Another Second Amendment win in California

newyorkguy said:
Yes sorry, you're right (counting "no restriction" states as "shall issues" states, I think?)
Click to expand...
They do issue permits if requested, in order to be allowed to carry in reciprocating states.

newyorkguy said:
I don't usually use Wikipedia as a reference but in this case I will. Here's a link to a pretty cool interactive map that shows that we've gone from 8 shall issue states in 1986 to 37 in 2013.

I don't know what more compelling evidence there could possibly be to substantiate my assertion that the Second Amendment right to carry a gun has undergone a huge expansion in recent years than this map.
Click to expand...
You're making a big assumption there, those are only for concealed carry. Open carry was quite widespread for a long time, concealed carry laws are in many ways a pushback from open carry restrictions enacted in the 20th century.

eta: here's an interactive map: http://www.handgunlaw.us/
 
newyorkguy said:
You're quoting a court decision that states the Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms to prove the Constitution DOES grant the right to bear arms.
Click to expand...

Is there a history in your family of pathological fear of reading past a semi-colon?

In all honesty, after reading your posts I expected better from you.

neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence

The Constitution does not grant a right to bear arms. The right is not dependent on that instrument for its existence. That's what the court wrote in their decision, and I can only conclude from that writing that the right exists independently of the Constitution, and that the Justices knew what they were writing and what it meant. They certainly didn't mean that no such right existed, and they noted that the Second was a restriction on the federal government - Mcdonald answered that question when they incorporated the Second through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
 
BStrong said:
Is there a history in your family of pathological fear of reading past a semi-colon?

In all honesty, after reading your posts I expected better from you.

neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence

....That's what the court wrote in their decision, and I can only conclude from that writing that the right exists independently of the Constitution, and that the Justices knew what they were writing and what it meant...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry as I told you previously no I don't know what that means, that people have the right to carry a handgun independent of the rights granted by our legal system. Earlier people here were saying that refers to the natural rights we all possess under natural law. The only natural laws I'm familiar with have to do with things like gravity, the temperature at which water boils/freezes, etc.

Again, what is the problem here? I'm leaving aside the question of where the right to carry a handgun emanates from. Whatever you want to believe is fine with me. For the umpteenth time, I am merely suggesting, the right of law-abiding adults to carry a handgun for purposes of self defense has been expanded in recent years.

You like snarky questions?

Why do all the gun rights advocates seem compelled to deny what on it's face seems to me to be the most obvious of statements? Is that from the NRA playbook?
In an Internet forum never agree that gun rights have been expanded. Always argue the contrary.
Click to expand...

Don't ask why, just do it!
 
newyorkguy said:
I'm sorry as I told you previously no I don't know what that means, that people have the right to carry a handgun independent of the rights granted by our legal system. Earlier people here were saying that refers to the natural rights we all possess under natural law. The only natural laws I'm familiar with have to do with things like gravity, the temperature at which water boils/freezes, etc.

Again, what is the problem here? I'm leaving aside the question of where the right to carry a handgun emanates from. Whatever you want to believe is fine with me. For the umpteenth time, I am merely suggesting, the right of law-abiding adults to carry a handgun for purposes of self defense has been expanded in recent years.

You like snarky questions?

Why do all the gun rights advocates seem compelled to deny what on it's face seems to me to be the most obvious of statements? Is that from the NRA playbook?

Don't ask why, just do it!
Click to expand...

Since we're free to describe our perceptions of reality, I have no problem with you describing what your pov is, I just have difficulty understanding how someone could read the SCOTUS decisions where there are very clear references to the right to possess and carry firearms and hand wave away what is clearly written in the decision.

I have for many years seen Cruickshank referenced exactly as you have in this thread, in exactly the same manner, and then as now whoever making that reference simply ignores the rest of the sentence.

Yes, more states have gone shall issue from no issue or may issue. Some states are no permit required. It is not a modern creation of rights out of thin air because the NRA is buying more politicians than HCI or Brady, it's individual citizens working to ensure that their rights aren't abridged, and state legislatures that have seen the light - A Right Not Exercised is a Right Lost - and in this specific example of California, many rights relating to possessing and carrying firearms, either openly, concealed, unloaded or loaded, have been abridged by the state legislature.

And I apologize, I was snarky.

But I still think the semi must confound you in some mysterious manner.
 
Folks had 30 days to file for an appeal. The 30 days have passed, but IIRC, It's up to some segment of the whole court to approve/disapprove the applications, to consider "standing" when they were not involved in the original case.

So I too would like an update.
 
According to an article by James Ching published 3 May, the Ninth District Court has issued an order requiring the Sheriff to clarify his position on a couple of points:

James Ching said:
In some sense, the Sheriff’s response is a formality in that, if, as the Sheriff has previously announced in the press, he wants no part of an appeal of the decision, he simply has to reiterate this position with a filing with the Court. Assuming that the Sheriff does not change his mind, his absenting himself from the appeal would be a predicate to consideration of the Attorney General’s status on appeal and would seem to bolster the chances of the Court granting intervenor status to the Attorney General.
Click to expand...


Ching also writes:

James Ching said:
There is a more subtle point implicit in this discussion of mootness. The Peruta decision was a reversal of the District Court’s errorneous denial of summary judgment to Peruta. Therefore, the case was simply reversed and remanded to the District Court.

...snip...

Thus, it is possible that the Attorney General’s best strategy on appeal is no appeal at all. Based on the May 1 order, the Attorney General should abandon its motion to intervene and en banc consideration in the Ninth Circuit, intervene on remand in the trial court, and then take an active role during and after the trial court’s ruling on Peruta’s motion for summary judgment.
Click to expand...
 
Uh, wouldn't another interpretation be that if the sheriff doesn't want to pursue the appeal, it's over? Time for Kamilla to take it to SCOTUS? But if she does not have standing at the en banc 9th, would she at the SCOTUS?

Meantime, does she care what Governor Moonbeam wants her to do? He has turned a bit more realistic on guns lately.

Oh well, good thing I laid in a supply of popcorn. And reloading components.
 
Last edited:
BStrong said:
I have for many years seen Cruickshank referenced exactly as you have in this thread, in exactly the same manner, and then as now whoever making that reference simply ignores the rest of the sentence...
Click to expand...

So long as this came up again, I refer to the above.

I ignored the rest of the sentence? Pro-gun rights advocates ignore the underlying case that Cruikshank decided. Wasn't Cruickshank about people NOT having a Second Amendment right to carry guns?

Wasn't Cruickshank about a group of blacks being disarmed in Louisiana in 1873 following a political dispute? That a white citizen's group forcibly took away the blacks' guns and the blacks then went to court claiming that, under the Second Amendment, citizens had the right to carry arms. That the courts had an obligation to protect that right? A Circuit judge in Louisiana agreed and the case was appealed to SCOTUS.

But the Supreme Court disagreed...siding with the defense, which argued that the Second Amendment merely protected the rights of states to maintain militias...And as another brief added, "the power to regulate and control the bearing of arms on the part of the people, and their assembling together in great numbers, belongs to the police powers of the state, and it is a necessary power to be exercised for the peace of society and the safety of life and property."

The Cruikshank case proved hugely important for the Second Amendment. It placed a states' rights reading of the amendment at the center of federal jurisprudence and denied that the amendment provided any sort of individual right to own guns. Link
Click to expand...
 
Herc, the Calguns forum has a thread.

Last I read, the 9th is considering the state AG's standing to appeal after the S.D sheriff declined to. They did ask the sheriff for a letter, when all he had to so is not file an appeal. Others think that means they will hear an appeal from the AG. I think it may mean that if the sheriff isn't going to appeal, it stands. How can a third party do an appeal when the defendant gave in? If she (or others) have no standing at the 9th, she will probably take it to the Supremes. 9th has ummm sixty days or more to decide on her standing?

Cal. AG is one Camilla(sp?) Harris, very anti-gun.
 
casebro said:
Herc, the Calguns forum has a thread.

Last I read, the 9th is considering the state AG's standing to appeal after the S.D sheriff declined to. They did ask the sheriff for a letter, when all he had to so is not file an appeal. Others think that means they will hear an appeal from the AG. I think it may mean that if the sheriff isn't going to appeal, it stands. How can a third party do an appeal when the defendant gave in? If she (or others) have no standing at the 9th, she will probably take it to the Supremes. 9th has ummm sixty days or more to decide on her standing?

Cal. AG is one Camilla(sp?) Harris, very anti-gun.
Click to expand...

California gungrabbers are caught between a rock and a hard place.

If they don't appeal, they are left with the entire West Coast being Shall Issue CCW. If they do appeal, they run the risk of having the entire country become Shall Issue CCW.

:)
 
Hercules56 said:
California gungrabbers are caught between a rock and a hard place.

If they don't appeal, they are left with the entire West Coast being Shall Issue CCW. If they do appeal, they run the risk of having the entire country become Shall Issue CCW.

:)
Click to expand...

I doubt the latter would happen. More likely it would uphold 'may issue' as long as denials were not capricious and arbitrary.
 
Tyr, the point is that SCOTUS says we do have the right to self defense. But by California laws, we can not openly carry a gun. There for, they MUST issue concealed carry permits. Simple.

Though I suspect separate open carry suits are also in the works. There are so many exceptions it's hard to enforce.

California is trying to have it's cake and eat it too.
 
States still have the right to enforce reasonable restrictions.

In a case involving restrictions Maryland has put on owning a handgun (handgun applicants must demonstrate a "good and substantial reason" to be issued a permit to carry a handgun in public) the Second Amendment Foundation tried to appeal the case to SCOTUS last Fall but the Court declined to hear the appeal. Link

I'm not sure how this will all play out.
 
Hercules56 said:
Anything new with this story?
Click to expand...

Each California county has it's own issuing criteria, and each county that has not gone to more of a "shall-issue" from the "may-issue" licensing model will still need to be litigated separately - the counties that are digging in their heels figure the longer they drag out the process the better, and in the end they're only burning taxpayer dollars and they've already discovered how to get out from under being ordered to pay plaintiff's attorney's fees - fight to the last drop of blood, then enter into a settlement stipulation that the county will revise their issuance policies - no court ruling, no plaintiff's attorney's fee awarded.

Alameda county did just that in Nordyke v King:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordyke_v._King

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/nordyke-gun-case-nears-end/

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2012/06/finally_a_rulin.php

Nordyke wasn't a case involving carry permits, but in light of Heller, Mcdoanald etc. defendants have learned the lesson that depending on a anti-Second ruling from appeals courts or higher is a real risk.

I don't believe Alan Gura has ever been paid by D.C. for Heller - it's my understanding that he'd foreclose, but they don't have enough assets to cover his billings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom