|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1642
|
|||
|
|||
Who needs an ankle holster when you’ve got a pop out knife in the sole of your boots and a derringer in the heels! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Les Baer 1911: Premier II w/1.5" Guarantee, Blued, No FCS, Combat Rear, F/O Front, Checkered MSH & SA Professional Double Diamond Grips Springfield Armory XD-45 4" Service Model Springfield Armory XD9 4" Service Model (wifes). M&P 15 (Mine) |
#1643
|
||||
|
||||
It’s been corrected:
“Jun 29 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022.”
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 06-29-2022 at 8:26 AM.. |
#1644
|
||||
|
||||
On SCOTUSblog's liveblog, someone chose to have the handle of Charles Nichols and wrote:
Quote:
|
#1645
|
||||
|
||||
|
#1646
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#1647
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...922zr_n7io.pdf
__________________
|
#1648
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This page - https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/21 - should have the GVRs and other dispositions of some of our cases of interest. (The "21" in the URL is the 'term year', so the current as of today.)
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. Last edited by Librarian; 06-29-2022 at 2:48 PM.. |
#1649
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
|
#1650
|
||||
|
||||
My mistake: I probably forgot the default is to last term’s orders.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#1651
|
||||
|
||||
Young (and Duncan) is GVR’ed in just released Orders.
Quote:
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 06-30-2022 at 6:51 AM.. |
#1652
|
||||
|
||||
Is there any difference between the cases like Duncan which the orders specifically state it is GVRed and to be considered in the light of NYSRPA and Young which is on the list with no statement?
__________________
“Further evasions will be deleted ETA as off-topic for the thread. Either participate or remain silent.” -Librarian |
#1658
|
|||
|
|||
If Hawaii follows California's lead, they will implement a lot of barriers to getting a "shall issue" CCW permit. Soon someone will be denied a permit who is not prohibited from owning firearms and another case will start. Based on NYRSPA v Bruen it will be successful and they will then have the choice of true shall issue or open carry.
|
#1659
|
||||
|
||||
If Young asked for BOTH, then he (and we) is entitled to have BOTH. Issuing a CCW doesn't delete the OC prayer and Bruen doesn't address only CC.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#1660
|
||||
|
||||
IIRC, if the facts have changed it will go down to trial/district court. Here there may be additional facts needed to properly implement and apply the Heller text, history, tradition (THT) standard.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#1661
|
||||
|
||||
True, but Young may be satisfied with concealed and not want to pursue open carry if HI forthwith says here is your concealed permit before the 9th takes any action.
|
#1662
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#1663
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What that boils down to, and which so far California seems to be missing the point of, is that we have a Right to bear arms in public. Absent a shall-issue permitting scheme for OC, with no qualification on who can other than barring prohibited individuals who cannot buy/possess firearms anyway, there isn't any way that the State can prevent us from doing so. About all Hawaii (and California) can do is create a carry permit system which allows the State to do an instant background check. Unless the check comes back as prohibited, they're going to have to issue. Since they have to issue a permit anyway under such a program, it might as well be for both OC and CC because it makes no sense to have 2 permits each doing the half of same thing. It might also be a bit of legislative overreach if the whole scheme is considered in toto and contrasted with the fact that we have a Right to bear arms in public and requiring a permit to do so infringes upon that Right beyond what was understood at the time of founding. Our Right is a Constitutional Right. Requiring anyone to submit letters of reference, be subject to a character evaluation / psych eval, or anything of that nature means that our Right still isn't a Right. It's permission. From what I see, Hawaii (and California) can do a revenue generating permit requirement but they're not going to be able to add qualifiers on who gets to and who doesn't, other than barring prohibited individuals from doing so. And that's it. So that means the permit is going to have to be based on an instant background check and livescan fingerprints to verify you're who you say you are. After that, the State shall issue if those are clean. Pay the cashier on your way out. **** edit here **** After reviewing and thinking some more, I'm going to go so far as to say that even an OC permit would go too far because it wouldn't allow for visitors entering the state at a whim unless there's a way to get one instantly at the State border. And who is going to stop on the border to hopefully get an OC permit? So, I'm thinking the only constitutionally allowable permit scheme is one which grants CC with the option of OC as the bearer chooses, but where the Statute also makes clear OC only doesn't require a permit of any type.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery Last edited by rplaw; 06-30-2022 at 3:17 PM.. |
#1664
|
||||
|
||||
I don't believe so, the Court was quite clear that states can regulate the manner in which weapons are carried, but could not eliminate the public carrying of arms altogether. Hawaii, and California, can pick conceal-carry or open-carry, they cannot ban both. A denial of conceal carry would naturally infer a right to open carry, or the 9th risks incurring the Court's wrath. The only way Young is mooted is if Young is granted some form of the right to carry in public, whatever form that takes.
Quote:
|
#1665
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#1666
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
J. Thomas: Quote:
Charles Nichols does NOT want to carry in any manner. He wants to OC period. If he loses at the 3-judge because of Bruen I fully expect him to request review or en banc appeal and to appeal to SCOTUS if necessary.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 06-30-2022 at 1:58 PM.. |
#1667
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There is a Soviet tradition, but no American tradition, of allowing CC but banning OC. For good reason. My analysis of Bruen: https://lawnews.tv/nysrpa-v-bruen-ex...rs-open-carry/ My response to Bonta's GMC nonsense: https://lawnews.tv/california-ag-dit...bonta-smoking/
__________________
David R Duringer JD LL.M (Tax), CA/WA/TX atty, @guntrust on social nets. Protective Law Corporation *Estate Planning for Gun Owners* (zoom or office) Become an affiliated attorney/advisor: http://guncounsel.com CRPA Mag Must Retract Erroneous Bulletin Slamming Gun Trusts Radio ads: http://Protect.FM FREE training: http://guntrust.org FREE design meeting: http://Protect.LIFE Last edited by guntrust; 06-30-2022 at 1:37 PM.. |
#1668
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#1669
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Can you imagine if voters were required to pass psychological exams before being allowed to vote??? California would flip to the deepest, darkest Red there is!
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 06-30-2022 at 1:48 PM.. |
#1670
|
|||
|
|||
At present, Hawaii does not have two permits. It has one carry permit that allows the holder to carry openly or concealed. Hawaii has to know that its no issue policy is dead, and it may have to come up with a valid permitting system from whole cloth if it wants to try to restrict carrying of non-LEO, non-security personnel. Or it can just throw up its hands, admit defeat, and let everyone have a permit to carry openly or concealed as they please. (Snort!)
|
#1671
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Frankly, I cannot see how the legislature in Hi or Ca gets around the fact that Thomas held that we have a Right to bear arms in public. He didn't say bear arms concealed, he said arms in public. Period. How that meshes with a permit system doesn't seem viable to me. It might to others, but to me, requiring a permit to exercise a Right, or else face criminal prosecution, means the Right is still being treated as a privilege. I understand that there's language in the decision about the State being able to regulate concealed carry, but that's for concealed carry, not open carry. Since Hi only has 1 permit system for both modes of carry, it infringes on OC by requiring a permit to exercise the Right. Under Bruen, that's disallowed.
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery Last edited by rplaw; 06-30-2022 at 3:08 PM.. |
#1672
|
||||
|
||||
Time, place, manner - with regards to GFSZ
Quote:
Quote:
https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/SB918/
__________________
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 |
#1673
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#1674
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"Respondents' cited opinions agreed that concealed-carry prohibitions were constitutional only if they did not similarly prohibit open carry...States could lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry—concealed carry—so long as they left open the option to carry openly." |
#1675
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Lunacy ensues as California’s liberal legislatures try to figure out new ways to make lawful “keep and bear” in public an arcane quilt of overlapping illegal areas of carrying, even with a CCW permit. |
#1676
|
||||
|
||||
A tiny number of states regulated manner of carrying openly (type, size of handgun), but that is not a tradition. There is no American tradition, during the relevant period, of regulating manner of open carry.
__________________
David R Duringer JD LL.M (Tax), CA/WA/TX atty, @guntrust on social nets. Protective Law Corporation *Estate Planning for Gun Owners* (zoom or office) Become an affiliated attorney/advisor: http://guncounsel.com CRPA Mag Must Retract Erroneous Bulletin Slamming Gun Trusts Radio ads: http://Protect.FM FREE training: http://guntrust.org FREE design meeting: http://Protect.LIFE |
#1677
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
HRS 134-9(a) Concealed carry license “In an exceptional case…” Open carry license “Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated…” |
#1678
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Otherwise, nobody could buy firearms at all (you couldn't get them out of the gun store) curtisfong took that out of context. |
#1679
|
||||
|
||||
I did not. See for yourself. Don't take my word for it.
There are at least a dozen removals. Airports and GFSZs are two of the most egregious since they cover even unloaded/locked.
__________________
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 |
#1680
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my moto g stylus 5G using Tapatalk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|