05FLHT Posted January 14, 2011 at 06:28 PM Share Posted January 14, 2011 at 06:28 PM SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Second Amendment plainly guarantees Plaintiffs a fundamental, individual right to carry handguns for self-defense. Although the state may regulate the right to bear arms in the interest of public safety, the fact that such regulations touch upon a fundamental right has long confirmed a distinction between regulation and prohibition...Open and concealed carrying of handguns both satisfy the personal interest in self-defense, and precedent confirms that either may be preferred by government officials for various reasons. But a blanket prohibition on all handgun carrying for self-defense is unconstitutional. And the reason for this is... It is important, then, to recall that (1) the Supreme Court’s definition of “bear arms” as that language is used in the Second Amendment includes the concealed carrying of handguns: “wear, bear, or carry . . . in the clothing or in a pocket . . .” Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2793 (citations omitted) (emphasis added); (2) the legality of bans on concealed carrying is only “presumptive,” Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2817 n.26, and (3) the cases supporting concealed carry prohibition explain that no abrogation of the right to carry arms is effected because open carrying is still permitted. Once decision start to come down in all of these cases, I'm not really sure the tactic of sticking ones fingers in his/her ears and singing "trol la la, lol lol la, trol la la, la la la la" is going to work any longer. Oral argument is scheduled at 2PM on February 10, 2011 Edited to add attachment.Richards v Prieto MSJ.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted January 14, 2011 at 09:22 PM Share Posted January 14, 2011 at 09:22 PM Holy Smoles! and thanks for keeping up with all of this and posting it. I wonder if it is starting to snow in heck yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted January 14, 2011 at 10:12 PM Share Posted January 14, 2011 at 10:12 PM wait a minute, where was this filed? and which court hears this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ike Posted January 15, 2011 at 12:13 AM Share Posted January 15, 2011 at 12:13 AM it is on calgun's website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ike Posted January 15, 2011 at 12:23 AM Share Posted January 15, 2011 at 12:23 AM The way things have gone the past year, I belive that gunowners need to be supporting SAF alot more ,seems they are doing a great job up addressing our rights in the courtroom when our rights are denied by elected officals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abolt243 Posted January 15, 2011 at 02:38 AM Share Posted January 15, 2011 at 02:38 AM wait a minute, where was this filed? and which court hears this case? Yeah, how about a link to the article that your quotes come from. I'd like to read more about this without having to sort through Calguns site. Thanks!! AB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted January 15, 2011 at 03:46 AM Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 at 03:46 AM wait a minute, where was this filed? and which court hears this case? Yeah, how about a link to the article that your quotes come from. I'd like to read more about this without having to sort through Calguns site. Thanks!! AB Hey, sorry about that. I thought I had attached to MSJ.Richards v Prieto MSJ.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted January 15, 2011 at 05:08 AM Share Posted January 15, 2011 at 05:08 AM The way things have gone the past year, I belive that gunowners need to be supporting SAF alot more ,seems they are doing a great job up addressing our rights in the courtroom when our rights are denied by elected officals i agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted January 15, 2011 at 12:21 PM Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 at 12:21 PM wait a minute, where was this filed? and which court hears this case? Richards v Prieto is a challenge to the discretionary permit issuance in California that was formerly known as Sykes v McGinness. McGinness (the Sheriff of Sacramento County) folded and now accepts "self defense" as a "good cause" for issuing a carry permit. The case continues against Yolo County and its Sheriff, Prieto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigma Posted January 15, 2011 at 03:14 PM Share Posted January 15, 2011 at 03:14 PM wait a minute, where was this filed? and which court hears this case? Richards v Prieto is a challenge to the discretionary permit issuance in California that was formerly known as Sykes v McGinness. McGinness (the Sheriff of Sacramento County) folded and now accepts "self defense" as a "good cause" for issuing a carry permit. The case continues against Yolo County and its Sheriff, Prieto. thanks for clearing that up. so they will have to go to every county in califonia sueing them one by one? WHAt the heck man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
05FLHT Posted February 25, 2011 at 09:43 PM Author Share Posted February 25, 2011 at 09:43 PM Heads up from Gene on Calguns - Richards v Prieto - Reply brief (Carry)Today, SAF, CGF, Gura, & Kilmer filed our reply brief in Richards v. Prieto. Oral argument is Thursday March 10, 2011 at 2:00PM in Courtroom 7 of the Eastern District Federal Court in Sacramento. -Gene__________________Gene Hoffman http://ia700408.us.archive.org/4/items/gov.uscourts.caed.191626/gov.uscourts.caed.191626.65.0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted February 26, 2011 at 02:56 PM Share Posted February 26, 2011 at 02:56 PM Heads up from Gene on Calguns - Richards v Prieto - Reply brief (Carry)Today, SAF, CGF, Gura, & Kilmer filed our reply brief in Richards v. Prieto. Oral argument is Thursday March 10, 2011 at 2:00PM in Courtroom 7 of the Eastern District Federal Court in Sacramento. -Gene__________________Gene Hoffman http://ia700408.us.a...191626.65.0.pdf Very well stated and easy to read. It is interesting the way even decisions that appear to cut the wrong way can be used to place pieces in the right order to complete the fundamental rights puzzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglebob Posted February 26, 2011 at 05:09 PM Share Posted February 26, 2011 at 05:09 PM So who could a suit be brought against for a complete denial of the right to bear arms for ordinary law abiding citizens in Illinois? Maybe some otherwise law abiding citizen, maybe a woman with an order of protection against an ex-husband or boy friend whos life was threatened, who was arrested for carrying to protect her life. Is there anyone who might fit that description? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yas Posted February 27, 2011 at 12:21 AM Share Posted February 27, 2011 at 12:21 AM The Million dollar question I have is How will the Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.—- Constitution of the State of Illinois, Article 1, Section 22 from the 1970 Constitutional convention be dealt with? That's the nut to crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Federal Farmer Posted February 27, 2011 at 01:49 AM Share Posted February 27, 2011 at 01:49 AM The Million dollar question I have is How will the Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.—- Constitution of the State of Illinois, Article 1, Section 22 from the 1970 Constitutional convention be dealt with? That's the nut to crack. It is already being dealt with. The of what is within the state's police powers has shrunk and will shrink more. It will not go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.