|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#401
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...&postcount=475
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#402
|
|||
|
|||
Looks like Gura filed for enbanc on Woollard instead of cert. Doesn't want all his eggs in one basket, I assume?
Gura files for en banc in Woollard
__________________
Quote:
|
#403
|
||||
|
||||
700-800 permits is your measure of "putting their money where their mouth is?" Talk about a cheap date!
-Brandon Quote:
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#404
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#405
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I like to think that the rate of correct predictions on my part is well above that level. But that could merely be sheer hubris on my part... Quote:
Here's how I see it (and you can feel free to disagree with me): pessimism means that one's view of the world is worse than the world actually is. Optimism means that one's view of the world is better than the world actually is. But for one to be pessimistic or optimistic by those definitions means that one must either incorrectly predict outcomes with a bias towards whatever viewpoint one holds, or one must intentionally ignore facts and events in the real world which go against one's viewpoint. Quote:
Oh, and I completely agree that this is the right case at the right time. No doubt about it. Others actually seem to disagree with that (!!), e.g., Tincon, but I don't believe those people really understand the political situation, which is such that we simply cannot afford to wait.
__________________
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; 04-08-2013 at 7:20 PM.. |
#406
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If SCOTUS doesn't grant cert to Kachalsky, then I cannot fathom them ever taking a carry case with their current composition.
__________________
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. |
#407
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Of course, this means the California state courts are going to claim the same thing with respect to 9th circuit rulings. What remains to be seen is what the executive branches actually do.
__________________
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. |
#408
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Thank you for setting that straight.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association Last edited by sholling; 04-08-2013 at 10:23 PM.. |
#409
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In a county with 72,578 (2011) I'm feeling ok with those numbers. We're shall issue so I'm sure those numbers are growing at a good rate these days. Also my county has more than a few people that would clearly not be eligible for a CCW. Sure it could be better but anyone who wants one and is clean can get one in about 2 months with just self defense as good cause. Better than other places.
__________________
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it you'll never need it again. |
#410
|
||||
|
||||
SCOTUS Cert Petition for Carry filed - Kachalsky
Quote:
At this point in the game I'm glad he had the balls to post a letter stating he doesn't support further 2A restrictions publicly. That more than a few counties can say. When we get to the next point in this battle we'll reassess as needed. I don't think that will be an issue though. He is a good friend to some of my family and thus far been a man of his word. We need to stop saying how LEO will just follow orders. It's no different than when people make generalized statements about "gun guys". I'm going to give them the chance to prove their worth. I'm always ready if things don't go as planned though.
__________________
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it you'll never need it again. Last edited by ASTMedic; 04-08-2013 at 7:58 PM.. |
#411
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
I am not enough of a legal scholar to know if a parallel exists from the CA supreme court. But I agree if such a thing were possible, every court lower than the 9th would claim no jurisdiction (if, hypothetically, the 9th ever ruled in favor of a 2A plaintiff or defendant, which they never will).
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome Last edited by curtisfong; 04-08-2013 at 10:21 PM.. |
#412
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Nick |
#413
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I certainly hope that this is at least his 'fallback' position. Quote:
I think GaryV is saying the same thing with different words. nicki also. Quote:
The Kachalsky panel did indeed use the 'open carry' argument (quoting Heller as they did so). They were correct to do so, in my opinion. While I would be happy with "Shall Issue" being the Right, I wouldn't mind unlicensed LOC as the Right either. Yes, CCW could (and no doubt, would) be regulated, that doesn't mean that CCW would be banned. Again, I think the Ohio experience would repeat itself in NY, with the part in bold as the way it would end up. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#414
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I agree entirely with this. If a pissing contest between the Circuits doesn't get SCOTUS attention, then I can't imagine what would either. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#415
|
||||
|
||||
everytime I read some of these 2nd Amendment related threads/replies, I get more anxious...so many intelligent people (its evident) with so many different theories and figurative outcomes
it's like trying to thread a needle with 20/100 vision...very hard for a common guy like me to know what to expect seems like even with all the right things on our side, so much can go wrong...that's depressing I guess it's like watching all these people getting away with violent crimes, and, back out on the street by Christmas...its almost like you can get away with murder now, someone is gonna buy into that sad sob story
__________________
|
#416
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That is to say, if a plaintiff wins at the circuit court level, the loser at the circuit court would have to appeal to bring it to the SCOTUS.. but why should the loser appeal if the court of appeals says the decision for the winner isn't binding?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#417
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If the circuit court isn't binding, then what's the point of having it? It would be an interesting case for SCOTUS. Are they willing to throw away their inferior court's authority and rule that they are in fact nonbinding? |
#418
|
||||
|
||||
So you're removed the bullet button from your feature-rich AR15 and inserted a 30rd mag because you fee safe that your sheriff won't allow you to be arrested at the range for violating the CA AWB? That's what the next few years in California are going to be all about. The legislature will be working hard to ban all semiautomatic rifles and limiting access to ammo and most LEOs will enforce those laws. But hey feel free to roll the dice and see if you become an instant felon.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#419
|
||||
|
||||
SCOTUS Cert Petition for Carry filed - Kachalsky
Quote:
Some on this forum are making a straw enemy out of LEO. Why? What's the point? The problem is the legislature at this point in time not the LEO in my county and many others. Vilifying my local sheriff isn't going to do me any good, especially since he hasn't done a single thing to go after my guns. He even went so far as to state just the opposite publicly. Why spit in the face of someone who may very well be willing to stand next to me and fight? Just because they won't let me run willy nilly with any gun I want at the range? That's the proof that they are anti 2A? What should they be doing to prove their worth then? So what makes more sense here, cutting off your feet the moment you find out your a diabetic for fear of having to possibly amputate them later in life or waiting and seeing if that time ever comes?? We see all these posts of support on the forum when someone starts a thread about an out of state LEO who stands up for the 2A but when the same is done here its just lip service? Why can those be trusted but not ones in Cali? By your example we clearly can't trust those either since they don't push for any person to be able to buy full auto guns in Walmart. I just don't get it...... *cough**cough* http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...k-new-gun-laws Also I don't have an AR, I have a Mini 14. Never got into the AR.
__________________
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it you'll never need it again. Last edited by ASTMedic; 04-09-2013 at 1:20 PM.. |
#420
|
||||
|
||||
Hey you're the one that started in that LEOs won't be a problem if these laws are passed. Please tell that to the people that have been prosecuted for AWB violations and concealed carry violations. There are three types at fault here 1) the legislature and governor that pass laws that violate the rights of Americans, 2) LEOs looking for an easy felony or gun arrest to puff their performance review and don't give a darn about your rights or mine, 3) judges that let all of the above get away with trampling on the 2nd Amendment. I simply stated a fact and then you painted yourself into a corner because your local sheriff allows you to do what 99% of us can't - but the fact remains that it wouldn't be a bright idea to commit an AWB violation in his presence or the presence of his deputies.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT-- Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association |
#421
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#422
|
||||
|
||||
SCOTUS Cert Petition for Carry filed - Kachalsky
Quote:
Making it sound as if these LEO will just enforce these laws with out question is unfair and, as I linked above, not always the case. Clearly people like this have no intention of seeing it the way I do so its at an impasse. I'll continue to do it my way and they can do it the way they want to. I'll let this thread get back on track now.
__________________
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it you'll never need it again. Last edited by ASTMedic; 04-09-2013 at 2:09 PM.. |
#423
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If the vast majority of LEOs were strongly pro-2A in practice, then the anti-2A laws would rarely have any teeth here in California. What we know (or, at least, have been told fairly consistently) is that the vast majority of LEOs are pro-2A in principle, and that they're pro-2A in practice to the degree they believe they can be without making significant sacrifices. However, we know that they'll enforce the laws even if they don't like them, at least when they believe they have no other reasonable choice, because they did that with open carry. Which is to say, even if the person carrying a firearm was legally doing so, LEOs would still make contact and perform an "e-check" on the person carrying, which is not something they were obligated to do as far as I know (corrections welcome). Most of those were done quite professionally, even when the carrier was rather belligerent, but not all of them. Quote:
With luck, we won't have to find out just how strong the average LEO's 2A convictions really are, because that is something we'll soon discover if the appropriate court cases don't get the appropriate traction.
__________________
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; 04-09-2013 at 4:47 PM.. |
#424
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I agree that's there is a huge difference between words and actions, and yes we've yet to see if the will truly back up those words. It just bugs me to see people cast out and write off LEO and military just because of the job they chose to do. I think it's truly selling those people short of what they are capable of. They may share the same feelings on the situation we do. I see no logical reason to draw lines before there is any reason to. Sure they could also side with the laws passed and then that will change things. We are going into uncharted territory if this all goes south. So really who knows what people are going to do.
__________________
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it you'll never need it again. |
#425
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As I've said elsewhere, it is no accident that tyranny has ruled the vast majority of the planet for the vast majority of recorded history, and it would be recklessness of the highest order to ignore that fact when considering what is likely to happen should the courts allow the government to pull us all into the dark abyss of tyranny. I do not make my predictions of where we are likely to be headed lightly.
__________________
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; 04-09-2013 at 7:28 PM.. |
#426
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Not so far from home as many would like to believe. Japanese American internment Ruby Ridge Idaho Waco Texas Gun confiscation after Katrina
__________________
F@$% Joe Biden Quote:
|
#427
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
One question that I would ask (yet really has no answer) about our potential situations is since most LEO and military have family/close friends that are the very people they would have to turn on. Wouldn't that throw a bit of a wrench in the standard history model? Many of the times in history where these things have happened it was one class/race/etc pitted on another. In this case gun owners are tightly woven into the lives of these people that would be tasked to go after gun owners. Yes the people handing down these laws could/would find it easy but getting the people on the ground to follow through would be harder. However if people were willing to line up thousands and march them to their death the human mind clearly can be convinced of just about anything.
__________________
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it you'll never need it again. |
#428
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The purpose of federal circuit courts, under that argument, is to take appeals from federal district courts and bind decisions against federal districts in the circuit. When the 9th heard the prop 8 case, they asked the Supreme Court of CA to determine whether the proposition proponents had standing to appeal under CA law, so clearly there are some matters of law for which the circuit court is not binding or has no standing to bind a state court. On the other hand, with incorporation of the amendments against the states, does the circuit court have authority to determine whether a state law is federally unconstitutional? For IL to thumb its nose at the 7th means that the precedent must be scant, though the typical presumption is that the circuit court ruling is binding on the state, and the issue at hand here is precisely an issue of federally constitutionality of a state law. Although it may slow down the system, I prefer SCOTUS to be the sole superseding authority of state supreme courts, because that gives the most deference to states' rights. Matters of state law should not be appealable to circuits, in my perfect world. |
#429
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It wasnt class or race it was survival for his brother who saw it as his duty after the training and indoctorination. Its a shame that that generation is rapidly aging out and leaving a huge void in public knowledge of those sorts of experiences being passed on
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc |
#430
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#431
|
|||
|
|||
Then the anti-gun laws most of us hate would not be appealable at all, because you must appeal to a circuit court before getting to SCOTUS. You cannot go directly from state SC to fed SC. Besides, states pass blatantly unconstitutional law far too often for that not to be appealable.
Last edited by randian; 04-09-2013 at 9:39 PM.. |
#433
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#434
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A lot of that statement is me hoping friends and family of mine wouldn't do that but I acknowledge the reality of human nature. As I've stated with the local sheriff I will still stand by those people who state they are for the 2A. I'll just keep a close eye on them.
__________________
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it you'll never need it again. |
#435
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
^^^ x's 2
__________________
Quote:
|
#436
|
||||
|
||||
Fat lot of good bypassing the appeals court is if your win in that court isn't binding due to some circuit court split argument...
What if there are NO other cases being appealed (out of a state SC to SCOTUS) that address the split?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#437
|
||||
|
||||
The Constitution is the supreme law in the land. No court can apply any law in contravention of the Constitution. This means that all courts (State and Federal) have the jurisdiction and obligation to analyze and rule on the constitutionality of any law before the court. The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional law. All other courts are bound by the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court on the meaning of the Constitution.
Just as state courts are routinely asked to interpret Federal law, Federal courts are frequently required to apply state law. When Federal courts apply state law, the federal court has the jurisdiction and obligation to to analyze and rule on the application of any state law before the court. The supreme court of each state is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of that state's laws (including state constitutions). All other courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) are bound by the state supreme court's interpretation of a state law. For the most part, there are three levels to both state and Federal courts: (1) trial courts; (2) appellate courts; and (3) supreme courts. State trial courts are bound by decisions regarding state law made by the state appellate courts above them. Federal trial courts are bound by the decisions relating to Federal law made by Federal appellate courts above them. Federal trial and appellate courts are not bound by decisions of state appellate courts on state issues (such decisions are persuasive and usually followed). Similarly, state trial and appellate courts are not bound by Federal appellate courts on issues of Federal/Constitutional law. The U.S. Supreme Court considers, among other factors, whether there are inconsistent interpretations when deciding to hear a case. This includes whether state and Federal courts have reached inconsistent conclusions. And most important, stop speculating until after Monday April 15.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c |
#438
|
|||
|
|||
Only if you wear a uniform with a police badge and drive a car with flashing lights on the roof and a big insignia on the door!
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out. |
#439
|
||||
|
||||
Get it Got it. A big Thank you
__________________
CPRA org “Silence makes cowards out of the best of men” –Abraham Lincoln 🇺🇸 ⚔️ 🦅 Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we have no way to defend ourselves and our families. |
#440
|
|||
|
|||
Er, ok. Then why aren't pro-gun cases that get slapped down at state SC level (as NY's Court of Appeals loves to do) appealed directly to SCOTUS rather than the relevant federal circuit?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|