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
  #1681  
Old 10-22-2021, 3:32 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,083
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Bump
It goes to the en banc panel. When en banc was granted, the 3 judge panel decision was vacated. What that panel does then is highly dependent upon what the Supreme Court does in the NYSRPA case. As you know already, by narrowing the issue to the concealed carry issue only, there is a suggestion that the Court is attempting to avoid the open carry question all together. If it does so, whether it will then take up Young to address open carry is unknowable at this time, although the issue is squarely presented because the en banc panel eliminated any right to carry outside the home.

If the Court holds that there is a right to bear arms outside the home, it may just return Young for redetermination in view of that holding, letting it percolate up again in a couple of years. I think that we are all aware that the Ninth drags its feet in deciding any case that might result in an expansion of gun rights.
Reply With Quote
  #1682  
Old 10-22-2021, 8:55 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,318
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
It goes to the en banc panel. When en banc was granted, the 3 judge panel decision was vacated. What that panel does then is highly dependent upon what the Supreme Court does in the NYSRPA case. As you know already, by narrowing the issue to the concealed carry issue only, there is a suggestion that the Court is attempting to avoid the open carry question all together. If it does so, whether it will then take up Young to address open carry is unknowable at this time, although the issue is squarely presented because the en banc panel eliminated any right to carry outside the home.

If the Court holds that there is a right to bear arms outside the home, it may just return Young for redetermination in view of that holding, letting it percolate up again in a couple of years. I think that we are all aware that the Ninth drags its feet in deciding any case that might result in an expansion of gun rights.
Do you have a rule/s from FRAP for that?

I agree with you except since the GVR after NYSRPA will vacate the en banc decision I think it goes down to original 3-judge panel to redo with new law and directions that should be clear enough for a 3-judge panel to decide the case. If loser there thinks 3-judge panel was wrong (e.g., our side if we lose and think the judges are resisting SCOTUS), they can then ask for en banc review. I don’t see a majority of those judges wanting to get slapped down yet again on similar issue. If we win then and HI seeks cert, it will be denied. (Similar if we win at 3-judge and HI asks for en banc I expect them to be denied.)

JMO

__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 10-22-2021 at 9:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1683  
Old 10-23-2021, 4:15 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Do you have a rule/s from FRAP for that?

I agree with you except since the GVR after NYSRPA will vacate the en banc decision I think it goes down to original 3-judge panel to redo with new law and directions that should be clear enough for a 3-judge panel to decide the case. If loser there thinks 3-judge panel was wrong (e.g., our side if we lose and think the judges are resisting SCOTUS), they can then ask for en banc review. I don’t see a majority of those judges wanting to get slapped down yet again on similar issue. If we win then and HI seeks cert, it will be denied. (Similar if we win at 3-judge and HI asks for en banc I expect them to be denied.)

JMO

I'm thinking it goes back to the en banc panel who will then send it back to the 3 judge panel. I think this is what happened in Nordyke.
Reply With Quote
  #1684  
Old 10-23-2021, 5:50 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,318
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I'm thinking it goes back to the en banc panel who will then send it back to the 3 judge panel. I think this is what happened in Nordyke.
Okay, that I could see where they technically give it to the en banc but the en banc does not rehear and decide it again but just sends it back down to the 3-judge panel.
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #1685  
Old 10-24-2021, 5:16 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Okay, that I could see where they technically give it to the en banc but the en banc does not rehear and decide it again but just sends it back down to the 3-judge panel.
Then from there who knows. They may turn around and send it back to the District Court or perhaps the en banc panel (or just CA9 as a whole) does it directly.
If SCOTUS rules as I predict, Peruta as a precedent will be finished. Young's open carry case was predicated on Peruta being good law, so now we'll be on a blank slate with NYSRPA controlling.
Reply With Quote
  #1686  
Old 11-08-2021, 12:08 PM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm am super confused on this. Assuming a strong win in NYSRPA,how will that rulling end up changing things in the 9th. Do weaned to file an entirely new CCW case?
Reply With Quote
  #1687  
Old 11-08-2021, 1:46 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,083
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanMedeiros View Post
I'm am super confused on this. Assuming a strong win in NYSRPA,how will that rulling end up changing things in the 9th. Do weaned to file an entirely new CCW case?
No. The Hawaii "may issue" law applies to both open and concealed carry (it doesn't distinguish between them). If SCOTUS says "may issue" is constitutionally impermissible, the lower federal are bound to follow that directive and overturn the Hawaii law. If the District Court or the Court of Appeal so orders, it may allow a period of time for Hawaii to enact a new law, such as occurred in Illinois, subject to a time limitation. IF that limit is not met, the state will be enjoined from enforcing its law, and the state becomes ConCarry. (Hawaii being virulently anti-gun, we have to assume that a new law will be enacted expeditiously.) The only time a new suit would be required is if Hawaii imposes onerous conditions for approval of a carry permit in an effort to limit the number of guns being carried.
Reply With Quote
  #1688  
Old 11-08-2021, 2:36 PM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

@TruOil Thanks for this! I will try and be cautiously optimistic that "Young" gets remanded based on the NYSRPA decision and we actually get "shall Issue" here in CA.
Reply With Quote
  #1689  
Old 11-08-2021, 10:18 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,710
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanMedeiros View Post
@TruOil Thanks for this! I will try and be cautiously optimistic that "Young" gets remanded based on the NYSRPA decision and we actually get "shall Issue" here in CA.
Note that nothing happens automatically here in California. Even if NYSRPA is decided in favor of the 2A, Young is remanded, and the Hawaii permitting scheme is forced to change, California can look at it and say, “hmm.. what a bother...”

We have to wait for the dust to settle and sue California again.
Reply With Quote
  #1690  
Old 11-08-2021, 11:37 PM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wouldn’t the young decision be binding on CA since it’s the same circuit?
Reply With Quote
  #1691  
Old 11-09-2021, 1:57 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,621
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanMedeiros View Post
Wouldn’t the young decision be binding on CA since it’s the same circuit?
Nope. It would be a citable precedent. But because of states rights. Requires different suits in different states.

Otherwise every bad gun law that the 9th Circus has upheld in Ca. Peruta for example. Would also apply in Az. and Alaska. Which are Constitutional Carry states.
Reply With Quote
  #1692  
Old 11-09-2021, 7:02 AM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,336
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Nope. It would be a citable precedent. But because of states rights. Requires different suits in different states.

Otherwise every bad gun law that the 9th Circus has upheld in Ca. Peruta for example. Would also apply in Az. and Alaska. Which are Constitutional Carry states.
And that right there is why it may be another decade before actual, useful change occurs that makes a tangible difference for California citizens.
The communist know this, and will likely attempt to use every tool in their power to drag things out. The practical way I see this, is that my children (20’s) may benefit, but many older folks will be beyond the point of armed defense by then.
Reply With Quote
  #1693  
Old 11-09-2021, 9:34 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 871
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

There is some misunderstanding here..... when a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals publishes a decision it is binding precedent in the entire Circuit jurisdiction, not just the state where the case originated from.

So, Young will be binding throughout all the states within the 9th circuit once it is finished as a case.

States rights have nothing to do with this.

The 9th Circuit Ct of Appeals would base its ruling on the Federal Constitution, so the decision is binding on all states. That doesn’t mean states can’t grant broader privileges (via state statute or State Constitution) to citizens than the bare minimum recognized by the 9th Circuit, but it is either a state legislature being generous, or a state abiding by its own State Constitution (which can recognize/grant broader civil liberties to the people in the state than the Federal Constitution (as interpreted by the 9th Circuit)).
Reply With Quote
  #1694  
Old 11-09-2021, 9:38 AM
seaweedsoyboy seaweedsoyboy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 533
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Nope. It would be a citable precedent. But because of states rights. Requires different suits in different states.

Otherwise every bad gun law that the 9th Circus has upheld in Ca. Peruta for example. Would also apply in Az. and Alaska. Which are Constitutional Carry states.
This is incorrect.
Reply With Quote
  #1695  
Old 11-09-2021, 10:18 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,579
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaweedsoyboy View Post
This is incorrect.
Not entirely. To the extent the 9th held that there is no 2A right to carry outside of the home, that would be binding on all the states in the 9th Circuit as a matter of federal law, but meaningless because other than CA & HI, there is a independent state right to carry outside the home in the other states. In fact, 4 of the 9 states are permitless carry and NV, OR & WA are shall issue.
Reply With Quote
  #1696  
Old 11-09-2021, 11:11 AM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 256
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Other states are not automatically bound by the Young decision in their current laws. Someone would need to sue the other states individually and assert that their currently laws have some sort of Constitutional defect. Washington State is shall issue for example.

Now, individual law enforcement entities might take it upon themselves to follow the Young precedent - not unlike the way Gavin Newsom decided to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses as mayor.

For that matter, if NYSPRA rules that "Shall Issue" should be the standard, then some sheriff's may choose to adopt the Court's reasoning. One can always contact the local Sheriff and ask that they do so. If they don't, then maybe litigation is in order. I could see a character like Villenueva taking the court decision and on his own deciding to follow it for LA County. I expect certain other counties to dig in their heels and resist bitterly. And I wouldn't be surprised if the State took legislative action to try and thwart the Court's decision, by expanding the definition of "sensitive spaces" for example.
Reply With Quote
  #1697  
Old 11-09-2021, 4:35 PM
johnireland johnireland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 244
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Anyone hoping for the SCOTUS to follow (or rescue) the 2nd Amendment just doesn't want to face the truth that John Roberts will vote with the liberals, just as he did on Obamacare.
Reply With Quote
  #1698  
Old 11-09-2021, 4:42 PM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnireland View Post
Anyone hoping for the SCOTUS to follow (or rescue) the 2nd Amendment just doesn't want to face the truth that John Roberts will vote with the liberals, just as he did on Obamacare.
I count 5 without Roberts:
1. Thomas
2. Alito
3. Gorsuch
4. Kavanaugh
5. Notorious ACB
__________________
GC=light green (recreational)
Mailed application = May 10
Reply With Quote
  #1699  
Old 11-10-2021, 7:53 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,318
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Nope. It would be a citable precedent. But because of states rights. Requires different suits in different states.

Otherwise every bad gun law that the 9th Circus has upheld in Ca. Peruta for example. Would also apply in Az. and Alaska. Which are Constitutional Carry states.
Incorrect.

FWIW I expect most remaining anti sheriffs to roll over after consulting County Counsel and accept SD = GC (assuming NYSRPA majority rules that).
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #1700  
Old 11-10-2021, 9:00 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 866
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Do you have a rule/s from FRAP for that?

I agree with you except since the GVR after NYSRPA will vacate the en banc decision I think it goes down to original 3-judge panel to redo with new law and directions that should be clear enough for a 3-judge panel to decide the case. If loser there thinks 3-judge panel was wrong (e.g., our side if we lose and think the judges are resisting SCOTUS), they can then ask for en banc review. I don’t see a majority of those judges wanting to get slapped down yet again on similar issue. If we win then and HI seeks cert, it will be denied. (Similar if we win at 3-judge and HI asks for en banc I expect them to be denied.)

JMO


Too bad SCOTUS doesnt just reinstate the 3 judge panel ruling and call it a day
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Reply With Quote
  #1701  
Old 11-10-2021, 11:19 AM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Incorrect.

FWIW I expect most remaining anti sheriffs to roll over after consulting County Counsel and accept SD = GC (assuming NYSRPA majority rules that).
This is what I had thought originally. I was wondering if we should get some folks together to apply here in Santa Cruz County once NYSRPA and Young are decided. I remember a meeting with our Sherriff where we said he would abide by the Peruta Decision if decided in favor of carry. Fingers crossed! I don't want to have to move to Monterey or San Benito just to carry
Reply With Quote
  #1702  
Old 11-10-2021, 7:26 PM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanMedeiros View Post
This is what I had thought originally. I was wondering if we should get some folks together to apply here in Santa Cruz County once NYSRPA and Young are decided. I remember a meeting with our Sherriff where we said he would abide by the Peruta Decision if decided in favor of carry. Fingers crossed! I don't want to have to move to Monterey or San Benito just to carry
I would apply no later than the day the decision is announced (if it is in our favor as expected). Better choice would be to apply in March. If you are denied before the decision comes down, and it comes down in our favor, you can immediately send a letter to the sheriff appealing the decision and asking for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court decision. That may jump you ahead of everyone else.
__________________
GC=light green (recreational)
Mailed application = May 10
Reply With Quote
  #1703  
Old 11-10-2021, 8:21 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,318
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanMedeiros View Post
This is what I had thought originally. I was wondering if we should get some folks together to apply here in Santa Cruz County once NYSRPA and Young are decided. I remember a meeting with our Sherriff where we said he would abide by the Peruta Decision if decided in favor of carry. Fingers crossed! I don't want to have to move to Monterey or San Benito just to carry
Why don’t you try to ask your current sheriff what they’ll do if we win a robust RBA in NYSRPA?

When I refer to the sheriff consulting county counsel I’m expecting them to tell the sheriff they have to accept SD as GC or they’re knowingly and intentionally leaving the county exposed to legal liability (think county liability insurance rates), and may even be personally liable for civil rights violations.

I’d be surprised if the CA state sheriffs association isn’t working on responses to possible outcomes right now.

IOW I expect things to change in out favor fast.
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #1704  
Old 11-10-2021, 10:38 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,621
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanMedeiros View Post
Wouldn’t the young decision be binding on CA since it’s the same circuit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Nope. It would be a citable precedent. But because of states rights. Requires different suits in different states.

Otherwise every bad gun law that the 9th Circus has upheld in Ca. Peruta for example. Would also apply in Az. and Alaska. Which are Constitutional Carry states.
Had Dan said; "binding on Ca Courts". I would have agreed. Because that would have been accurate. But "binding on Ca." Is inaccurate. Courts aren't the State, Courts are the judicial system of the State.

A 9th Circus ruling is as I said; "A CITABLE PRECEDENT" and will be binding on all COURTS future adjudication within the 9th

A precedent is not BINDING on the State. Until/Unless it is litigated within that state's Court System.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
snip

States rights have nothing to do with this. STATES RIGHTS DETERMINE THAT THEY MAKE THEIR OWN LAWS, AND THEIR OWN COURTS

The 9th Circuit Ct of Appeals would base its ruling on the Federal Constitution, so the decision is binding [precedent] on all states COURTS, WITHIN THE 9TH
^^^FIFY^^^

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaweedsoyboy View Post
This is incorrect.
NOPE IT'S NOT INCORRECT. IT'S ALSO ACCURATE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Not entirely. To the extent the 9th held that there is no 2A right to carry outside of the home, that would be binding on all the states in the 9th Circuit as a matter of federal law, but meaningless because other than CA & HI, there is a independent state right to carry outside the home in the other states. In fact, 4 of the 9 states are permitless carry and NV, OR & WA are shall issue.
^^^QUITE RIGHT^^^

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Incorrect.
^^^AGAIN, NOT ONLY CORRECT, BUT ACCURATE^^^

If A FED CIRCUIT COURTS rulings were "BINDING ON ALL STATES WITHIN THE CIRCUIT". Instead of the Courts within the circuit. A-holes like this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG5xWcV412E Couldn't get away with the crap they do.

A CITABLE PRECEDENT WITHIN A CIRCUIT. IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN SIMPLY SAYING "BINDING ON STATE".

Every ruling in every circuit would be considered the LAW in every state, within that circuit.
Reply With Quote
  #1705  
Old 11-11-2021, 3:27 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,318
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
^^^AGAIN, NOT ONLY CORRECT, BUT ACCURATE^^^

If A FED CIRCUIT COURTS rulings were "BINDING ON ALL STATES WITHIN THE CIRCUIT". Instead of the Courts within the circuit. A-holes like this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG5xWcV412E Couldn't get away with the crap they do.

A CITABLE PRECEDENT WITHIN A CIRCUIT. IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN SIMPLY SAYING "BINDING ON STATE".

Every ruling in every circuit would be considered the LAW in every state, within that circuit.
Incorrect again. CASE LAW, distinct from statutory law, is binding on the CA executive and legislative branches as well as the judicial. If a state actor (e.g., sheriff) violates case law by issuing a CCW to a white guy but denying a black guy with equivalent GC and GMC and gets away with it does not mean the sheriff didn’t violate federal case law (Guillory v. Gates), but just that no aggrieved party has filed a case against him.
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 11-11-2021 at 3:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1706  
Old 11-11-2021, 4:54 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,621
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
originally Posted by pacrat View Post
^^^AGAIN, NOT ONLY CORRECT, BUT ACCURATE^^^

If A FED CIRCUIT COURTS rulings were "BINDING ON ALL STATES WITHIN THE CIRCUIT". Instead of the Courts within the circuit. A-holes like this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG5xWcV412E Couldn't get away with the crap they do.

A CITABLE PRECEDENT WITHIN A CIRCUIT. IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN SIMPLY SAYING "BINDING ON STATE".

Every ruling in every circuit would be considered the LAW in every state, within that circuit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Incorrect again. CASE LAW, distinct from statutory law, is binding on the CA executive and legislative branches as well as the judicial. If a state actor (e.g., sheriff) violates case law by issuing a CCW to a white guy but denying a black guy with equivalent GC and GMC and gets away with it does not mean the sheriff didn’t violate federal case law (Guillory v. Gates), but just that no aggrieved party has filed a case against him.
Still accurate and correct. If what you claim is true. How do you explain [borrowing from Heller] History and Tradition of this consistent behavior;

Quote:
A-holes like this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG5xWcV412E Couldn't get away with the crap they do.
Member "IVC" explains it well in post #1870 in this thread. Even at the SCOTUS level. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...3#post26349313


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
So what happens the day after the decision in a couple of scenarios? How do the mechanics of this work down to the street level?
Literally nothing happens the day after.

Any decision in this case becomes a binding precedent for lower courts, but individual laws and processes must still be challenged. Even in the most unlikely outcome, where the court says "no permit of any kind is needed," carrying without a permit could (and likely would) result in local arrests, followed by some form of prosecution and then acquittal at the higher court.

To get measurable results, it will take some legal cleanup work in anti-gun jurisdictions. The process should be quite fast and efficient once the ruling is out, but it won't happen overnight. For comparison, think about how long it took Heller to "propagate" to all jurisdictions that prohibited possession of guns, and how we still can't get the most common semi-automatic guns in CA.

IIRC, there are still sodomy laws on books in many jurisdictions, they are just considered "unenforceable" due to Lawrence v. TX, and no DA would try to make a point by arresting someone. However, it would be technically possible for as long as the law is on the books.

"CASE LAW" is binding on the COURTS. Not the STATE. MOST LEA and DAs adhere to CASE LAW. Because they know they are backing a losing horse, ONCE A CASE GETS TO COURT. So they either don't make arrests, or those arrests get "DA REJECTED" before ever getting to court.

Recent "Ca Magazine" cases where citizens were arrested and/or had their "Freedom Wk" mags taken. Is perfect example. Those cases are "unenforceable" due to Benitez Stayed Ruling. So none made it to COURT. DA REJECTS Because they would be losers, IN COURT.

Your (Guillory v. Gates) reference actually supports my premise. I haven't delved into it. Yet if it was a CCW case Re GC and GMC arbitrary and capricious denials, and they won.

Why does LEA unfettered discretion, to arbitrarily deny CCW application due to GC and GMC persist in Ca? You present it as a Black/White racial disparity 14th A issue. We all know that is a No No for enforcement.

Last edited by pacrat; 11-11-2021 at 4:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1707  
Old 11-11-2021, 9:37 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,083
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So much confusion here.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling is binding on ALL federal AND state courts. Restated, all courts are bound to follow that precedent, not just the parties to that case. It is a little bit more complicated with constitutional issues only in this regard: the particular portion of the Constitution in issue must be applicable to the states (as most of the BOR have been). If SCOTUS says that the BOR requires something, that is the minimum standard that must be followed by all states and all state courts as a minimum standard (e.g. Miranda). Heller set a minimum standard that all states must allow citizens to keep loaded firearms in their homes available for immediate use. If Bruen says "shall issue" is the minimum standard for CCW, that rule is binding on all states as a minimum requirement. States are allowed to be less restrictive (e.g. concarry). The immediate effect on Bruen will be shall issue in the last 8 holdouts, but subject to any limitations that SCOTUS deems permissible.

Circuit Court decisions are binding on all FEDERAL courts within the circuit and on the parties to the litigation. They are PERSUASIVE authority as to state courts, but not BINDING, even on questions of federal law.

State Supreme Court rulings are binding on all federal courts in that state, including federal appellate courts, on questions of state law. They are not binding on federal courts as to questions of federal law.

Federal District Court decisions are binding on the parties, and if one of those parties is the State, on all "state" agencies. That is why Benitez' decision is binding on all policy agencies in the state.
Reply With Quote
  #1708  
Old 11-11-2021, 10:40 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,621
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
So much confusion here.
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling is binding on ALL federal AND state courts. Restated, all courts are bound to follow that precedent, not just the parties to that case. It is a little bit more complicated with constitutional issues only in this regard: the particular portion of the Constitution in issue must be applicable to the states (as most of the BOR have been). If SCOTUS says that the BOR requires something, that is the minimum standard that must be followed by all states and all state courts as a minimum standard (e.g. Miranda). Heller set a minimum standard that all states must allow citizens to keep loaded firearms in their homes available for immediate use. If Bruen says "shall issue" is the minimum standard for CCW, that rule is binding on all states as a minimum requirement. States are allowed to be less restrictive (e.g. concarry). The immediate effect on Bruen will be shall issue in the last 8 holdouts, but subject to any limitations that SCOTUS deems permissible.

Circuit Court decisions are binding on all FEDERAL courts within the circuit and on the parties to the litigation. They are PERSUASIVE authority as to state courts, but not BINDING, even on questions of federal law.

State Supreme Court rulings are binding on all federal courts in that state, including federal appellate courts, on questions of state law. They are not binding on federal courts as to questions of federal law.

Federal District Court decisions are binding on the parties, and if one of those parties is the State, on all "state" agencies. That is why Benitez' decision is binding on all policy agencies in the state.
Well Stated. Thank you sir.
Reply With Quote
  #1709  
Old 11-11-2021, 11:15 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 256
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There was an article I read once that explored how states routinely ignore appeals court decisions in other circuits.

You’re seeing something similar with states (and companies) outside the 5th Circuit pushing ahead with vaccine mandates despite the 5th circuit staying the Federal OSHA one. They may not change behavior without a Supreme Court ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #1710  
Old 11-12-2021, 2:30 AM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,621
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foothills View Post
There was an article I read once that explored how states routinely ignore appeals court decisions in other circuits.

You’re seeing something similar with states (and companies) outside the 5th Circuit pushing ahead with vaccine mandates despite the 5th circuit staying the Federal OSHA one. They may not change behavior without a Supreme Court ruling.
You mean like the SCOTUS Heller Ruling. Which was 13 yrs ago and still being ignored in Ca?
Reply With Quote
  #1711  
Old 11-12-2021, 7:02 AM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
You mean like the SCOTUS Heller Ruling. Which was 13 yrs ago and still being ignored in Ca?
I am not aware of any state law in California that prevents anyone from carrying a handgun for self-defense in their own home.
__________________
GC=light green (recreational)
Mailed application = May 10
Reply With Quote
  #1712  
Old 11-12-2021, 12:18 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,414
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoogescv View Post
I am not aware of any state law in California that prevents anyone from carrying a handgun for self-defense in their own home.
Roster, mag cap limits, 10 day wait, 1 in 30, safe storage, ammunition laws, etc. are all restraints on that right that have not (yet) been subjected to strict scrutiny.

the list is endless.
__________________
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
  #1713  
Old 11-12-2021, 12:21 PM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Roster, mag cap limits, 10 day wait, 1 in 30, safe storage, ammunition laws, etc. are all restraints on that right that have not (yet) been subjected to strict scrutiny.

the list is endless.
Heller holding was limited to carrying a handgun in the home for self-defense. It's not fair to say Heller has been "ignored" by the courts in California.
__________________
GC=light green (recreational)
Mailed application = May 10
Reply With Quote
  #1714  
Old 11-12-2021, 12:26 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 7,761
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
You mean like the SCOTUS Heller Ruling. Which was 13 yrs ago and still being ignored in Ca?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoogescv View Post
I am not aware of any state law in California that prevents anyone from carrying a handgun for self-defense in their own home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Roster, mag cap limits, 10 day wait, 1 in 30, safe storage, ammunition laws, etc. are all restraints on that right that have not (yet) been subjected to strict scrutiny.

the list is endless.
The Roster, Mag Cap Limits, 10 Day Wait, etc, all do not prohibit an ordinary person from possessing a firearm in the home for self defense. Those things may burden the right, but they do not prohibit the exercise of the right.

Remember that Heller expressly permitted restrictions on the right, and it's arguable whether these things are permitted restrictions.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #1715  
Old 11-12-2021, 2:14 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,414
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoogescv View Post
Heller holding was limited to carrying a handgun in the home for self-defense. It's not fair to say Heller has been "ignored" by the courts in California.
Everything I stated infringes on that individual, incorporated, inalienable, enumerated right.
__________________
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
  #1716  
Old 11-12-2021, 2:26 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 256
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default SCOTUS is not a Circuit Court of Appeals

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
You mean like the SCOTUS Heller Ruling. Which was 13 yrs ago and still being ignored in Ca?
No, I mean Circuit Appeals courts. When I say "routinely ignore" I mean it that way. They simply ignore precedents in other Circuits if they don't like them.
Reply With Quote
  #1717  
Old 11-12-2021, 4:01 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Every US District Court within an Federal Appellate Circuit are bound to follow that appellate court's rulings. Where the problem arises is that every decision is fact dependent and must be meshed in with all of the prior opinions of the court. Therefore, any good lawyer can almost always find ways to argue that a new case does not fall within the scope of the holding of a recent appellate decision and that the case, instead, is governed by some other decision(s) of that appellate court. Just recently at the Supreme Court you saw that various parties arguing about what the SC had previously held in a variety of cases and trying to bring the current NY case within one or the other prior cases. That's the system we have.
Reply With Quote
  #1718  
Old 11-12-2021, 4:59 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,621
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoogescv View Post
I am not aware of any state law in California that prevents anyone from carrying a handgun for self-defense in their own home.
Carrying/possessing within home isn't the part of Heller I alluded to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stoogescv View Post
Heller holding was limited to carrying a handgun in the home for self-defense. It's not fair to say Heller has been "ignored" by the courts in California.
Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. NO COURTS were mentioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
The Roster, Mag Cap Limits, 10 Day Wait, etc, all do not prohibit an ordinary person from possessing a firearm in the home for self defense. Those things may burden the right, but they do not prohibit the exercise of the right.
Rick, I mentioned none of those restrictions. So I feel my quote is incorrectly included in your response. And I agree with your opinion, on those points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
You mean like the SCOTUS Heller Ruling. Which was 13 yrs ago and still being ignored in Ca?
I didn't say BY CA.

Because I was alluding to the "unreasonable "safe" storage laws" of some Ca. Cities. Which require all firearms be disabled or locked up.

Which were also part of the Heller Decision.
Reply With Quote
  #1719  
Old 11-12-2021, 5:28 PM
stoogescv stoogescv is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Carrying/possessing within home isn't the part of Heller I alluded to.



Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. NO COURTS were mentioned.



Rick, I mentioned none of those restrictions. So I feel my quote is incorrectly included in your response. And I agree with your opinion, on those points.



I didn't say BY CA.

Because I was alluding to the "unreasonable "safe" storage laws" of some Ca. Cities. Which require all firearms be disabled or locked up.

Which were also part of the Heller Decision.
Ah, thanks for the clarification. That's a very good point, and I agree with you completely (except for the eyerolling). Now that we seem to have secured a solid 5-4 majority (i would not consider Roberts part of any "solid' majority because of his unpredictability), I am optimistic that we will get more clarity from the Court on lots of important details, but you are right that we should have enough from Heller to invalidate some of these unreasonable "safe storage" requirements you mention.
__________________
GC=light green (recreational)
Mailed application = May 10
Reply With Quote
  #1720  
Old 11-12-2021, 6:10 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,414
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
The Roster, Mag Cap Limits, 10 Day Wait, etc, all do not prohibit an ordinary person from possessing a firearm in the home for self defense. Those things may burden the right, but they do not prohibit the exercise of the right.

Remember that Heller expressly permitted restrictions on the right, and it's arguable whether these things are permitted restrictions.
I believe the 10 day wait is similar to safe storage, as it can prevent "immediate" exercise of the right.
__________________
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
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 1:43 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical