![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
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 |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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 8:38 PM.. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
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. |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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. |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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 1:45 AM.. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor. Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor. 2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions. |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
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.
__________________
![]() Donate to Calguns and Support Pro-Gun Lawsuits Second Amendment Foundation Life Member Peruta v. County of San Diego | Rodriguez v. City of San Jose | Peña v. Lindley | Doe v. Harris | Schoepf v. Harris | Sylvester v. Harris | Richards v. Harris Last edited by Window_Seat; 11-14-2013 at 11:25 PM.. |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
![]() |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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 ![]() ![]() |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/114988449/...ity-New-York-2 |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |