Jump to content


Photo

Ninth Circuit Ruling on Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#151 Jeckler

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,325 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 11

Posted 14 April 2017 - 09:16 AM

http://www.businessi...me-court-2017-4

 

For the layman....



#152 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 11,476 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 14 April 2017 - 09:26 AM

:Crying. =-(:


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
 
- George Orwell -

 


#153 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,127 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 14 April 2017 - 10:37 AM

I hate reading anything that doesn't allow comments.


“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7

 

"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor

 

New Gunner Journal

 


#154 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 14 April 2017 - 11:47 AM

The article was mostly correct, but their interpretation of the "militia" clause was way off.

Edited by MrTriple, 14 April 2017 - 11:47 AM.

"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#155 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,058 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 14 April 2017 - 05:00 PM

As the 7th Curcuit noted it is absurd to think "bearing arms" was only permitted in the home.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#156 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 11,476 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 14 April 2017 - 07:45 PM

What does it mean to bear arms if there's no right to carry arms in a public place?
You don't bear arms in your house, you don't march around with a gun over your shoulder right?
 
- Richard Allen Posner, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit -

 

 


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
 
- George Orwell -

 


#157 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,501 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 14 April 2017 - 08:14 PM

Don't forget that this is about the right to carry *concealed* firearms in public.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#158 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted 15 April 2017 - 06:11 AM

Case was rescheduled again. FWIW, other cases continually rescheduled seem to end up with "something" happening, like a dissent (or concurrence) from denial, or the court grants cert.

So it seems "something" is happening here.



#159 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 16 April 2017 - 09:40 AM

Case was rescheduled again. FWIW, other cases continually rescheduled seem to end up with "something" happening, like a dissent (or concurrence) from denial, or the court grants cert.
So it seems "something" is happening here.


It's certainly plausible that they were waiting for Gorsuch to get through the Senate. Now that he's in, he's gotta get up to speed on life on the court while also going over every case pending cert.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#160 markthesignguy

    S39-(D)D.Harmon(F-) R77-(D)K.Willis(F-)

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,251 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 08

Posted 17 April 2017 - 01:21 AM

 

Layman?  The origin of the story is Bloomberg's gun propaganda organ: "the trace"....

 

I was sickened to see it sneaking and twisting it's way in here.

 

Their ("The Trace") whole idea is to include subtle twisting in the story, trying to appear "factual" but still the (anti) twist.

 

In seeing this, Bloomberg's strategy is confirmed.

He wants more and more quotes coming back to propaganda organs he controls.

People are supposed to be subtly irritated after reading them.

Not "hit you over the head with a 2 x 4 propaganda" which isn't effective - instead a slow erosion of the foundations.


Edited by markthesignguy, 17 April 2017 - 01:22 AM.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign......

#161 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 11,476 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 18 April 2017 - 05:58 PM

Yes !

 

And I found that I was overcome by an irresistible urge to drink a Slurpee Super Big Gulp - but only out of tiny Dixie cups.


People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
 
- George Orwell -

 


#162 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,477 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:08 AM

Relist? Could've been because they were waiting on Gorsuch. Could also be because the cert petition will be denied but to give time for Thomas, Alito, possibly others to draft dissents. Could also be because they're collecting cases or drafting a per curiam order disposing of CA9's judgment and remanding with instructions. Who knows.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#163 kemikos

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 103 posts
  • Joined: 22-March 11

Posted 19 April 2017 - 09:12 AM

What does it mean to bear arms if there's no right to carry arms in a public place?
You don't bear arms in your house, you don't march around with a gun over your shoulder right?
 
- Richard Allen Posner, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit -

Well, maybe Posner doesn't... 😂

#164 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 19 April 2017 - 10:20 AM

Could also be because they're collecting cases or drafting a per curiam order disposing of CA9's judgment and remanding with instructions.

Per Curiam ala Caetano would be interesting. They don't like to take on 2A cases, and Per Curiam orders would be a way to take care of them with no fanfare.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#165 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,477 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 20 April 2017 - 08:03 AM

Per Curiam ala Caetano would be interesting. They don't like to take on 2A cases, and Per Curiam orders would be a way to take care of them with no fanfare.


Problem with a GVR (grant certiorari, vacate judgment, remand) order and its accompanying per curiam order a la Caetano is that (in that case) it doesn't much guidance to the lower court. Basically slaps their hand, sends it back down and (knowing CA9) they will reach the exact same conclusion as the en banc Court reached. That would be dangerous on their part as, knowing CA9, they'll take forever and a second Trump nominee may end up seated on SCOTUS before it comes back up the flagpole.

Thomas may be drafting a dissent from denial as he seems to be on a textualist crusade lately. Dissected in a 7-1 ruling that those exonerated by reversal of their convictions, stating that the Colorado Exoneration Act is a civil process rather than criminal and that it is entirely constitutional to require individuals to go to a judicial venue and prove their own innocence...after their convictions have been vacated. In order to recover lost wages, lost...whatever from the time they were incarcerated. Since the constitution affords no protection in civil proceedings. That's some STRICT originalism.
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#166 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted Yesterday, 02:53 PM

"The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment, no less than those enumerated in the First, are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation. Heller, 554 U. S., at 595, 626-627. Traditionally, States have imposed narrow limitations on an individual's exercise of his right to keep and bear arms, such as prohibiting the carrying of weapons in a concealed manner or in sensitive locations, such as government buildings. Id., at 626-627; see, e.g., State v. Kerner, 181 N. C. 574, 578-579, 107 S. E. 222, 225 (1921). But these narrow restrictions neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms." Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272, 2291 (U.S. 2016) Justice Thomas dissenting.

 

Here is an excerpt from Justice Thomas’ citation to State v. Kerner:
 
“It is also but a reasonable regulation, and one which has been adopted in some of the states, to require that a pistol shall not be under a certain length, which, if reasonable, will prevent the use of pistols of small size, which are not borne as arms, but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed. To exclude all pistols, however, is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of arms, which come under the designation of “arms” which the people are entitled to bear.” State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 578 (N.C. 1921).
 
Justice Thomas clearly does not think that banning concealed carry violates the Second Amendment.  He may think that banning concealable firearms, even in the home, is constitutional.  
 


#167 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,501 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted Yesterday, 04:00 PM

"The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment, no less than those enumerated in the First, are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation. Heller, 554 U. S., at 595, 626-627. Traditionally, States have imposed narrow limitations on an individual's exercise of his right to keep and bear arms, such as prohibiting the carrying of weapons in a concealed manner or in sensitive locations, such as government buildings. Id., at 626-627; see, e.g., State v. Kerner, 181 N. C. 574, 578-579, 107 S. E. 222, 225 (1921). But these narrow restrictions neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms." Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272, 2291 (U.S. 2016) Justice Thomas dissenting.
 
Here is an excerpt from Justice Thomas’ citation to State v. Kerner:
 
“It is also but a reasonable regulation, and one which has been adopted in some of the states, to require that a pistol shall not be under a certain length, which, if reasonable, will prevent the use of pistols of small size, which are not borne as arms, but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed. To exclude all pistols, however, is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of arms, which come under the designation of “arms” which the people are entitled to bear.” State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 578 (N.C. 1921).
 
Justice Thomas clearly does not think that banning concealed carry violates the Second Amendment.  He may think that banning concealable firearms, even in the home, is constitutional.  
 
Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California


That is not "clearly" what Thomas thinks. He qualified the statement with "if reasonable," and simply used that as an example to differentiate regulation from prohibition.

But Charles Nichols can't read an opinion without it "clearly" saying that concealed carry isn't a right.

Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity.

#168 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted Yesterday, 04:15 PM

 

"The protections enumerated in the Second Amendment, no less than those enumerated in the First, are not absolute prohibitions against government regulation. Heller, 554 U. S., at 595, 626-627. Traditionally, States have imposed narrow limitations on an individual's exercise of his right to keep and bear arms, such as prohibiting the carrying of weapons in a concealed manner or in sensitive locations, such as government buildings. Id., at 626-627; see, e.g., State v. Kerner, 181 N. C. 574, 578-579, 107 S. E. 222, 225 (1921). But these narrow restrictions neither prohibit nor broadly frustrate any individual from generally exercising his right to bear arms." Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272, 2291 (U.S. 2016) Justice Thomas dissenting.

 

Here is an excerpt from Justice Thomas’ citation to State v. Kerner:
 
“It is also but a reasonable regulation, and one which has been adopted in some of the states, to require that a pistol shall not be under a certain length, which, if reasonable, will prevent the use of pistols of small size, which are not borne as arms, but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed. To exclude all pistols, however, is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of arms, which come under the designation of “arms” which the people are entitled to bear.” State v. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 578 (N.C. 1921).
 
Justice Thomas clearly does not think that banning concealed carry violates the Second Amendment.  He may think that banning concealable firearms, even in the home, is constitutional.  
 
 

 

And of course, a big reason we saw these bans on cheap pocket pistols was to keep freedmen and other "undesirables" disarmed.



#169 press1280

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Joined: 23-October 11

Posted Yesterday, 04:20 PM

Relist? Could've been because they were waiting on Gorsuch. Could also be because the cert petition will be denied but to give time for Thomas, Alito, possibly others to draft dissents. Could also be because they're collecting cases or drafting a per curiam order disposing of CA9's judgment and remanding with instructions. Who knows.

It's been rescheduled even before Gorsuch was sworn in. Someone on the court must be wanting his vote. Would they hold things up just for him to sign off on a dissent, or do they think with Gorsuch they can take the case outright?



#170 Charles Nichols

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 16

Posted Yesterday, 04:24 PM

 


Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity.

 

 

There is a lot of that going around.  Fortunately, the 9th circuit court of appeals has read the SCOTUS decisions in Baldwin and Heller to say that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment, which was the only question decided by the en banc court.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    skinnyb82