Jump to content

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


ming

Recommended Posts

Case was rescheduled again. FWIW, other cases continually rescheduled seem to end up with "something" happening, like a dissent (or concurrence) from denial, or the court grants cert.

So it seems "something" is happening here.

It's certainly plausible that they were waiting for Gorsuch to get through the Senate. Now that he's in, he's gotta get up to speed on life on the court while also going over every case pending cert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Layman? The origin of the story is Bloomberg's gun propaganda organ: "the trace"....

 

I was sickened to see it sneaking and twisting it's way in here.

 

Their ("The Trace") whole idea is to include subtle twisting in the story, trying to appear "factual" but still the (anti) twist.

 

In seeing this, Bloomberg's strategy is confirmed.

He wants more and more quotes coming back to propaganda organs he controls.

People are supposed to be subtly irritated after reading them.

Not "hit you over the head with a 2 x 4 propaganda" which isn't effective - instead a slow erosion of the foundations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relist? Could've been because they were waiting on Gorsuch. Could also be because the cert petition will be denied but to give time for Thomas, Alito, possibly others to draft dissents. Could also be because they're collecting cases or drafting a per curiam order disposing of CA9's judgment and remanding with instructions. Who knows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per Curiam ala Caetano would be interesting. They don't like to take on 2A cases, and Per Curiam orders would be a way to take care of them with no fanfare.

Problem with a GVR (grant certiorari, vacate judgment, remand) order and its accompanying per curiam order a la Caetano is that (in that case) it doesn't much guidance to the lower court. Basically slaps their hand, sends it back down and (knowing CA9) they will reach the exact same conclusion as the en banc Court reached. That would be dangerous on their part as, knowing CA9, they'll take forever and a second Trump nominee may end up seated on SCOTUS before it comes back up the flagpole.

 

Thomas may be drafting a dissent from denial as he seems to be on a textualist crusade lately. Dissected in a 7-1 ruling that those exonerated by reversal of their convictions, stating that the Colorado Exoneration Act is a civil process rather than criminal and that it is entirely constitutional to require individuals to go to a judicial venue and prove their own innocence...after their convictions have been vacated. In order to recover lost wages, lost...whatever from the time they were incarcerated. Since the constitution affords no protection in civil proceedings. That's some STRICT originalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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." Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272, 2291 (U.S. 2016) Justice Thomas dissenting.

 

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. He may think that banning concealable firearms, even in the home, is constitutional.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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." Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272, 2291 (U.S. 2016) Justice Thomas dissenting.

 

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. He may think that banning concealable firearms, even in the home, is constitutional.

 

Supreme Court Math and Concealed Carry in Peruta v. California

That is not "clearly" what Thomas thinks. He qualified the statement with "if reasonable," and simply used that as an example to differentiate regulation from prohibition.

 

But Charles Nichols can't read an opinion without it "clearly" saying that concealed carry isn't a right.

 

Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"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." Voisine v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2272, 2291 (U.S. 2016) Justice Thomas dissenting.

 

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. He may think that banning concealable firearms, even in the home, is constitutional.

 

And of course, a big reason we saw these bans on cheap pocket pistols was to keep freedmen and other "undesirables" disarmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relist? Could've been because they were waiting on Gorsuch. Could also be because the cert petition will be denied but to give time for Thomas, Alito, possibly others to draft dissents. Could also be because they're collecting cases or drafting a per curiam order disposing of CA9's judgment and remanding with instructions. Who knows.

It's been rescheduled even before Gorsuch was sworn in. Someone on the court must be wanting his vote. Would they hold things up just for him to sign off on a dissent, or do they think with Gorsuch they can take the case outright?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity.

 

 

There is a lot of that going around. Fortunately, the 9th circuit court of appeals has read the SCOTUS decisions in Baldwin and Heller to say that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment, which was the only question decided by the en banc court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity.

 

 

There is a lot of that going around. Fortunately, the 9th circuit court of appeals has read the SCOTUS decisions in Baldwin and Heller to say that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment, which was the only question decided by the en banc court.

 

You say "Fortunately...concealed carry is not a right under the Second..."

 

I fully support those who want open carry to be recognized universally, and I certainly see your arguments that concealed carry might not be directly protected by the 2A. However, I just can't understand why you could seem happy that concealed carry was shut down. I'm in favor of maximizing all of our rights, enumerated, recognized, or just a pipe dream. Not scoffing at every thing that is not my own pet project. You are arguing AGAINST the very things those on this site are fighting for.

 

I'll return to the rock I crawled out from under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity.

 

 

There is a lot of that going around. Fortunately, the 9th circuit court of appeals has read the SCOTUS decisions in Baldwin and Heller to say that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment, which was the only question decided by the en banc court.

 

You say "Fortunately...concealed carry is not a right under the Second..."

 

I fully support those who want open carry to be recognized universally, and I certainly see your arguments that concealed carry might not be directly protected by the 2A. However, I just can't understand why you could seem happy that concealed carry was shut down. I'm in favor of maximizing all of our rights, enumerated, recognized, or just a pipe dream. Not scoffing at every thing that is not my own pet project. You are arguing AGAINST the very things those on this site are fighting for.

 

I'll return to the rock I crawled out from under.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Your want for an outcome has tainted your objectivity.

 

 

 

 

There is a lot of that going around. Fortunately, the 9th circuit court of appeals has read the SCOTUS decisions in Baldwin and Heller to say that concealed carry is not a right under the Second Amendment, which was the only question decided by the en banc court.

You must know that CA9 will use that same flawed logic to conclude that OC isn't a right under the 2A as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is a right unless the almighty Ninth Circuit issues a formal decree stating that it is a right, or that it is not or is no longer a right. Disclaimer: the Ninth Circuit reserves the right to alter your rights at any time, for any reason or no reason at all, with no notice. Have a nice day.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...