Jump to content


Photo

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


  • Please log in to reply
199 replies to this topic

#181 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,220 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 01 May 2017 - 06:36 PM

Who's Cliff ???

6C7013588-tdy-130204-ent-clavin.jpg
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#182 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,099 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 01 May 2017 - 09:31 PM

 

Read the responses to my post "Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here."
 
After having read all of the responses, if you still don't understand why concealed carry should be banned then there is nothing that I can add which will make you understand.


Cliff notes please

 

Charles wants to ban concealed carry, and posts a bunch of 19th century court decisions as support.

 

Nothing anyone says is going to make any difference to his quest.


Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#183 ChicagoRonin70

    The Landlord of the Flies!

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,530 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 14

Posted 01 May 2017 - 10:57 PM

 

 

Read the responses to my post "Is Concealed Carry a Right Under the Second Amendment? Make your case here."
 
After having read all of the responses, if you still don't understand why concealed carry should be banned then there is nothing that I can add which will make you understand.


Cliff notes please

 

Charles wants to ban concealed carry, and posts a bunch of 19th century court decisions as support.

 

Nothing anyone says is going to make any difference to his quest.

 

 

So, I've been gone for a bit and just came back recently, but it seems that this Charles Nichols guy wants only open carry, and to ban concealed carry? Do I have that right?

 

I'm wondering where in the Constitution it says, "the right of the people to keep and only openly bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

My copy doesn't say that. Was there an update?

 

I'm all for everyone having the option of openly carrying; I do so in the field or about my home, but there are numerous places where doing so makes one a target and reduces the deterrent and surprise effect of criminals and violent individuals not knowing that I (or someone else) have a firearm. In fact, if I were open carrying in at least one of the defensive display incidents that I have had, I have no doubt that I would have been shot preemptively by the offenders. The surprise of me suddenly pulling out my firearm distracted them enough to allow the situation to not devolve into a shooting incident.

 

So, that alone makes the only-open carry option problematic and thus invalidates it.


“One can never underestimate the idiocy of those determined to be offended by things that don't affect their real lives in the slightest.” —Me
 
“Hatred is the sharpest sword; the desire for peace is armor made of willow leaves in the face of an enemy who despises you, as neither alone will stop a strike that is aimed at your neck.” —Samurai proverb
 
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” —Robert Heinlein
 
“I reserve the right to take any action necessary to maintain the equilibrium in which I've chosen to exist.” —Me
 
"It ain't braggin' if you done it." —Will Rogers

 

Gb1XExdm.jpg
 
 

 
 
 
 


#184 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 04 May 2017 - 01:16 AM

Although I hope that the Peruta cert petition is granted, don't be surprised if a couple of justices file a concurrence to the denial of cert.  Justice Thomas' may very well copy and paste from what he said before:

 

In another case, Justice Thomas had this to say in his dissent:

“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.

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. 

And then there is Justice Alito who would have upheld a Federal law making mere possession of a short barreled shotgun by felons a violent felony for several reasons, one of which is they can be concealed.

So tell us again, which four justices are going to grant the cert petition and which five justices are going to vote for a decision which says that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry?



#185 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,220 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 04 May 2017 - 06:03 AM

So tell us again, which four justices are going to grant the cert petition and which five justices are going to vote for a decision which says that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry?

Excluded middle fallacy.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#186 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,621 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 01 June 2017 - 06:10 PM

Not much of an update, but it appears the court once again rescheduled the case. Here's an analysis.

I'm not sure what to make of it. Preparing a dissent from denial, like in Friedman? Or just taking their time? I seem to recall that Heller may have been rescheduled several times before the court finally agreed to hear that case. It seems to me that Friedman had been rejected because Roberts and Alito knew that Kennedy had either come to regret his vote in Heller, or because he disagreed with the notion that "assault weapons" are protected under the 2nd amendment, and they didn't wanna risk Kennedy siding with the liberals and issuing a horrible ruling. But in this case, it's pretty clear that there's a right to bear arms, and perhaps Kennedy is more receptive to a case like this.

If anything, what we really need is the court to finally declare all gun control cases as subject to strict scrutiny. While not foolproof, it should cut down on the number of bad decisions.
"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

#187 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 01 June 2017 - 06:48 PM

Roberts and Alito knew that Kennedy had either come to regret his vote in Heller, or because he disagreed with the notion that "assault weapons" are protected under the 2nd amendment, and they didn't wanna risk Kennedy siding with the liberals and issuing a horrible ruling. But in this case, it's pretty clear that there's a right to bear arms, and perhaps Kennedy is more receptive to a case like this.

 

Why is it Justice Kennedy is the one who gets the blame for bailing on the Second Amendment?  That is the mantra but the only case I've ever seen cited against him is a 34 year old appellate decision, which he did not write, in which the court held that denial of a concealed carry permit did not create a constitutionally protected interest.

 

So what!  All nine justices in Heller said there isn't a right to concealed carry and three of the Heller five (Alito, Scalia and Thomas) indicated in other opinions that they were skeptical that firearms which are merely concealable are arms protected under the Second Amendment. 

 

P.S.  Peruta is not about whether or not there is a right to bear arms.  Peruta is about whether or not there is a right to carry a handgun concealed in public under the Second Amendment.

 

There isn't, travelers and persons while actually on a journey notwithstanding.  



#188 chislinger

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 5,220 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 02 June 2017 - 06:52 AM

Not much of an update, but it appears the court once again rescheduled the case. Here's an analysis.

I'm not sure what to make of it.

Peruta is hardly alone, nearly all cases are getting rescheduled. Only one per week is getting granted. Maybe they just want Gorsuch to get up to speed.

I expect a lot more action this month.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#189 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,207 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 02 June 2017 - 07:59 AM

Where is the ignore button for this idiot Nichols?

 

BTW, Admins, you might want to check the POS's profile:  http://illinoiscarry...?showuser=16936

 

Seems rather distasteful to come on to a Pro-2A / Pro Concealed Carry forum, and set up shop with fundraiser links to support a guy trying to ban Concealed Carry. If this moron is allowed to Advertise her for FREE, I've got a few things I'd like to seek donations for as well.

 

Ban this idiot.



#190 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,657 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted 02 June 2017 - 08:36 AM

Binderup has been relisted multiple times. That should be a no-brainer grant for SCOTUS as CA3 ruled en banc that the lifetime prohibition on gun ownership for felons is unconstitutional as applied. I don't put much stock into relists because of how backed up the plumbing is over there. They have to deal with G.G. v. Gloucester County (or Gloucester v. G.G., whatever you wanna call it), IRAP v. Trump will be put on an expedited briefing schedule now that it's out of looney tune CA4. They haven't acted on two cell site location info cases, one out of CA4 (go figure, that court will be most reversed). Pending cert petitions in Norman, dunno if government filed one in Tyler. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#191 Molly B.

    IllinoisCarry spokesperson

  • Moderator
  • 14,353 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 05

Posted 02 June 2017 - 01:37 PM

Where is the ignore button for this idiot Nichols?

 

BTW, Admins, you might want to check the POS's profile:  http://illinoiscarry...?showuser=16936

 

Seems rather distasteful to come on to a Pro-2A / Pro Concealed Carry forum, and set up shop with fundraiser links to support a guy trying to ban Concealed Carry. If this moron is allowed to Advertise her for FREE, I've got a few things I'd like to seek donations for as well.

 

Ban this idiot.

 

mrmagloo, you post violates the IC code of conduct.  It is not what you say but how you say it.  You will find there is no love lost for charles nichols among many members here.  He himself has been reprimanded for his violations of the code of conduct.  What he hopes to accomplish by advocating for banning concealed carry when it's the only form of carry available here in Illinois, is beyond me.  As for seeking donations, while I believe it to be uncouth to do so while advocating the removal of our only means of carry, that information is only posted on his personal profile and if you hadn't pointed it out, no one would probably know about it. 

There is value in being able to state our case, uphold our arguments, and express our opinions in a clear and concise manner. For that purpose, I don't have a problem with a challenge to do so being presented here in our forum.  I do have a problem though when Mr. Nichols insults our members and advocates a ban on our only means of exercising our right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.

 

This is not Illinois Concealed Carry, it is IllinoisCarry.  Our goal is to reach "shall not be infringed" status. Period. 

I don't think he gets that part or the part about presenting our legal challenges in steps that we believe are attainable.

 

p.s. The ignore button is in your "manage Ignore prefs" in your account/profile settings.


"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

#192 Speedyellow

  • Members
  • 26 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 16

Posted 04 June 2017 - 08:31 AM

P.S.  Peruta is not about whether or not there is a right to bear arms.  Peruta is about whether or not there is a right to carry a handgun concealed in public under the Second Amendment.

Merely posting this drivel 100 times here doesn't make it true. From Peruta's Jun 2016 Petition for Full Court En Bank Hearing:

"THIS CASE IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, ABOUT WHETHER THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS A RIGHT TO CONCEALED CARRY. ... Appellants [Peruto] contend that the Second Amendment requires that ordinary citizens be provided with some lawful means of carrying outside the home. But their claim has never been that the Second Amendment demands one means of carrying versus another; to the contrary, Appellants have explained on at least three dozen occasions that their claim is that prohibiting both open and concealed carry violates the Second Amendment.
...
In reality, this case is not, and has never been, about whether the Constitution protects a right to concealed carry. It is about whether the Constitution protects a right to carry at all. By refusing to answer that question, the en banc majority effectively refused to resolve the constitutional claims that Appellants have pressednamely, whether depriving them of any outlet for carrying a handgun for self-defense violates the Second Amendment."

#193 mrmagloo

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,207 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 11

Posted 05 June 2017 - 07:53 AM

 

Where is the ignore button for this idiot Nichols?

 

BTW, Admins, you might want to check the POS's profile:  http://illinoiscarry...?showuser=16936

 

Seems rather distasteful to come on to a Pro-2A / Pro Concealed Carry forum, and set up shop with fundraiser links to support a guy trying to ban Concealed Carry. If this moron is allowed to Advertise her for FREE, I've got a few things I'd like to seek donations for as well.

 

Ban this idiot.

 

mrmagloo, you post violates the IC code of conduct.  It is not what you say but how you say it.  You will find there is no love lost for charles nichols among many members here.  He himself has been reprimanded for his violations of the code of conduct.  What he hopes to accomplish by advocating for banning concealed carry when it's the only form of carry available here in Illinois, is beyond me.  As for seeking donations, while I believe it to be uncouth to do so while advocating the removal of our only means of carry, that information is only posted on his personal profile and if you hadn't pointed it out, no one would probably know about it. 

There is value in being able to state our case, uphold our arguments, and express our opinions in a clear and concise manner. For that purpose, I don't have a problem with a challenge to do so being presented here in our forum.  I do have a problem though when Mr. Nichols insults our members and advocates a ban on our only means of exercising our right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.

 

This is not Illinois Concealed Carry, it is IllinoisCarry.  Our goal is to reach "shall not be infringed" status. Period. 

I don't think he gets that part or the part about presenting our legal challenges in steps that we believe are attainable.

 

p.s. The ignore button is in your "manage Ignore prefs" in your account/profile settings.

 

 

Molly, with all due respect to you of course, this imbecile has earned every bit of heat and contempt he has coming.

 

Regarding his fundraising here, I'd like to point out, the Admin has the full right to Edit and Delete the contents of his profile. While no doubt this is your sandbox, seems to me that allowing him to fundraise - or even attempt to do so here, would be nothing less than inviting Bloomberg here for the same as well. Or, for that matter anyone with view contrary to the mission here.  Seems counter-intuitive to allow people of such hideous nature to leverage any resources here in any manner to further their campaign against our stated mission.  It's clear he is just here to perverse discussion and antagonize those genuinely here in support of ALL forms of carry.



#194 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,621 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted Yesterday, 01:15 AM

Peruta keeps getting relisted. Thoughts?
"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

#195 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,102 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted Yesterday, 04:15 AM

Peruta keeps getting relisted. Thoughts?


Just one more conference remaining this session...
"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)

#196 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,657 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted Yesterday, 06:15 AM

That there's a dissent from denial of certiorari coming from Justice Thomas. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder

#197 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,621 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted Yesterday, 07:31 AM

That there's a dissent from denial of certiorari coming from Justice Thomas.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk


I realize this could be a strategic move since the conservatives know they need one more Trump appointee to have a five-man majority on2A issues, but the last thing we need is a win for the gun control movement. There's also the fact that as far as I know, there aren't any pending carry cases elsewhere in the country they could take. We can't just let the "bear" part of the 2A remain unclear because the gun control movement will absolutely use that as a weapon against us.
"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

#198 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,746 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted Yesterday, 09:05 AM

That there's a dissent from denial of certiorari coming from Justice Thomas.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I realize this could be a strategic move since the conservatives know they need one more Trump appointee to have a five-man majority on2A issues, but the last thing we need is a win for the gun control movement. There's also the fact that as far as I know, there aren't any pending carry cases elsewhere in the country they could take. We can't just let the "bear" part of the 2A remain unclear because the gun control movement will absolutely use that as a weapon against us.

Norman v. Florida is probably going to file an appeal to SCOTUS before mid-July. It's an open carry case, but it does address carry in general as a right, and concealed carry with a permit is treated more like a privilege than a right.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#199 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,621 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted Yesterday, 10:16 AM

That there's a dissent from denial of certiorari coming from Justice Thomas.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I realize this could be a strategic move since the conservatives know they need one more Trump appointee to have a five-man majority on2A issues, but the last thing we need is a win for the gun control movement. There's also the fact that as far as I know, there aren't any pending carry cases elsewhere in the country they could take. We can't just let the "bear" part of the 2A remain unclear because the gun control movement will absolutely use that as a weapon against us.

Norman v. Florida is probably going to file an appeal to SCOTUS before mid-July. It's an open carry case, but it does address carry in general as a right, and concealed carry with a permit is treated more like a privilege than a right.

The rapidly growing trend towards constitutional carry is also a huge benefit for all of us, and could very well help in any potential SCOTUS case on the 2A. Sooner or later they're gonna have to address the issue of "bearing" arms, they can't keep kicking these 2A cases down the road forever. Also, do we know if Roberts is on our side or not?
"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

#200 skinnyb82

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,657 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 12

Posted Yesterday, 03:04 PM

We don't know who's on our side anymore. Period. For all we know, both Kennedy and Roberts have jumped ship. Then again, I was shocked (no pun intended) when they GVR'd Caetano, unanimously, with a stern lecture directed toward the MA high court. I still say that we're either waiting on a GVR order or a dissent from denial of certiorari. The latter being the most likely disposition but the Court could be getting sick of CA9's antics and want to send them a message to not pull this crap like allowing Kamala to intervene (an argument which was abandoned but relevant nonetheless). If there was a colossal procedural error by the en banc court then SCOTUS may be crafting a GVR order vacating the en banc ruling and remanding it. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
NRA Member
SAF Member
C&R License Holder




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users