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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1641  
Old 06-29-2022, 7:16 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Jun 28 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022
Movement.
Reply With Quote
  #1642  
Old 06-29-2022, 7:19 AM
XDJYo XDJYo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal-East Bay
Posts: 5,958
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kokopelli View Post
What, no ankle holster?

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)
Reply With Quote
  #1643  
Old 06-29-2022, 8:20 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Movement.
It’s been corrected:

“Jun 29 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022.”


Last edited by Paladin; 06-29-2022 at 8:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1644  
Old 06-29-2022, 9:32 AM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 989
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

On SCOTUSblog's liveblog, someone chose to have the handle of Charles Nichols and wrote:

Quote:
My crystal ball tells me that the handgun Open Carry petition out of Hawaii will be disposed of with a per curiam or GVR before the end of Friday.
Reply With Quote
  #1645  
Old 06-29-2022, 1:01 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

More orders were released

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...021zr_c07d.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #1646  
Old 06-29-2022, 1:12 PM
Flight4 Flight4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 52
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Unless I'm missing something that document seems like it's not recent ("THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2021")
Reply With Quote
  #1647  
Old 06-29-2022, 2:26 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flight4 View Post
Unless I'm missing something that document seems like it's not recent ("THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2021")
Maybe this? It's from today, but I didn't look too see if it was there this morning.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...922zr_n7io.pdf
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1648  
Old 06-29-2022, 2:43 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,418
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajb78 View Post
Maybe this? It's from today, but I didn't look too see if it was there this morning.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...922zr_n7io.pdf
I don't think Saada vs Golan is one of our issues.

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

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"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."

- Marcus Aurelius
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..
Reply With Quote
  #1649  
Old 06-29-2022, 2:54 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
I don't think Saada vs Golan is one of our issues.

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.)
Understood, that was the only thing posted on that page today. I'll shut up now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1650  
Old 06-29-2022, 3:47 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flight4 View Post
Unless I'm missing something that document seems like it's not recent ("THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2021")
My mistake: I probably forgot the default is to last term’s orders.
Reply With Quote
  #1651  
Old 06-30-2022, 6:46 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Young (and Duncan) is GVR’ed in just released Orders.

Quote:
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/...22zor_5he6.pdf


Last edited by Paladin; 06-30-2022 at 6:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1652  
Old 06-30-2022, 7:05 AM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 587
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #1653  
Old 06-30-2022, 7:07 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I believe they are similarly situated and combined for brevity.
Reply With Quote
  #1654  
Old 06-30-2022, 7:08 AM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 159
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Young and Duncan were grouped together. Note the language "The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated" is plural.
Reply With Quote
  #1655  
Old 06-30-2022, 7:14 AM
cyphr02's Avatar
cyphr02 cyphr02 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 477
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

No doubt to be sent back down to the district to waste as much time as possible.
Reply With Quote
  #1656  
Old 06-30-2022, 7:22 AM
SpookyWatcher SpookyWatcher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 159
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I’ve never followed a case that’s been GVR’d. Is there any general timeline that anyone knows of. Does it go back to district court, then appellate etc etc to delay rights even longer? Or is it quicker?
Reply With Quote
  #1657  
Old 06-30-2022, 8:47 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think Young might be moot because Young asked for open or concealed, and now he can get a concealed carry permit. So they don't necessarily need to decided anything.
Reply With Quote
  #1658  
Old 06-30-2022, 9:48 AM
cleonard cleonard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 948
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I think Young might be moot because Young asked for open or concealed, and now he can get a concealed carry permit. So they don't necessarily need to decided anything.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1659  
Old 06-30-2022, 11:06 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I think Young might be moot because Young asked for open or concealed, and now he can get a concealed carry permit. So they don't necessarily need to decided anything.
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
Reply With Quote
  #1660  
Old 06-30-2022, 11:13 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpookyWatcher View Post
I’ve never followed a case that’s been GVR’d. Is there any general timeline that anyone knows of. Does it go back to district court, then appellate etc etc to delay rights even longer? Or is it quicker?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1661  
Old 06-30-2022, 11:14 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1662  
Old 06-30-2022, 11:16 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cleonard View Post
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.
If Young is mooted, Nichols picks up the OC torch….
Reply With Quote
  #1663  
Old 06-30-2022, 11:52 AM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
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.
Nichols, as Paladin noted, picks up that particular torch. Also, what Young MAY do doesn't change the obligation which Hawaii has toward recognizing that the bearing of arms in public is our Right.

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..
Reply With Quote
  #1664  
Old 06-30-2022, 11:57 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
If Young is mooted, Nichols picks up the OC torch….
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:
Originally Posted by Justice Thomas
In fact, however, the history reveals a consensus that
States could not ban public carry altogether. Respondents’ cited opinions agreed that concealed-carry prohibitions
were constitutional only if they did not similarly prohibit
open carry . . . All told, these antebellum state-court decisions evince a
consensus view that States could not altogether prohibit the
public carry of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment
or state analogues . . . The Second
Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear
commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasona-
ble, well-defined restrictions. Heller, 554 U. S., at 581.
Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which
one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried
arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one
could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace
and other government officials
Reply With Quote
  #1665  
Old 06-30-2022, 12:26 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Nichols, as Paladin noted, picks up that particular torch. Also, what Young MAY do doesn't change the obligation which Hawaii has toward recognizing that the bearing of arms in public is our Right.

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.
I am not in disagreement and have no idea what Young may decided to do. On one hand, Young may be willing to let Nichols carry the torch if HI capitulates before he has to do more. On the other hand, he may enjoy kicking HI now that he has them down and on the ground. I am sure many of us would enjoy that show.
Reply With Quote
  #1666  
Old 06-30-2022, 1:26 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
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.
Best not to rely upon inferences that the historical record could trump.

J. Thomas:
Quote:
In fact, however, the history reveals a consensus that States could not ban public carry altogether. Respondents’ cited opinions agreed that concealed-carry prohibitions were constitutional only if they did not similarly prohibit open carry . . . All told, these antebellum state-court decisions evince a consensus view that States could not altogether prohibit the public carry of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment or state analogues . . .
Were there “cited opinions” that OC could be banned if CC were available? Or is that an assumption?

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.


Last edited by Paladin; 06-30-2022 at 1:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1667  
Old 06-30-2022, 1:28 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Morro Bay, CA
Posts: 757
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
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.
Agreed. Bruen has some very nice, persuasive dicta about Open Carry and it definitely seems the Court views it as superior, less susceptible to regulation. But i don't go as far as Charles does, saying that's a holding. Relevant and persuasive but not controlling, yet. Eventually demand for regulating unseen horrors by creating victim disarmament zones will run head on into Bruen, and the wonderful dicta will at that point become holding. States must eventually accept the fact that if they want to regulate CC, they will need to allow freer, relatively unregulated OC.

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..
Reply With Quote
  #1668  
Old 06-30-2022, 1:34 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,717
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Best not to rely upon inferences that the historical record could trump.

J. Thomas:
Were there “cited opinions” that OC could be banned if CC were available? Or is that an assumption?

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.
I think "Respondents" is New York State. So Thomas is saying they gave cases which would allow them to ban concealed carry, which makes sense they would provide that.
Reply With Quote
  #1669  
Old 06-30-2022, 1:45 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I think "Respondents" is New York State. So Thomas is saying they gave cases which would allow them to ban concealed carry, which makes sense they would provide that.
Thats my point: These parties researched history to support their positions. Charles Nichols researched history to support his slightly different position. Hopefully he’s found strong evidence that OC (LOC in CA), is “THE Right” that “shall not be infringed.”

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!

Last edited by Paladin; 06-30-2022 at 1:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1670  
Old 06-30-2022, 1:53 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,844
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
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.
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!)
Reply With Quote
  #1671  
Old 06-30-2022, 3:05 PM
rplaw's Avatar
rplaw rplaw is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
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!)
Or no permit at all. (hah, MY snort is bigger than yours. )


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..
Reply With Quote
  #1672  
Old 06-30-2022, 3:45 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Time, place, manner - with regards to GFSZ
Quote:
The bill would also remove the exception for an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed that is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle, thereby expanding the scope of an existing crime and imposing a state-mandated local program.
with regards to airports (etc)
Quote:
This bill would expand that prohibition to include any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal or a public transit facility, as specified. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
CA is going to make it impossible to transport arms.

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
Reply With Quote
  #1673  
Old 06-30-2022, 3:55 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Or no permit at all. (hah, MY snort is bigger than yours. )


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.
Give Bruen another read, Thomas said mode of carry can be regulated, but public carry cannot be completely barred. Meaning, states can ban open or concealed, but not both.
Reply With Quote
  #1674  
Old 06-30-2022, 6:01 PM
Calbix Calbix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 111
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Give Bruen another read, Thomas said mode of carry can be regulated, but public carry cannot be completely barred. Meaning, states can ban open or concealed, but not both.
I got the impression that states can ban concealed carry in favor of open carry, but not the opposite.

"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."
Reply With Quote
  #1675  
Old 06-30-2022, 6:02 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 450
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Time, place, manner - with regards to GFSZ


with regards to airports (etc)


CA is going to make it impossible to transport arms.

https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/SB918/
So it will technically still be legal to check in your baggage at the airline counter with a declared unloaded firearm in a locked container within it … but it will be illegal to get that firearm TO the check in counter.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #1676  
Old 06-30-2022, 6:17 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Morro Bay, CA
Posts: 757
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Give Bruen another read, Thomas said mode of carry can be regulated, but public carry cannot be completely barred. Meaning, states can ban open or concealed, but not both.
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
Reply With Quote
  #1677  
Old 06-30-2022, 6:21 PM
Jared1981 Jared1981 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
Or no permit at all. (hah, MY snort is bigger than yours. )


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.
Hawaii currently has two permit schemes.

HRS 134-9(a)

Concealed carry license “In an exceptional case…”

Open carry license “Where the urgency or the need has been sufficiently indicated…”
Reply With Quote
  #1678  
Old 06-30-2022, 7:03 PM
BPK BPK is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcasa View Post
So it will technically still be legal to check in your baggage at the airline counter with a declared unloaded firearm in a locked container within it … but it will be illegal to get that firearm TO the check in counter.

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.
No, the removal of that exemption is only for school zones.

Otherwise, nobody could buy firearms at all (you couldn't get them out of the gun store)

curtisfong took that out of context.
Reply With Quote
  #1679  
Old 06-30-2022, 8:31 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BPK View Post
curtisfong took that out of context.
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
Reply With Quote
  #1680  
Old 06-30-2022, 8:37 PM
cleonard cleonard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 948
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
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.
All this will accomplish is a faster unravelling of California's unconstitutional gun regulation scheme. They are in denial big time.

Sent from my moto g stylus 5G using Tapatalk
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 10:39 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy