Jump to content


Photo

Pro Se Open Carry Win in the 9th Circuit - Murphy v. CNMI Government


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 01 October 2016 - 03:01 AM

This wasn't just an Open Carry win, the plaintiff (who isn't an attorney) managed to have several laws struck down after filing his sixth complaint.

 

Needless to say I will be tracking this case at my website.

 

 
 
“Judge Manglona said that when Murphy properly renews his gun license, the CNMI government must return the weapons and ammunition he is entitled to possess consistent with this court decision.
 
She granted Murphy’s motion and declared unconstitutional the firearm registration requirement, the ban on rifles in calibers larger than .223, the ban on assault weapons, the ban on transporting operable firearms, and the $1,000 excise tax.
 
But Judge Manglona also granted the CNMI government’s motion with respect to the license requirement, the restrictions on storing firearms in the home and the ban on large-capacity magazines.”
 
86 – Fourth Amended Complaint Note: Although this operative complaint is labeled Fourth Amended Complaint it appears to be the sixth complaint filed.
 
 
 


#2 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,971 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 01 October 2016 - 05:30 AM

Just a couple of thoughts:

- Congrats to Mr. Murphy - glad to see his wins on several of his challenges, and his ability to build on SAF's win in Radich v. Guerrero
- It's disappointing the Court upheld the capacity limit ban and the in-home storage requirements
- I wish the court had applied near-strict or strict scrutiny instead of intermediate scrutiny on several of the issues
- Interesting (and encouraging) to see the Court's use of Moore v. Madigan to rule the ban on public carry unconstitutional
"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)

#3 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 02 October 2016 - 05:43 AM

The court was constrained due to Jackson and Fyock, that's why he lost on those points.

 

As far as an open carry win? When the people there can at a minimum have a shall issue open carry law, it'll be a win. As we've seen with DC, striking a total carry ban is only step 1.

 

May issue along the lines of Hawaii & NJ will likely be instituted if NMI decides not to appeal.

 

Nevertheless an outstanding job by Murphy.



#4 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 02 October 2016 - 01:43 PM

As far as an open carry win? When the people there can at a minimum have a shall issue open carry law, it'll be a win. As we've seen with DC, striking a total carry ban is only step 1.

 

 

 

I have never understood why some people insist on a requirement that one must have a government issued permission slip in order to exercise what they claim is a fundamental right.  I have my theories as to why, none of which are flattering.

 

Regardless, thanks to Murphy a government issued permission slip is not required to openly carry a handgun.



#5 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 03 October 2016 - 04:11 AM

That's why I said,"At a minimum," as no permit would be optimal but not likely here with this government who apparently has legislation ready.

#6 press1280

    Member

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

Posted 22 October 2016 - 06:27 AM

http://www.cnmileg.g...HB19-181SS1.pdf

 

New legislation going through the CNMI legislature. Looks pretty strict WRT licensing of dealers and individuals. It also looks like they are trying to pass another caliber ban and another AWB.

 

Only bits on public carry I see are no carry (or possession) within 500 feet of a daycare and no carry on private property against the owner's wishes.



#7 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,971 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 22 October 2016 - 06:58 AM

Looks like the proposed legislation is modeled to a large extent after Illinois' FOID Act, which requires a FOID card to possess firearms and ammunition. They are also imposing a training requirement prior to issuing a FOID Card. In a sense, the FOID Card becomes the permission slip to not only possess, but to open carry as well.
"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)

#8 majujutinker

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 23 October 2016 - 08:20 PM

I don't understand something how is a lawsuit in another state help illinois gun laws. Just would like to know.

#9 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 23 October 2016 - 09:48 PM

I don't understand something how is a lawsuit in another state help illinois gun laws. Just would like to know.

As a practical matter it doesn't help much unless there is a favorable Federal appellate decision or favorable state high court decision in which case those decisions can be cited as "persuasive authority" in lawsuits challenging Illinois laws.  It appears that the CNMI isn't going to file an appeal which means his case ends in the district court and district court decisions aren't precedential.  They are binding only on the parties to the suit.



#10 Charles Nichols

    Member

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

Posted 27 December 2016 - 09:57 PM

Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry, December 12, 2016 – Two and a half months after getting his injunction, the Clerk of the Court formally entered judgment in the case and awarded costs to Mr. Murphy.  These are nominal costs (e.g., filing fee and some printing costs) because Mr. Murphy is not an attorney and even though he won, he gets nothing for his time and effort.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users