Jump to content


Photo

Sylvester v. Harris (CA9)


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 15 December 2016 - 07:58 AM

Oh looks like Chief Judge Thomas has taken it upon himself to be the chief defender of all California law which infringes on the Second Amendment right. Panel comprised of Judges Schroeder (opinion), Nguyen, C.j. Thomas (concurring) found that the CA 10-dah wait period statute IS constitutional, reversing the district and reminding the case (to have the injection lifted). This paragraph is quite telling....

"Because we agree with the State that the 10-day waiting period is a reasonable safety precaution for all purchasers of firearms and need not be suspended once a purchaser has been approved, we reverse the district court’s judgment. Wedo not need to decide whether the regulation is sufficiently longstanding to be presumed lawful. Applying intermediate scrutiny analysis, we hold that the law does not violate the Second Amendment rights of these Plaintiffs, because the ten day wait is a reasonable precaution for the purchase of a second or third weapon, as well as for a first purchase."

Alright, Judge Schroeder, congratulations. You found a way to justify practically any regulation, be it constitutional or not, simply by citing Heller. No second step required. Just "it's reasonable regulation" (screw the Plaintiffs) for the government to require a man who owns 100 guns to wait 10 days to take possession of gun #101 because that's a "reasonable" public safety measure. What part of that is reasonable? What part of that advances public safety interest? It doesn't.

http://cloud.tapatal...1f/14-16840.pdf


Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#2 lawman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 523 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 14

Posted 15 December 2016 - 08:37 AM

Even as an undergraduate I learned that when a government policy/law impinges an enumerated right under the constitution, strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review.  Looks like California treats the constitution as a mere list of suggestions.



#3 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 15 December 2016 - 09:13 AM

Yet another instance of not-even-rational basis being characterized as intermediate scrutiny.


Ad utrumque paratus


#4 officedrone

    With Liberty and Justice for all

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,487 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 12

Posted 15 December 2016 - 09:18 AM

For the children


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

 

Second Amendment Foundation Life Member


#5 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 15 December 2016 - 10:49 AM

Chief Judge Thomas wrote in his concurrence that, since the statute is a "reasonable regulation," the second part of the inquiry (does it burden the right?) is unnecessary. Its gonna be great when Trump appoints four conservatives to that court. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#6 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 15 December 2016 - 10:27 PM

In addition to the current four vacancies on the 9th circuit court of appeals President Trump will be able to fill come Inauguration Day, eight circuit court judges will be 70 years of age or older next year.

 

Two are in their 80's and Judge Gould (70) is a quadriplegic because of M.S.

 

All but 5 of the 9th circuit appellate judges will be 65 years of age or older by the mid-term elections in 2018.  Twelve circuit judges will be 70 years of age or older by the end of Trump's first term in office and a couple of them aren't very many cheeseburgers away from a fatal heart attack. 



#7 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,171 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 16 December 2016 - 03:15 AM

Yet another instance of not-even-rational basis being characterized as intermediate scrutiny.

This. It's so blatant they even describe it correctly as rational basis but then just state they are using intermediate scrutiny. Both of which Heller said were inappropriate.

It brings to mind a bully taunting someone that they know won't fight back, the way they write these decisions. They know they can do whatever they want and SCOTUS isn't going to review it.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#8 GTX63

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,236 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 13

Posted 16 December 2016 - 04:11 AM

Intermediate scrutiny?

Reminds as a kid me of the rules I had to follow when the babysitter showed up. "Yeah, yeah whatever. I'm in charge now."



#9 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,318 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 16 December 2016 - 06:30 AM

Rational?   In a left wing dominated courtroom? 

 

DOES NOT HAPPEN.

 

Its all feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.


Edited by BobPistol, 16 December 2016 - 06:30 AM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#10 Hap

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,671 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 13

Posted 16 December 2016 - 10:23 AM

These judges have been running around on an eight-year hall pass. It's about to expire.


Ad utrumque paratus


#11 chibooey

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Joined: 01-October 13

Posted 16 December 2016 - 12:33 PM

Chief Judge Thomas wrote in his concurrence that, since the statute is a "reasonable regulation," the second part of the inquiry (does it burden the right?) is unnecessary. Its gonna be great when Trump appoints four conservatives to that court. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

How much sway will Feinstein and Boxer have in the appointments for the openings?  I was under the impression that the Senators had a lot of say so.  Then again, President Trump doesn't appear to be following many of the establishment rules....



#12 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,738 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 16 December 2016 - 01:10 PM

Chief Judge Thomas wrote in his concurrence that, since the statute is a "reasonable regulation," the second part of the inquiry (does it burden the right?) is unnecessary. Its gonna be great when Trump appoints four conservatives to that court. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 
How much sway will Feinstein and Boxer have in the appointments for the openings?  I was under the impression that the Senators had a lot of say so.  Then again, President Trump doesn't appear to be following many of the establishment rules....

The democrats got rid of the fillibuster, at least for appointments, so good luck to them I say.
"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

#13 GTX63

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,236 posts
  • Joined: 19-June 13

Posted 17 December 2016 - 03:48 AM

 

Chief Judge Thomas wrote in his concurrence that, since the statute is a "reasonable regulation," the second part of the inquiry (does it burden the right?) is unnecessary. Its gonna be great when Trump appoints four conservatives to that court. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

How much sway will Feinstein and Boxer have in the appointments for the openings?  I was under the impression that the Senators had a lot of say so.  Then again, President Trump doesn't appear to be following many of the establishment rules....

 

 

Not much. About all they can do after the dust and dirt settles is to get mad.

Trumps "Thank You Tour" hit Florida last night. He's basically doing the same one act show wherever he goes, and the crowds are overwhelming and frenzied.

Any liberal watching has to be clawing at their face.

 

Remember the 5 stages of grief-

1.Denial

2.Anger

3.Bargaining

4.Depression

5.Acceptance

 

I'd say they are in the middle of stage #2.  

#3 will arrive shortly after he takes office and starts removing EOs, regulations and policies by the root.

#4 occurs as the economy improves, foreign leaders start reinstalling the exit stairs for Air Force 1 and people go back to work.

#5 depends on if Joe Biden still thinks in 2020 he can take Trump out behind the gym.



#14 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 18 December 2016 - 10:04 AM

Reid involved the "nuclear option" (simple majority to confirm) circuit and district judges because of the GOP blocking a bunch of Obama nominees to CADC. He's gonna regret that. Several Dems have already said they regret it. McConnell warned Reid that what goes around, comes around and when the shoe is on the other foot, the GOP will use it to ram through nominees. I'd like to add that I find it disgusting that Harry "my brother Larry uses me as a punching bag" Reid had the cajones to rewrite the rules of the Senate, originally drafted by Jefferson...for political reasons, nothing else. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#15 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,318 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 18 December 2016 - 10:22 AM

Reid involved the "nuclear option" (simple majority to confirm) circuit and district judges because of the GOP blocking a bunch of Obama nominees to CADC. He's gonna regret that. Several Dems have already said they regret it. McConnell warned Reid that what goes around, comes around and when the shoe is on the other foot, the GOP will use it to ram through nominees. I'd like to add that I find it disgusting that Harry "my brother Larry uses me as a punching bag" Reid had the cajones to rewrite the rules of the Senate, originally drafted by Jefferson...for political reasons, nothing else. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Agreed, this will be poetic justice. 


The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#16 papa

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,454 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 07

Posted 18 December 2016 - 11:20 AM

 

Reid involved the "nuclear option" (simple majority to confirm) circuit and district judges because of the GOP blocking a bunch of Obama nominees to CADC. He's gonna regret that. Several Dems have already said they regret it. McConnell warned Reid that what goes around, comes around and when the shoe is on the other foot, the GOP will use it to ram through nominees. I'd like to add that I find it disgusting that Harry "my brother Larry uses me as a punching bag" Reid had the cajones to rewrite the rules of the Senate, originally drafted by Jefferson...for political reasons, nothing else. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Agreed, this will be poetic justice. 

 

 

I bet there will be a bunch of squealing from a certain group.  Personally , I can't wait to hear it.



#17 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 19 December 2016 - 12:46 PM

They can all shut up. We've had to endure eight years of rule by a man who believes himself to be our savior and we just don't know it. We didn't burn cars, riot, vandalize when Obama won...both times. They need to learn what it's like to lose. We already know what it's like and we're tired of it. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#18 C0untZer0

    Member

  • Members
  • 12,044 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 19 December 2016 - 10:40 PM


Mayor Bloomberg himself has recently turned his attention from oversize soft drinks to gun control, confirming the tendency of the Progressive to go from nanny to tyrant.
- N. A. Halkides -
 

 


#19 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 10 January 2017 - 04:50 PM

En Banc Petition Due on February 13, 2017.

 

When the petition is filed I will post it at my website.



#20 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 16,885 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 01 September 2017 - 03:54 PM


 

 

SAF, CALGUNS FILE PETITION FOR SCOTUS REVIEW OF SILVESTER CASE

 

 

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation and two individual plaintiffs today filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari in the case of Silvester, et.al. v. California Attorney General Zavier Becarra.

 

The case challenges California’s 10-day waiting period law and seeks to overturn a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that essentially forces a gun owner to endure another waiting period to purchase another firearm even though he is licensed to carry and has already passed a background check.

 

Individual plaintiffs in the case are Jeffrey Silvester, an insurance broker in Hanford, and Brandon Combs, executive director of the Calguns Foundation.

 

While this case is about waiting periods, it is also about something more,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It’s about challenging a gun regulation that is designed more to discourage exercise of the Second Amendment than it is about preventing crime.”
 
“Remember what Senior Judge Anthony Ishii of the U.S. District Court said in his original order, that the state has tacit knowledge that a protected Second Amendment right is burdened by the waiting period law,” Gottlieb recalled. “His comparison of the waiting period to prior restraint is a point that should grab the attention of every journalist who has ever defended the First Amendment while disdaining the Second. A civil right is a right, and all rights are equal and deserve equal protection.”

 

Silvester, who has passed California’s rigorous background check, wondered “What possible reason does the State have in denying me my Second Amendment right to take possession of a firearm after I pass yet another background check? If the government can constitutionally prevent a law-abiding person from taking possession of a firearm after they pass a background check, then what isn’t constitutional?”

 

In its decision to ignore the trial court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well as longstanding principles of appellate review, the Ninth Circuit has made it crystal clear that it has no intention of following the Supreme Court’s precedents no matter unconstitutional, burdensome, or irrational the law,” said Combs. “This case is beyond ripe for review.

 

The petition was authored by Washington, D.C. attorney Erik S. Jaffe, who stated that it “is no secret that various lower courts, and the Ninth Circuit especially, are engaged in systematic resistance to” both the  Heller and McDonald rulings on the Second Amendment. Jaffe clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and is now in private practice.

 


.
Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. (Ephesians 4:31)

 

On 5/25/2017, Superintendent Eddie Johnson predicted a 50% reduction is Chicago violence within 3 years of SB1722 becoming law.  The bill was signed into law on 6/23/2017. The clock is now ticking.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users