Jump to content


Photo

California "May Issue" Ruled Unconstitutional


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
350 replies to this topic

#331 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,975 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 13 November 2014 - 07:33 AM

This is great news. Finally Dianne Feinstein can get her carry permit.


Ad utrumque paratus


#332 domin8

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,156 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 13 November 2014 - 08:17 AM

Feinstein doesn't need a permit. The Second Amendment is the only permit she needs.

#333 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,130 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 13 November 2014 - 08:30 AM

California is going to be under tremendous pressure to not appeal this until Obama or our next President has had a chance to replace one of the pro constitution SCOTUS justices with an activist. I would wager they file the appeal to the SCOTUS on the last possible day or damn near that


Replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't going to help him . Kennedy and Scalia have not shown any intention of retiring anytime soon.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#334 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,388 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 13 November 2014 - 08:44 AM

California is going to be under tremendous pressure to not appeal this until Obama or our next President has had a chance to replace one of the pro constitution SCOTUS justices with an activist. I would wager they file the appeal to the SCOTUS on the last possible day or damn near that

 

California lost its chance to appeal because their Attorney General Kamala Harris was asleep at the wheel.

 

She ignored the case, even after the ruling, then she filed a motion to intervene - which was denied.

 

California cannot appeal this.

 

There is a chance however that one or more judges in the 9th Circuit can sua sponte call for an en banc review.

 

That is what we're waiting for now.


Edited by C0untZer0, 13 November 2014 - 08:45 AM.

“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#335 miztic

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,177 posts
  • Joined: 22-February 12

Posted 13 November 2014 - 09:24 AM

 

California is going to be under tremendous pressure to not appeal this until Obama or our next President has had a chance to replace one of the pro constitution SCOTUS justices with an activist. I would wager they file the appeal to the SCOTUS on the last possible day or damn near that

 

California lost its chance to appeal because their Attorney General Kamala Harris was asleep at the wheel.

 

She ignored the case, even after the ruling, then she filed a motion to intervene - which was denied.

 

California cannot appeal this.

 

There is a chance however that one or more judges in the 9th Circuit can sua sponte call for an en banc review.

 

That is what we're waiting for now.

 

 

But the sherriff has said he doesn't want to appeal, how does that work with the 9th circuit judges deciding to do an en-banc anyway?

This isn't going to scotus [unfortunately], maybe Palmer will end up there, which might be a better case anyway.


The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.


#336 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,860 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 13 November 2014 - 09:38 AM

Would Attorney General Kamala Harris pressure the Sheriff to appeal to en banc review?


The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#337 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,523 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 13 November 2014 - 09:54 AM

How long is the door open for a en banc review?
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#338 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,388 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 13 November 2014 - 10:07 AM

Would Attorney General Kamala Harris pressure the Sheriff to appeal to en banc review?

 

 

It is too late, the time for parties to file for an en banc review has passed.

 

I don't know how long the judges have to call for a vote in this case, the rules say 7 days from the expiration of the time from the parties' time to file a motion for en banc - but in this case they took time to assess if Kamala Harris could intervene or not.  if I recall from Moore, the process takes a number of weeks.  First there is a period of time which can be a week or a few weeks, for any judge to call for a vote, if a judge calls for a vote, a vote is scheduled for the next meeting of the court, if, at the meeting, a majority of judges vote to review the case, the case will be scheduled for an en-banc hearing, and I think the first that the public hears about it is when the case shows up on the docket to be reheard.

 

I think best case scenario judges have 7 days from today to make a sua sponte en banc call, 21 days worst case scenario.


Edited by C0untZer0, 13 November 2014 - 10:14 AM.

“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#339 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,388 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 13 November 2014 - 10:13 AM

But the sherriff has said he doesn't want to appeal, how does that work with the 9th circuit judges deciding to do an en-banc anyway?

 

 

Any judge on the 9th Circuit can call for an en banc hearing, it is called sua sponte en banc call.

 

http://michellawyers...edure-Guide.pdf


“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#340 BillR

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 766 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 13

Posted 13 November 2014 - 01:57 PM

That clears it up LOL  It is either 7, 10, 14, 21, 30, 52 or 90 days.... (and/or any combination of them) :unsure: :unsure:


Edited by BillR, 13 November 2014 - 01:57 PM.

Lifetime Member NRA
Lifetime Member IL. State Rifle Assn.

#341 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,523 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 13 November 2014 - 03:16 PM

Would Attorney General Kamala Harris pressure the Sheriff to appeal to en banc review?

 
It is too late, the time for parties to file for an en banc review has passed.
 
I don't know how long the judges have to call for a vote in this case, the rules say 7 days from the expiration of the time from the parties' time to file a motion for en banc - but in this case they took time to assess if Kamala Harris could intervene or not.  if I recall from Moore, the process takes a number of weeks.  First there is a period of time which can be a week or a few weeks, for any judge to call for a vote, if a judge calls for a vote, a vote is scheduled for the next meeting of the court, if, at the meeting, a majority of judges vote to review the case, the case will be scheduled for an en-banc hearing, and I think the first that the public hears about it is when the case shows up on the docket to be reheard.
 
I think best case scenario judges have 7 days from today to make a sua sponte en banc call, 21 days worst case scenario.

As I understand it every Circuit has its own rules, so the rules in the 7th Circuit's Moore decision have no bearing on the 9th.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#342 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,388 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 13 November 2014 - 08:06 PM

 

 

Would Attorney General Kamala Harris pressure the Sheriff to appeal to en banc review?

 
It is too late, the time for parties to file for an en banc review has passed.
 
I don't know how long the judges have to call for a vote in this case, the rules say 7 days from the expiration of the time from the parties' time to file a motion for en banc - but in this case they took time to assess if Kamala Harris could intervene or not.  if I recall from Moore, the process takes a number of weeks.  First there is a period of time which can be a week or a few weeks, for any judge to call for a vote, if a judge calls for a vote, a vote is scheduled for the next meeting of the court, if, at the meeting, a majority of judges vote to review the case, the case will be scheduled for an en-banc hearing, and I think the first that the public hears about it is when the case shows up on the docket to be reheard.
 
I think best case scenario judges have 7 days from today to make a sua sponte en banc call, 21 days worst case scenario.

 

As I understand it every Circuit has its own rules, so the rules in the 7th Circuit's Moore decision have no bearing on the 9th.

 

 

Yes, but neither circuit advertises to the public such things like - if a judge called for a vote or some of the internal proceedings of the court.  So it may be a while before we find out if there is going to be an en banc hearing.


“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 


#343 Blade13

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 657 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 10

Posted 14 November 2014 - 06:37 PM


Edited by Blade13, 14 November 2014 - 06:38 PM.

NRA Patriot Life Member
ISRA Life Member

GSL


#344 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,416 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 14 November 2014 - 09:45 PM

This is the best analysis I've read to date about this case, potential challenges, and a preview of what could happen in other related cases within the 9th circuit court and beyond: http://www.calgunlaw...to-shall-issue/
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#345 McCroskey

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Members
  • 3,624 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 15 November 2014 - 10:19 PM

Feinstein doesn't need a permit. The Second Amendment is the only permit she needs.

 

Politicians don't have to follow rules, those are for everyone else.


“By concord little things grow great, by discord the greatest come to nothing.”
-Roger Williams

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#346 TyGuy

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,828 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 15 November 2014 - 10:23 PM

Almost like a ruling class. Ruling class with different rules, a single authority that makes laws as they see fit, and stupid taxes.....reminds me of something from history class.
ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread

#347 brianj - now in Kansas

    Political refugee from the People's Republic of IL

  • Members
  • 1,711 posts
  • Joined: 17-September 12

Posted 16 November 2014 - 08:15 AM

Almost like a ruling class.

Ruling class with different rules, a single authority that makes laws as they see fit, and stupid taxes.....reminds me of something from history class.


And literature class. Something about some pigs being more equal than others.

"Your father's 1911..  Not as random or clumsy as a Glock.  A more elegant weapon for a more civilized age." -- Obi Wan Kenobi


#348 Neumann

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 16 November 2014 - 11:35 AM

Does Peruta v San Diego apply just to San Diego, or to all counties in California? Requiring special circumstances for a permit is county policy, not state law. I think in Hawaii and other states or territories under the 9th Circuit, state law may be an issue, and was not part of the Peruta decision per se.



#349 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,523 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 16 November 2014 - 12:38 PM

Does Peruta v San Diego apply just to San Diego, or to all counties in California? Requiring special circumstances for a permit is county policy, not state law. I think in Hawaii and other states or territories under the 9th Circuit, state law may be an issue, and was not part of the Peruta decision per se.

Technically just San Diego, but any other place under the 9th Circuit jurisdiction that disallows self defense as good cause is ripe to lose a lawsuit.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#350 Neumann

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 741 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 16 November 2014 - 04:58 PM

If more lawsuits are necessary, it would be good to seek class status.



#351 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 16 November 2014 - 05:51 PM

There is no constitutional grounds for an outright ban.
"....to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...."
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
Who would like to be on the losing side when SCOTUS' hands are forced?
If the court actually grows a pair and acknowledge that there ARE rights that are absolute... like the Bill of Rights,
it will do two things, state the obvious and end the careers of those who sought to take these rights away.
And in this information age, I don't think many people are willing to take being stripped of their rights lightly.

The first argument about the 2A isn't one I would be on that...if the will is there they will find a way.