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
  #41  
Old 11-28-2012, 7:33 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The only way a judge loses his job is by resignation or impeachment. What can happen is that the Chief Judge may assign himself to the panel and replace the writer of the panel who's refusing to write the opinion. There's numerous internal circuit operating procedures that have been done for exactly this situation. Certain district courts, including the Central District of California, have strict time limitations to make rulings.
And if the Chief Judge happens to be against our position and thus implicitly approves of the delaying tactics, or at the very least doesn't care about such tactics enough to take action?

Again, how exactly does this make these courts any different from the one hearing Palmer? Note that in Palmer, the judge hearing the case has already been replaced once, and yet it continues to experience interminable delays. This, despite the fact that it's Justice Roberts (on the Supreme Court itself, and one of the Heller 5) that's overseeing the process.
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-28-2012 at 7:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-28-2012, 9:34 PM
1JimMarch 1JimMarch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We're missing something major here.

This panel cannot approve California's shall-issue system without also addressing cases where carry is completely banned - because Hawaii is in the mix and as a practical matter they're in exactly the same situation as Illinois.

What I mean is, the Kachalsky panel had the option of saying that may-issue satisfied a basic "carry right". It's horsecrap of course but they went there.

This panel can't go there in lockstep with Kachalsky.

They not only have Hawaii to contend with, there's also a few California counties that are zero-issue by local policy too.

Where Hawaii is concerned, they only have two choices: support some kind of "carry right" OR try and write "bear arms" completely out of the 2nd.

I think this will influence the California-related decision.

If the California state defendant wins (based on Kachalsky-type "logic") but Hawaii loses ("hey, there has to be SOME carry right!") then it would have an immediate effect on myself (living in AZ full-time since 2008) and Gray (based in WA state since forever). We have no carry rights in California whatsoever - we're barred from CCW access. If this panel were to support SOME kind of carry right for Hawaii Gray and I would immediately win - the total ban on our carry in Cali would become unsupportable.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-28-2012, 10:36 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Jim,

Hawaii is a may-issue statute. Practical & actual are two completely different things.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-28-2012, 11:27 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1JimMarch View Post
We're missing something major here.

This panel cannot approve California's shall-issue system without also addressing cases where carry is completely banned - because Hawaii is in the mix and as a practical matter they're in exactly the same situation as Illinois.

What I mean is, the Kachalsky panel had the option of saying that may-issue satisfied a basic "carry right". It's horsecrap of course but they went there.

This panel can't go there in lockstep with Kachalsky.

They not only have Hawaii to contend with, there's also a few California counties that are zero-issue by local policy too.

Where Hawaii is concerned, they only have two choices: support some kind of "carry right" OR try and write "bear arms" completely out of the 2nd.
Even though Gray is right and these states are essentially the same in law, you should nevertheless not underestimate the 9th Circuit's ability to craft language which claims to support some kind of carry "right" while in actuality writing "bear arms" entirely out of the 2nd Amendment (at least in the public context).
__________________
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. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-29-2012, 12:15 AM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 946
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Jim,

Hawaii is a may-issue statute. Practical & actual are two completely different things.
Yeah but we have admissions that no permits have ever been issued. We also differ in that there is not a disagreement on the policy, but the fact that no policy exists.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-29-2012, 12:43 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
Yeah but we have admissions that no permits have ever been issued. We also differ in that there is not a disagreement on the policy, but the fact that no policy exists.
It doesn't matter. There will be no split between Baker and Richards because the statute clearly gives the chief the authority to issue the licenses. That makes it not similar to DC & IL, and this panel, given it's makeup, will see that it's a California-style may-issue statute.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 11-29-2012 at 12:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-29-2012, 12:56 AM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 946
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
It doesn't matter. There will be no split between Baker and Richards because the statute clearly gives the chief the authority to issue the licenses. That makes it not similar to DC & IL, and this panel, given it's makeup, will see that it's a California-style may-issue statute.
I'm referring to the differences in the NY case. Apparently, since they had a 'policy', they didn't buy the prior restraint argument. I also don't disagree that we will all rise or sink together. One screw - one crew as we would say on a submarine.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-29-2012, 10:08 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: 3,540
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Exclamation 28(j) Letters and an order from The Court!

On Monday, Alan Gura filed a 28(j) Letter discussing the decision in Hightower and how that court “[did] not reach the issue of the scope of the Second Amendment as to carrying firearms outside the vicinity of the home without any reference to protection of the home.” (Citing Slip Op. at 22 n.8.1) (Gura, 2012).

Yesterday, the Counsel in Peruta submitted a 28(j) Letter discussing Kachalsky, (2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24363 (2nd Cir. 11/27/12) affirmed).

Today, the Court issued an order advising the parties that they should be prepared to explain the significance of the State of CA not showing up at the appeal. 28 USC § 2403 and Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1 tells me (and please correct me otherwise) that this is the Court's way of pinging the AGs office in the event of an en banc order, is it not?

Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 11-14-2013 at 10:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-29-2012, 10:35 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Dupe

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 11-29-2012 at 11:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-29-2012, 10:37 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If you look at the Baker docket, you'll see this being discussed:

http://1.USA.gov/QPPgmz
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-29-2012, 1:37 PM
NoJoke's Avatar
NoJoke NoJoke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
On Monday, Alan Gura filed a 28(j) Letter discussing the decision in Hightower and how that court “[did] not reach the issue of the scope of the Second Amendment as to carrying firearms outside the vicinity of the home without any reference to protection of the home.” (Citing Slip Op. at 22 n.8.1) (Gura, 2012).

Yesterday, the Counsel in Peruta submitted a 28(j) Letter discussing Kachalsky, (2012 U.S. App. Lexis 24363 (2nd Cir. 11/27/12) affirmed).

Today, the Court issued an order advising the parties that they should be prepared to explain the significance of the State of CA not showing up at the appeal. 28 USC § 2403 and Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 5.1 tells me (and please correct me otherwise) that this is the Court's way of pinging the AGs office in the event of an en banc order, is it not?

Erik.
Like:
One does not need to be an expert in American history
to understand the fault inherent in a gun-permitting system that would allow
a licensing body carte blanche authority to decide who is worthy of carrying
a concealed weapon. The constitutional right to bear arms would be
illusory...
__________________

NO ISSUE / MAY ISSUE / SHALL ISSUE - LTC progress over time since 1986

Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-30-2012, 9:44 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
I'm referring to the differences in the NY case. Apparently, since they had a 'policy', they didn't buy the prior restraint argument. I also don't disagree that we will all rise or sink together. One screw - one crew as we would say on a submarine.
this is what Funtimes is referring to. I could not join in due to ethical reasons before.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114988449/...ity-New-York-2
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 5:22 PM.




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.