulated against (such as sensitive places), I'm not going to go as far as to proclaim it a fundamental right in the eyes of the law. If it was well established, Gray wouldnt be in this fight


Grey is using his non-res Fl permit, here, not his Wa permit, because no reciprocity between Wa and Co - which is still a argument. "Sorry, we don't have any agreements with Wa"

I believe this to be factually incorrect. Gray is asking for a non-resident CO permit.

I was going off of Nicki's post. I thought he(apologies if you prefer to be called she) was speaking of Grays case specifically


Now, if the strategy is too lose at every turn, and hope for cert., then i can see the rational. I just don't see any valid recourse/remedy for forcing a state to recognize a CCW from a state it doesnt want to.

Cases are often designed for higher courts, they have to go through the lower ones before they get there. Your right that one probably cant force a state to recognize a permit from another (judicially, legislatively would be another story) but its quite likely that one could force a state to issue non-resident permits.

How would that work? Ca. to issue non-res permits, so Out of stater's could carry, while us residents can't?

my thoughts in green

Last edited by sreiter; 05-03-2011 at 12:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-03-2011, 12:48 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Since there is no national reciprocity, and since all rights not reserved by the fed become reserved by the states, the states can enter into agreements with other states about reciprocity. They can choose who the want to deal with and who they don't.

This is one thing I think the Feds may have legitimate involvement with. States aren't supposed to make special deals with only certain states, even though in the case of reciprocity most of it is because the anti-gun states don't want any reciprocity,period.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-03-2011, 2:05 AM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Since there is no national reciprocity, and since all rights not reserved by the fed become reserved by the states, the states can enter into agreements with other states about reciprocity. They can choose who the want to deal with and who they don't.

This is one thing I think the Feds may have legitimate involvement with. States aren't supposed to make special deals with only certain states, even though in the case of reciprocity most of it is because the anti-gun states don't want any reciprocity,period.
don't states make special deals with other states?

NY/NJ have the port authority, a joint venture. Didn't we enter into a special deal with Nevada about water rights, etc.?

It does however open up the interpretation of the commerce clause, which has been used to support the registration requirement under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

so if the fed can regulate that.....

although the court ruled in United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr that the clause didnt include the power to regulate the gun free school zone, which it had tried to do.

Last edited by sreiter; 05-03-2011 at 2:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-03-2011, 12:56 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,383
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

When the courts completely skip out on their responsibility to strike down intentionally unconstitutional laws, the probability is that things will get much worse on the legislative+judicial rubber stamping front before they get better (what we hope will be favorable SCOTUS rulings before any of the Heller 5 retire or die).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-03-2011, 1:48 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,897
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
my thoughts in green
You are operating under numerous false assumptions, equal protection is not only for residents, its for everyone. CCW in colorado is a right not a policy, they have a very robust 2A equivalent and laws protecting the right to carry. So if the case is decided there it must be treated as such.

Drawing analogies to drivers license as you have is also not proper. First because driving has nothing to do with a fundamental right and second because there is already national reciprocity there. There would never be a need for a non resident dl because all state dls work everywhere.

Lastly, you seem to mistake the distinction between this case being decided in the 10th or the possibility of SCOTUS. As far as you question regarding california having to issue non resident permits you fail to acknowledge that california its only effected if the decision is made by the supremes. That means that if they declare carry to be protected under the second california would have to issue to residents. Not just non residents.

Its unlikely that the supremes would draw out a particular system for carry, that would likely be left up to the states. What with their sovereignty and all. States could probably decide between concealed, open, or both, but no carry would be unacceptable if the right is protected. Its also likely that states could decide who to grant reciprocity to. However if the right its affirmed, they can't deny it based on lack of residence, states would have to recognize other permits or grant their own non resident permits. National reciprocity will be found through the legislature.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-03-2011, 3:46 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

CCW in colorado is a right not a policy, they have a very robust 2A equivalent and laws protecting the right to carry. So if the case is decided there it must be treated as such.[/quote]

if it were as robust as you claim, Denver wouldn't be able to do what it does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post
Drawing analogies to drivers license as you have is also not proper. First because driving has nothing to do with a fundamental right and second because there is already national reciprocity there. There would never be a need for a non resident dl because all state dls work everywhere.
While thats true, every state requires you change D/L and reg within 30 days of moving there. Why not allow you to keep your old tags with a non-res permit, keep your Ca D/L as a non-res D/L?

D/L's are valid for travel, however, you are expected to follow local laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post

Lastly, you seem to mistake the distinction between this case being decided in the 10th or the possibility of SCOTUS. As far as you question regarding california having to issue non resident permits you fail to acknowledge that california its only effected if the decision is made by the supremes. That means that if they declare carry to be protected under the second california would have to issue to residents. Not just non residents.

Its unlikely that the supremes would draw out a particular system for carry, that would likely be left up to the states. What with their sovereignty and all. States could probably decide between concealed, open, or both, but no carry would be unacceptable if the right is protected. Its also likely that states could decide who to grant reciprocity to. However if the right its affirmed, they can't deny it based on lack of residence, states would have to recognize other permits or grant their own non resident permits. National reciprocity will be found through the legislature.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
I don't buy that premise at all. You are expanding the scope of this case, and the SCOTUS never does that. They focus as narrow as they can.

This case is about non-resident CCW ONLY. Thats what will be decide. How you think SHALL ISSUE to residents will be thrown in is beyond me.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-03-2011, 4:32 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post

This case is about non-resident CCW ONLY. Thats what will be decide. How you think SHALL ISSUE to residents will be thrown in is beyond me.
Because the Colorado Attorney General claimed that under the 2nd Amendment, the 2A doesn't apply outside of the home. When the AG did they, they called into question the basic question of "bear".

Check your PM's.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-03-2011, 6:10 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,897
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Because the Colorado Attorney General claimed that under the 2nd Amendment, the 2A doesn't apply outside of the home. When the AG did they, they called into question the basic question of "bear".
This seems to be the game changer that makes your case a great one to bring before SCOTUS. Would you tend to agree or am I off base here?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-03-2011, 6:22 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post
This seems to be the game changer that makes your case a great one to bring before SCOTUS. Would you tend to agree or am I off base here?
if my most recent sophomoric analysis is correct, then i believe it is a game changer, and possible juggernaut ! i know, i know "possible juggernaut" is almost a oxymoron!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-03-2011, 6:12 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Because the Colorado Attorney General claimed that under the 2nd Amendment, the 2A doesn't apply outside of the home. When the AG did they, they called into question the basic question of "bear".

Check your PM's.
interesting...i didn't see that before....

My non-lawyerly mind is spinning.

On one hand, I can see that expanding the issue, on the other hand, the suit is still a challenge to their "non-residential" [non] issuance.

That Is the question that ultimately would be put before the court. "Does Denver have to issue non-resident ccw permits". as opposed to the question "does the 2a apply outside the home, and therefore must everyone be afforded a means to carry outside the home" That is what you're suing for, isn't it?

So while their AG is offering (what i assume is) various arguments why they don't have to issue because the 2a doesn't exist outside the home, and while I'm sure you will have excellent retorts that will be 100% correct from a con law stand point. I mean wtf was he thinking saying the 2a only exists in the home, with 100,000s if not more gun owners in Co.

I don't think the court will give a blanket ruling "the 2a exists outside so everyone must be issued some form of carry throughout the land."

Depending if, where, and how the judges address that argument, as opposed to simple equal protection arguments, in their opinion, this could open the door for future cases where the question put before the court would be "do we the people have the right to carry outside the home (limited by reasonable regulation) "

Again, they may or may not address the argument. They may aaddress it through dicta.

But at least now i can see what the end game is

thanks grey....lol - I actually asked as one of the first questions what was i missing about this case.....had you answered with your last post....it would have saved a whole lot a time....lolol


thanks....and i actually have nothing further to say....

like i said, maybe i wasnt smart enough to catch on. at least it was because i didnt have enough info....or i'm still not catching on, but i'm think i am, so i'm good with it...lolololol
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-06-2011, 11:05 AM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 3,486
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
interesting...i didn't see that before....

My non-lawyerly mind is spinning.

...snip......
So while their AG is offering (what i assume is) various arguments why they don't have to issue because the 2a doesn't exist outside the home, and while I'm sure you will have excellent retorts that will be 100% correct from a con law stand point. I mean wtf was he thinking saying the 2a only exists in the home, with 100,000s if not more gun owners in Co.
..snip..

But at least now i can see what the end game is

thanks grey....lol - I actually asked as one of the first questions what was i missing about this case.....had you answered with your last post....it would have saved a whole lot a time....lolol


thanks....and i actually have nothing further to say....

like i said, maybe i wasnt smart enough to catch on. at least it was because i didnt have enough info....or i'm still not catching on, but i'm think i am, so i'm good with it...lolololol
WTF he was thinking was Heller was a 'keep and bear' in the home, that was the question SCOTUS was asked. Co's AG was playing the cards he had.
__________________

DILLIGAF
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
"Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
"The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-03-2011, 5:52 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

GRAY - pm sent back
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-03-2011, 6:01 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,897
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Sreiter, you have good points, I'm not disputing that. There are two sides to all of these things, that's why there has to be litigation.

As far as your comment about if they have such a robust right to bear then why can Denver do what it does? I would contend that they can't, and they will lose this case. Unfortunately that's the way our system works, the government gets to pass bogus laws that are in direct contradiction to superior laws. We don't find out that they "can't" legally do that until it gets litigated.

So how can Denver do what they're doing if they can't "legally" do it. The same way DC and Chicago had handgun bans until Heller and Mcdonald told them its not allowed. They just haven't been told they can't do that yet.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-03-2011, 6:18 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,664
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post
Sreiter, you have good points, I'm not disputing that. There are two sides to all of these things, that's why there has to be litigation.

As far as your comment about if they have such a robust right to bear then why can Denver do what it does? I would contend that they can't, and they will lose this case. Unfortunately that's the way our system works, the government gets to pass bogus laws that are in direct contradiction to superior laws. We don't find out that they "can't" legally do that until it gets litigated.

So how can Denver do what they're doing if they can't "legally" do it. The same way DC and Chicago had handgun bans until Heller and Mcdonald told them its not allowed. They just haven't been told they can't do that yet.
I lived in Denver for 2 years and was very involved with the gun world there. i was taking private lessons from 2 gun site range masters, one is world famous, the other is pretty famous in 3 gun, and was a lt on Denver's PD.

One of my best friends owned(no longer a brick and mortar store), the largest gun store in Co. for 20 years - Dave's guns

There were many challenges to denvers laws, and to my knowledge, denver woon them all. i dont know the outcome of the assualt weapon ban denver had still in pace when the rest of Co expired with the national ban. i know there was a suit, just moved before the outcome, so it didnt matter to me.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-03-2011, 6:26 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,897
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
I lived in Denver for 2 years and was very involved with the gun world there. i was taking private lessons from 2 gun site range masters, one is world famous, the other is pretty famous in 3 gun, and was a lt on Denver's PD.

One of my best friends owned(no longer a brick and mortar store), the largest gun store in Co. for 20 years - Dave's guns

There were many challenges to denvers laws, and to my knowledge, denver woon them all. i dont know the outcome of the assualt weapon ban denver had still in pace when the rest of Co expired with the national ban. i know there was a suit, just moved before the outcome, so it didnt matter to me.
Lucky you, I wish I could live there. Someday maybe. I believe there AWB was upheld, I know they also ban open carry (ccw still being shall issue), and I think they have some ammo restrictions within the city limits. So Denver is certainly more strict than the surrounding areas.

I still feel that because this case cuts to the very core of the right to bear arms for self defense that it will have to be looked at with greater scrutiny than the other laws.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-03-2011, 6:17 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,897
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

It probably doesn't help that I muddy up the water with my sophomoric views on things. lol. Gray's case is incredibly interesting though, so i can't help but be intrigued by the discussion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
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 3:27 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy