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
  #361  
Old 04-05-2013, 1:54 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think everyone is overstating the issue of the state appellate court in Illinois saying that the Moore decision is not bound to them.

They are the judiciary of the state. They are not the executive enforcers (Law Enforcement Officers, agencies, AG and state prosecutors). The injunction will be against the enforcers. If the enforcers can't enforce, then the state judiciary cannot judge something that is not in front of them.

Doing a helps no one.
Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 04-05-2013, 2:58 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,866
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I think everyone is overstating the issue of the state appellate court in Illinois saying that the Moore decision is not bound to them.

They are the judiciary of the state. They are not the executive enforcers (Law Enforcement Officers, agencies, AG and state prosecutors). The injunction will be against the enforcers. If the enforcers can't enforce, then the state judiciary cannot judge something that is not in front of them.
I'm willing to bet that every court in IL short of (in spite of?) the 7th will do whatever they can to insure that the enforcers can enforce just fine. The enforcers will not be brought in front of the 7th if they enforce. No way, no how. The appellate court has already made it very apparent that they will not play ball. They are hell bent on preventing Moore from winning, and they're hell bent on preventing Moore from getting to SCOTUS. And until SCOTUS intervenes by some other means, the 7th is powerless to do anything about it.
__________________
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." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 04-05-2013, 3:25 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,554
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment as far as Sotomayor goes.

Still, our judicial system operates pretty well once the legal questions are settled and everybody gets on the same page. The lower courts' reluctance to rule in our favor is much more a reflection of the incomplete 2A framework than their desire to rewrite the law from the bottom up. After all, these are low level bureaucrats and innovation is to them a foreign concept.

In the early Perry Mason novels, Mason had a law clerk named Jackson, who was such a complete slave to precedent that it was no surprise he married a divorced woman. Judges could be just as 'enslaved,' I guess.

And there is a very big "incomplete" here; the lack of an explicit statement from SCOTUS regarding scrutiny. They ducked in Heller. Maybe Our Hero will get them to "say so more plainly" when he gets to argue Kachalsky.

If so, I tend to agree with you. I'm sure there were LOTS of judges who were less than happy with the Civil Rights laws. Yet, when the dust settled, the courts were pretty consistent in slapping down those who dared to discriminate.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 04-05-2013, 5:49 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
No. That happened with the support of the executive branch. We will not have that support.

Every single support action that we get will have to be initiated by the courts, of which only a few will side with us to the degree necessary that they will be willing to initiate enforcement actions. The courts simply cannot react quickly enough to be effective against a determined executive branch unless they act more or less in unison, which will most emphatically not be the case for us.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 04-05-2013, 8:08 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,142
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I think everyone is overstating the issue of the state appellate court in Illinois saying that the Moore decision is not bound to them.

They are the judiciary of the state. They are not the executive enforcers (Law Enforcement Officers, agencies, AG and state prosecutors). The injunction will be against the enforcers. If the enforcers can't enforce, then the state judiciary cannot judge something that is not in front of them.

Doing a helps no one.
Understood but looking at the reality of the environment in Chicago it's probably going to get a bit more complicated than that. IANAL so please educate me. For argument's sake let's say that after the 7th's order takes effect that Mr. Joseph Blow ( a resident of Chicago) get's arrested would he apply to the 7th Circuit for a writ or would he apply at the same district court that's been dragging its feet forever on the shooting range suit?
__________________
"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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 04-05-2013, 8:41 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
I don't have to since you provide more than your fair share of skepticism...
LOL!
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 04-05-2013, 8:59 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I'm willing to bet that every court in IL short of (in spite of?) the 7th will do whatever they can to insure that the enforcers can enforce just fine. The enforcers will not be brought in front of the 7th if they enforce. No way, no how. The appellate court has already made it very apparent that they will not play ball. They are hell bent on preventing Moore from winning, and they're hell bent on preventing Moore from getting to SCOTUS. And until SCOTUS intervenes by some other means, the 7th is powerless to do anything about it.
Um, excuse me, but it wouldn't be the 7th circuit they would be brought in front of, it would be the district courts in the central & southern districts that would issue the injunctions.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 04-05-2013 at 9:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 04-05-2013, 9:19 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Understood but looking at the reality of the environment in Chicago it's probably going to get a bit more complicated than that. IANAL so please educate me. For argument's sake let's say that after the 7th's order takes effect that Mr. Joseph Blow ( a resident of Chicago) get's arrested would he apply to the 7th Circuit for a writ or would he apply at the same district court that's been dragging its feet forever on the shooting range suit?
He would have the choice to either go to the District Court of his location, or go to the district courts that ordered the injunctions in the first place. He wouldn't go to the 7th Circuits. Habeas writs are essentially on a emergency rocket docket, to be issued by what's called the "Duty Judge", which circulates on a weekly basis.
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 04-05-2013, 10:44 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,142
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
He would have the choice to either go to the District Court of his location, or go to the district courts that ordered the injunctions in the first place. He wouldn't go to the 7th Circuits. Habeas writs are essentially on a emergency rocket docket, to be issued by what's called the "Duty Judge", which circulates on a weekly basis.
Thank you that gives me hope for the people of Chicago.
__________________
"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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 04-06-2013, 12:14 PM
MindBuilder MindBuilder is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 361
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If Illinois defies the federal court then the US Supreme Court will soon get involved. If the SCOTUS upholds the right to carry then Illinois will likely fall in line. If they do not fall in line then the SCOTUS can order the federal marshals to make arrests. If the marshals will not, then the SCOTUS can threaten to authorize the militia to make arrests. At that point Obama would either have to enforce the SCOTUS orders or find out how much support he can get from the US Military for violating the Second Amendment. With Congress and the SCOTUS against him, I think it very unlikely he would try that.
Reply With Quote
  #371  
Old 04-06-2013, 7:49 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Quote:
Worst case scenario? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
No. That happened with the support of the executive branch. We will not have that support.
Which is why I wrote:

Quote:
Worst case scenario? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

I agree, unlikely (please note that this is an understatement).
Emphasis added.
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 04-06-2013, 8:03 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
Which is why I wrote:
Ah, I figured you said that because you thought things were likely to be better than that, not worse.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 04-06-2013, 8:39 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,212
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Please don't post 2 weeks.

Ill. Gov. Quinn wants Ill. AG Madigan to appeal the "Moore case" to the US Supreme court, but so far nothing has happened.

Of course the SCOTUS can adjust their rules, that being said, how long could they stall out before deciding on if they will hear the Kachalsky case?

Could/would they not make a decision and leave us hanging till fall?

Not a lawyer, but in order to appeal, don't you have to show that there is something wrong with the "ruling" you are appealing.

If the US Supreme court refuses cert on the "Moore case" and grants "cert" on the Kachalsky case, could that speed things up here in California?

The 9th did uphold our CCW laws in both the Peruta and Richards cases because since we could openly bear arms, we had a means to bear arms.

Even in the orals last December, the other side was arguing that we could bear arms in public in most of California.

Our opponents tried to snow the court about "urban areas" and didn't address the issue about "locked and unloaded" guns being non-functional.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 04-06-2013, 9:20 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
Ill. Gov. Quinn wants Ill. AG Madigan to appeal the "Moore case" to the US Supreme court, but so far nothing has happened.

Of course the SCOTUS can adjust their rules, that being said, how long could they stall out before deciding on if they will hear the Kachalsky case?

Could/would they not make a decision and leave us hanging till fall?

Not a lawyer, but in order to appeal, don't you have to show that there is something wrong with the "ruling" you are appealing.

If the US Supreme court refuses cert on the "Moore case" and grants "cert" on the Kachalsky case, could that speed things up here in California?

The 9th did uphold our CCW laws in both the Peruta and Richards cases because since we could openly bear arms, we had a means to bear arms.

Even in the orals last December, the other side was arguing that we could bear arms in public in most of California.

Our opponents tried to snow the court about "urban areas" and didn't address the issue about "locked and unloaded" guns being non-functional.

Nicki
They will be forced to deal with Hawaii's no issue in the same opinion (unless they write separate ones, which isn't what I expect). So I think that red herring should be shot down.
__________________
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
  #375  
Old 04-07-2013, 5:12 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
Ill. Gov. Quinn wants Ill. AG Madigan to appeal the "Moore case" to the US Supreme court, but so far nothing has happened.

Of course the SCOTUS can adjust their rules, that being said, how long could they stall out before deciding on if they will hear the Kachalsky case?

Could/would they not make a decision and leave us hanging till fall?

Not a lawyer, but in order to appeal, don't you have to show that there is something wrong with the "ruling" you are appealing.

If the US Supreme court refuses cert on the "Moore case" and grants "cert" on the Kachalsky case, could that speed things up here in California?

The 9th did uphold our CCW laws in both the Peruta and Richards cases because since we could openly bear arms, we had a means to bear arms.

Even in the orals last December, the other side was arguing that we could bear arms in public in most of California.

Our opponents tried to snow the court about "urban areas" and didn't address the issue about "locked and unloaded" guns being non-functional.

Nicki
I don't think they would stall for that long. I'm not an expert of SCOTUS' inner works but I could only see Kachalsky getting relisted once or twice before the case is either granted or denied. A delay of a few weeks maximum.

As far as the IL AG asking for cert. in Moore, they have 90 days from the en banc denial, plus they could ask the court for more time.
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 04-07-2013, 6:00 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If we do not hear anything in the next 3 weeks (15 April is the current expected announcement, so 29 April would allow one relisting), I would suspect the Court is denying cert and one or more Justices is writing a dissent from that choice. A GVR (Grant, Vacate, Remand) is very unlikely at this stage of the game.

Being denied cert at this stage would be a disaster, as it would signal that three or fewer Justices are interested in the case, I could see Kennedy not wanting to be the fourth to vote for cert, but one from Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito thinking the case is not worth consideration?

Last edited by Kharn; 04-07-2013 at 6:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 04-07-2013, 8:01 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,398
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
Being denied cert at this stage would be a disaster, as it would signal that three or fewer Justices are interested in the case, I could see Kennedy not wanting to be the fourth to vote for cert, but one from Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito thinking the case is not worth consideration?
There is more calculation that goes into cert decision besides the individual interest. I would expect most of the Justices would consider the current Circuit split to require clarification and guidance from the Supreme Court regardless of their opinion on which way the ruling should go.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 04-07-2013, 8:29 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
There is more calculation that goes into cert decision besides the individual interest. I would expect most of the Justices would consider the current Circuit split to require clarification and guidance from the Supreme Court regardless of their opinion on which way the ruling should go.
Except that justices who are against RKBA will know that by taking the case, they greatly risk a pro-RKBA ruling, while by allowing the circuit split to stand, they greatly increase the chance of an anti-RKBA ruling later on while keeping the majority of the circuits which have weighed in on the matter firmly on the anti-RKBA side of things.

So I see no logical reason to believe that the anti-RKBA justices will vote to take the case just to "clarify" the field when that very clarification has a very real chance of being the opposite of what they really want, while leaving things unclarified gets them very nearly what they already want.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 04-07-2013, 8:36 AM
PhalSe PhalSe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 162
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Except that justices who are against RKBA will know that by taking the case, they greatly risk a pro-RKBA ruling, while by allowing the circuit split to stand, they greatly increase the chance of an anti-RKBA ruling later on while keeping the majority of the circuits which have weighed in on the matter firmly on the anti-RKBA side of things.

So I see no logical reason to believe that the anti-RKBA justices will vote to take the case just to "clarify" the field when that very clarification has a very real chance of being the opposite of what they really want, while leaving things unclarified gets them very nearly what they already want.
I understand you are extremely pessimistic by nature. But we only need 4 judges to grant cert and there are definitely 4 conservative judges and 1 swing that would likely support us. In this case I think it's highly likely they will grant cert.
Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 04-07-2013, 9:21 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhalSe View Post
I understand you are extremely pessimistic by nature. But we only need 4 judges to grant cert and there are definitely 4 conservative judges and 1 swing that would likely support us. In this case I think it's highly likely they will grant cert.
I agree. My point was only to counter IVC's, not to suggest that this court as a whole would deny cert. I agree that a grant of cert is quite likely unless one of Alito, Thomas, Roberts, or Scalia believes the current situation to be insufficiently "developed" or something.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #381  
Old 04-07-2013, 10:40 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,142
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhalSe View Post
I understand you are extremely pessimistic by nature. But we only need 4 judges to grant cert and there are definitely 4 conservative judges and 1 swing that would likely support us. In this case I think it's highly likely they will grant cert.
There aren't four definite votes and there sure aren't five that we can count on to reliably put the 2nd Amendment RKBA above personal politics and prejudices toward statism. There were five "noes" for Obamacare until Roberts got weak-kneed and folded and there are three, more likely four, Progressives on the court that will never recognise an individual right of commoners to keep and bear arms - the four Progressives made that crystal clear in their dissenting opinion in McDonald. To Progressives judges the Constitution is a blank sheet of paper that says nothing more or less than what they think it should say That leaves us Kennedy who likes the power that comes with being the tiebreaking vote and you never know which way that vote will go. But even if their are four justices that want to hear the case and hand us a win, they may choose not to hear it if they don't see a good chance of getting the five votes necessary for a win.
__________________
"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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 04-07-2013 at 10:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 04-07-2013, 11:43 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhalSe View Post
I understand you are extremely pessimistic by nature.
That's incorrect, actually. If I were extremely pessimistic, most of my predictions would be inaccurate, and things would generally turn out better than I predict.

But they haven't.


To wit:
  • I predicted nothing would come from the Fast and Furious efforts. Nothing did.
  • I predicted Obama would win the election. He did.
  • I predicted the courts would engage in wholesale judicial rebellion. They have.
  • I predicted Palmer would continue to be stalled indefinitely. It has been.
There have been some things I've been wrong about, of course, but I'd say the number of times my predictions have turned out to be optimistic is nearly the same as the number of times they've turned out to be pessimistic. For instance, I didn't see Sandy Hook coming (probably should have, in hindsight), so I didn't predict the massive push for anti-gun legislation that we now see. I didn't see Colorado coming, either. But on the flip side, I was pleasantly surprised by the district court ruling in Woollard, though I was entirely unsurprised by the circuit court's ruling on that.


The bottom line is that I'm a realist, and do my best to look at the real world through clear glasses. The fact of the matter is that the real world is an evil place (evil is baked directly into its fabric. Look up "entropy" if you don't believe me), and you're not a realist if you don't believe that.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-07-2013 at 11:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 04-07-2013, 4:43 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 921
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

KC, I'm fairly certain I would enjoy discussing politics with you over a glass of whiskey.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #384  
Old 04-07-2013, 4:46 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,837
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
There aren't four definite votes and there sure aren't five that we can count on to reliably put the 2nd Amendment RKBA above personal politics and prejudices toward statism. There were five "noes" for Obamacare until Roberts got weak-kneed and folded and there are three, more likely four, Progressives on the court that will never recognise an individual right of commoners to keep and bear arms - the four Progressives made that crystal clear in their dissenting opinion in McDonald. To Progressives judges the Constitution is a blank sheet of paper that says nothing more or less than what they think it should say That leaves us Kennedy who likes the power that comes with being the tiebreaking vote and you never know which way that vote will go. But even if their are four justices that want to hear the case and hand us a win, they may choose not to hear it if they don't see a good chance of getting the five votes necessary for a win.
I'm less worried about Kennedy than Roberts. Kennedy has some good history dealing with may-issue(see Guillory v. County of Orange), even if it wasn't a 2A case.
The Progressives will probably just cut and paste the Kachalsky/Wollard opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #385  
Old 04-07-2013, 6:33 PM
ziegenbock ziegenbock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 116
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gene or Gray,

Are we looking at a Nunn opinion or perhaps a hybrid that will also state that some form of concealed carry must be permitted?

I know they are asking for the license, but is Gura also looking to get "no permit" needed for "LOC" bases upon case history used by the USSC in heller?
Reply With Quote
  #386  
Old 04-08-2013, 8:08 AM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenbock View Post
Gene or Gray,

Are we looking at a Nunn opinion or perhaps a hybrid that will also state that some form of concealed carry must be permitted?

I know they are asking for the license, but is Gura also looking to get "no permit" needed for "LOC" bases upon case history used by the USSC in heller?
I believe that Mr. Gura is looking to firm up the right to bear outside the home. Whether concealed or unconcealed is an example of reasonable time/manner/place restrictions.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote
  #387  
Old 04-08-2013, 10:13 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,177
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I agree that a grant of cert is quite likely unless one of Alito, Thomas, Roberts, or Scalia believes the current situation to be insufficiently “developed” or something.
Oh, it’s more than sufficiently developed. If the high court fails to grant certiorari, we’ll be facing widespread civil disobedience at least.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #388  
Old 04-08-2013, 11:16 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,398
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The bottom line is that I'm a realist, and do my best to look at the real world through clear glasses.
Predicting outcome is different than understanding the causes of such outcomes. Consequently, one can be a pessimist and still have a good correlation of predictions and outcomes.

This is especially true while discussing 2A related cases, where the recent precedent is against the established legal framework and case law. Predicting headwind is akin to predicting that one will rarely role a 6 when rolling a fair dice.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #389  
Old 04-08-2013, 11:43 AM
PhalSe PhalSe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 162
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That's incorrect, actually. If I were extremely pessimistic, most of my predictions would be inaccurate, and things would generally turn out better than I predict.
Pessimism doesn't require either correctness or incorrectness. You can be pessimistic and right or pessimistic and wrong. I didn't mean to imply you were wrong in general, just that it is likely wrong to be pessimistic about SCOTUS granting cert for Kachalsky.

Personally I think it is the right time to bring this case and the best case we have given that. We have a generally favorable court, there is a definite split, and we have excellent people representing our interests. That doesn't mean we will get May Issue as practiced by NY, HI, the populous counties in CA, etc. declared unconstitutional. I think it's our best chance within a reasonable time frame, but I'm still worried, watching closely, and a donating lifetime member of SAF.


Also I agree with Apocalypsenerd except I would choose beer over whiskey.
Reply With Quote
  #390  
Old 04-08-2013, 11:44 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,866
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I don't think even kc could have predicted that IL courts would rule the 7th has no jurisdiction over them.
__________________
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." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #391  
Old 04-08-2013, 12:29 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,398
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhalSe View Post
Also I agree with Apocalypsenerd except I would choose beer over whiskey.
You were doing fine until that statement. Now you've lost all credibility...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #392  
Old 04-08-2013, 1:42 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,212
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default What Alan Gura may do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenbock View Post
Gene or Gray,

Are we looking at a Nunn opinion or perhaps a hybrid that will also state that some form of concealed carry must be permitted?

I know they are asking for the license, but is Gura also looking to get "no permit" needed for "LOC" bases upon case history used by the USSC in heller?
Alan Gura is the "best attorney" to bring a "carry case" in front of the US Supreme Court in the country and the reason why he is the best attorney is because he has had the "court battleground" experience with this issue in almost every federal jurisdiction in this country.

In hindsight, Alan Gura tried some bold moves in the "MacDonald case", while Alan Gura ultimately won the case for incorporation, he lost in his attempt to overturn the "Slaughterhouse cases" and bring the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment back from the dead.

Alan lost that because the so called 4 liberal justices wouldn't vote to expand "civil rights" if that included expanding gun rights.

Had they set aside their prejudices against guns, they would have undone rulings that set the stage for Jim Crow post civil war. Of course the second amendment would have had a 9-0 ruling in MacDonald if they did that.

My gut tells me that Alan is going just for any kind of "carry" with "functional common arms" and he isn't going to get hung up on "open or concealed".

The "open carry" argument is something the other side has actually used in arguments to retain the current CCW laws.

The Supreme Court ultimately could do the following:

Tell New York that they have to allow at least one form of unrestricted carry of functional common arms( loaded, standard ammunition capacities) and that they can regulate or even ban the other.

The could possibly rule that a state has to allow some form of unlicensed carry and if they choose to license the other, that the policy can't be discriminatory.

Justices Kagan, Scalia and Sotomayor are from New York, so this could be very interesting. I think Justice Gingsburg also could be from New York as well.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #393  
Old 04-08-2013, 1:57 PM
PhalSe PhalSe is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 162
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

nicki,

My impression isn't that Gura is suggesting the constitution requires at least one unrestricted form of carry, just at least one form of carry that is available to law abiding average citizens. For example banning open carry but having Shall Issue licensed CCW or the opposite would fly. I even got the impression that further reasonable regulation would be acceptable in his opinion, such as requiring a holster with retention for open carry or that if the gun is concealed the magazines must also be.

I think that position is reasonable, if likely to create additional complications down the road in places like Chicago, NY, SF, and LA.
Reply With Quote
  #394  
Old 04-08-2013, 2:58 PM
smn smn is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 55
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From JoshBlackman.com in 2011: Justice Ginsburg: “With Justices now bred in four of New York City’s five boroughs, should another vacancy arise, Staten Island jurists should stay close to their phones.”

Most if not all the SCOTUS justices are from New York. It's gonna be a fight. They've already laughed at us.
Reply With Quote
  #395  
Old 04-08-2013, 3:31 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,142
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Oh, it’s more than sufficiently developed. If the high court fails to grant certiorari, we’ll be facing widespread civil disobedience at least.
You and KC are both optimists.

There may be widespread state approved civil disobedience in red states but not within blue states. Those living in free states may be able to rely on local LE no ignore federal laws but not those of us living behind blue curtains. Our blue-state political masters (with the willing assistance of LE) will delight in making felons out of all who peacefully resit their power grab and by making us felons strip of us of all of our rights. If we don't get a cert and a solid unambiguous victory from SCOTUS in this case then California will become as untenable for gun owners as New York has become - or perhaps far worse by 1/1/2016 if not sooner. Brown is out on 1/5/2015 and newly crowned Governor Gavin Newsom and the Democrat legislature will run wild.
__________________
"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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 04-08-2013 at 3:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #396  
Old 04-08-2013, 3:57 PM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,177
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Optimism? No—not when it involves people going to jail or to the morgue. We’re at a breaking point.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #397  
Old 04-08-2013, 4:03 PM
ASTMedic's Avatar
ASTMedic ASTMedic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Yuba Co
Posts: 395
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
You and KC are both optimists.

There may be widespread state approved civil disobedience in red states but not within blue states. Those living in free states may be able to rely on local LE no ignore federal laws but not those of us living behind blue curtains. Our blue-state political masters (with the willing assistance of LE) will delight in making felons out of all who peacefully resit their power grab and by making us felons strip of us of all of our rights. If we don't get a cert and a solid unambiguous victory from SCOTUS in this case then California will become as untenable for gun owners as New York has become - or perhaps far worse by 1/1/2016 if not sooner. Brown is out on 1/5/2015 and newly crowned Governor Gavin Newsom and the Democrat legislature will run wild.
Stop lumping ALL Cali LEO into the same pile. I support my local LEO and they support the 2A.
__________________
A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it you'll never need it again.
Reply With Quote
  #398  
Old 04-08-2013, 4:29 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,142
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTMedic View Post
Stop lumping ALL Cali LEO into the same pile. I support my local LEO and they support the 2A.
Did I say ALL? The fact remains that if you get caught exercising your 2nd Amendment rights by possessing an AR15 without a bullet button or you get caught with a normal sized magazine in it your local LEO will happily cuff you and take you to jail. My point was that our commissars in Sacramento will do their best to make having arms and ammo in California nearly impossible and they can count on most LE to support them by arresting those that refuse to give up their rights and their property - that's just reality.
__________________
"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 and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #399  
Old 04-08-2013, 4:56 PM
GaryV's Avatar
GaryV GaryV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhalSe View Post
nicki,

My impression isn't that Gura is suggesting the constitution requires at least one unrestricted form of carry, just at least one form of carry that is available to law abiding average citizens. For example banning open carry but having Shall Issue licensed CCW or the opposite would fly. I even got the impression that further reasonable regulation would be acceptable in his opinion, such as requiring a holster with retention for open carry or that if the gun is concealed the magazines must also be.

I think that position is reasonable, if likely to create additional complications down the road in places like Chicago, NY, SF, and LA.
I wouldn't go so far as to say he thinks such regulation is actually acceptable (though he may), but he's smart enough not to try to fight those battles all at once. Just as the only real thing he was trying to get the court to say in Heller was that owning a gun is a fundamental individual right protected by the 2nd Amendment, I think his only goal here is to have them say the same about public carry, and leave the details for later. Get your foot in the door and then worry about how to pry it the rest of the way open later, once you have some leverage.
Reply With Quote
  #400  
Old 04-08-2013, 5:20 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ziegenbock View Post
Gene or Gray,

Are we looking at a Nunn opinion or perhaps a hybrid that will also state that some form of concealed carry must be permitted?

I know they are asking for the license, but is Gura also looking to get "no permit" needed for "LOC" bases upon case history used by the USSC in heller?
Kachalsky is not the proper vehicle for that particular question. The proper vehicle for that question would be a case challenging the laws of the remaining statutes in the states which require CC with license but fully criminalize (rather than just a mere $25 civil penalty) open carry by the same licensees.
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 7:44 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.