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

[kwc]

"The en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable. Most fundamentally, it wasnot justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole."

 

"Even the en banc court acknowledged that petitioners 'base their argumenton the entirety of California’s statutory scheme' and 'do not contend that there is a free-standing Second Amendment right to carry concealed firearms.'"

 

I'd say Justice Thomas makes it pretty clear this case was about much more than simply the right to carry a concealed firearm in public.

[quackersmacker]

Could be a blessing in the long run. By the time a challenge to California's ban on carry is through the 9th Circuit there could be 2 more Trump appointees on the court.

I don't understand your comment. This was the Supreme Court ruling upholding the 9th Circuit. Unless the Supreme Court in essence overrules itself with a contrary future decision (extremely rare) this decision now stands as settled law.

[skinnyb82]

Thomas is no dummy. Guaranteed he's been following this case as it percolated through the courts. He knows it's about more than "Is there a right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense?"

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[stm]

 

Could be a blessing in the long run. By the time a challenge to California's ban on carry is through the 9th Circuit there could be 2 more Trump appointees on the court.

 

 

I don't understand your comment. This was the Supreme Court ruling upholding the 9th Circuit. Unless the Supreme Court in essence overrules itself with a contrary future decision (extremely rare) this decision now stands as settled law.

SCOTUS did NOT uphold the 9th CA's ruling in Peruta. They merely declined to take the case. There is a huge difference. Declining to take a case in no way affirms the previous ruling, but it does let the ruling stand for that judicial district only.

[quackersmacker]

 

Could be a blessing in the long run. By the time a challenge to California's ban on carry is through the 9th Circuit there could be 2 more Trump appointees on the court.

 

 

I don't understand your comment. This was the Supreme Court ruling upholding the 9th Circuit. Unless the Supreme Court in essence overrules itself with a contrary future decision (extremely rare) this decision now stands as settled law.

SCOTUS did NOT uphold the 9th CA's ruling in Peruta. They merely declined to take the case. There is a huge difference. Declining to take a case in no way affirms the previous ruling, but it does let the ruling stand for that judicial district only.

 

The decision (or non-decision, if you want to be technical) is consistent with those of four other federal appellate courts. If you think this same Court, under similar case facts, coming from another circuit, would rule differently, that's dreamin'. We need another justice, and fortunately that may happen very soon.

[chislinger]

 

Could be a blessing in the long run. By the time a challenge to California's ban on carry is through the 9th Circuit there could be 2 more Trump appointees on the court.

I don't understand your comment. This was the Supreme Court ruling upholding the 9th Circuit. Unless the Supreme Court in essence overrules itself with a contrary future decision (extremely rare) this decision now stands as settled law.

A denial of cert is not a ruling, it sets no legal precedent. It is settled law only in the 9th Circuit. The 7th Circuit ruling that bearing arms outside the home is a right is still the binding law here.

[quackersmacker]

 

 

Could be a blessing in the long run. By the time a challenge to California's ban on carry is through the 9th Circuit there could be 2 more Trump appointees on the court.

I don't understand your comment. This was the Supreme Court ruling upholding the 9th Circuit. Unless the Supreme Court in essence overrules itself with a contrary future decision (extremely rare) this decision now stands as settled law.

A denial of cert is not a ruling, it sets no legal precedent. It is settled law only in the 9th Circuit. The 7th Circuit ruling that bearing arms outside the home is a right is still the binding law here.

 

It clearly shows the thinking (or lack thereof) of the majority of the current court members. You seem to underestimate the importance of this event, IMHO. Read Clarence Thomas's dissent. He's pretty worked up about it.

[JTHunter]

Justice Thomas has a right to be upset, just as we should be too.

 

What happens now? A difference of opinions between the 9th and another court, say the 7th, and those opposing opinions cause the Peruta decision to be re-visited on the SC? Or will it take a whole new case that has to wind its way through the system yet again?

[stm]

 

 

 

 

 

Could be a blessing in the long run. By the time a challenge to California's ban on carry is through the 9th Circuit there could be 2 more Trump appointees on the court.

 

I don't understand your comment. This was the Supreme Court ruling upholding the 9th Circuit. Unless the Supreme Court in essence overrules itself with a contrary future decision (extremely rare) this decision now stands as settled law.

 

A denial of cert is not a ruling, it sets no legal precedent. It is settled law only in the 9th Circuit. The 7th Circuit ruling that bearing arms outside the home is a right is still the binding law here.

 

 

 

It clearly shows the thinking (or lack thereof) of the majority of the current court members. You seem to underestimate the importance of this event, IMHO. Read Clarence Thomas's dissent. He's pretty worked up about it.

My guess is that Alito and Roberts are not sure how Kennedy (the other pro-gun vote in Heller and McDonald) would vote on this case. He has backtracked a bit since the Newtown event.

 

Thomas may be expressing a bit of righteous indignation, but I am sure he understands better than we do the risk losing this case and setting bad precedence for many years to come.

[skinnyb82]

Entirely new case, unfortunately. Cert denial is the final case disposition. I believe that "new" case will, or should be Norman v. Florida but we'll have to wait and see. I cannot understand why SCOTUS is OK with a massive circuit split when it comes to right to bear arms outside the home but...isn't when it comes to the bankruptcy code or statutory law like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

 

Antis are calling this a "win." It isn't a win, it's more like a draw with the tiebreaker going to California. You cannot win in SCOTUS when the Court declines to hear the case.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[mrmagloo]

I wonder if this gives any insight on whether Kennedy has tipped his hat on retiring? Imho, if that's the inside take, I'm kind of thinking it make sense so they can hit this later with a stronger 2A replacement. Plus, I'm not so sure if they really wanted to hit the distinction of CC vs OC in the same case. But, what do I know?

[RoadyRunner]

This was the Supreme Court ruling upholding the 9th Circuit.

 

No it wasn't.

 

If they had granted cert and affirmed then they would have been upholding the 9th.

[Hazborgufen]

 

This was the Supreme Court ruling upholding the 9th Circuit.

No it wasn't.

 

If they had granted cert and affirmed then they would have been upholding the 9th.

 

 

Exactly. This is the just the Supreme Court plugging its ears with it's fingers and closing its eyes. It's a far cry from actually upholding the 9th's ruling as far as legal precedent is concerned, though that's little comfort for the beleaguered Californians for whom the practical difference is non-existent.

[Plinkermostly]

Would be nice to have a single: must, open &/or concealed, ARs are NOT assault weapons, right (not infringed) case. Sigh.

[quackersmacker]

 

 

This was the Supreme Court ruling upholding the 9th Circuit.

No it wasn't.

 

If they had granted cert and affirmed then they would have been upholding the 9th.

 

 

Exactly. This is the just the Supreme Court plugging its ears with it's fingers and closing its eyes. It's a far cry from actually upholding the 9th's ruling as far as legal precedent is concerned, though that's little comfort for the beleaguered Californians for whom the practical difference is non-existent.

 

This ruling (oh wait! Sorry, it's just denial of certiorari!) directly affects 61 million people in 9 states and some Pacific islands. Those who are pooh-pooing this as some kind of non-event are sadly misguided. We need a new justice or two on SCOTUS, desperately. The denial of cert reflects the current majority thinking. That is inarguable, IMHO. It's self-evident. That is dangerous.

[tkroenlein]

I would like to offer a counter point, though I'm not exactly sure a ruling *would* have affected this, but the possibility exists.

 

Do we REALLY want SCOTUS ruling on every single facet of the second amendment? Imagine SCOTUS did take this case, and in their wisdom decided OPEN CARRY was the protected right, and the state could not prohibit that. Wouldn't that leave a lot of CC only states' residents up a creek? Who thinks Illinois would for any reason try to square itself with that decision?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mrr]

I fully support state's rights. I do not think it should be left to the federal government, whom I do not trust, to have the final say on gun rights. It is very short-sighted, too: just because they're on your side today, doesn't mean they will be tomorrow. It's the same reason I think the federal government should stay away from my concealed carry license.

 

I think there are different solutions for different states - and if the laws in your state don't suit you, you are free to move. Capitalism will take care of it.

[mrmagloo]

I fully support state's rights. I do not think it should be left to the federal government, whom I do not trust, to have the final say on gun rights. It is very short-sighted, too: just because they're on your side today, doesn't mean they will be tomorrow. It's the same reason I think the federal government should stay away from my concealed carry license.

 

I think there are different solutions for different states - and if the laws in your state don't suit you, you are free to move. Capitalism will take care of it.

 

But wait, are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights is open to 50 different interpretations? States do have the right to legislate to their hearts content - up to the point they infringe on Federal rights. That when the SCOTUS comes in, and is exactly what it's there for.

[mrr]

 

I fully support state's rights. I do not think it should be left to the federal government, whom I do not trust, to have the final say on gun rights. It is very short-sighted, too: just because they're on your side today, doesn't mean they will be tomorrow. It's the same reason I think the federal government should stay away from my concealed carry license.

 

I think there are different solutions for different states - and if the laws in your state don't suit you, you are free to move. Capitalism will take care of it.

 

But wait, are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights is open to 50 different interpretations? States do have the right to legislate to their hearts content - up to the point they infringe on Federal rights. That when the SCOTUS comes in, and is exactly what it's there for.

 

 

I think there's a certain point at which states are allowed to interpret rights, yes. Each state has its own set of laws and rules in relation to speech, press, trials and bail, what is considered "cruel and unusual punishment"

 

The second amendment isn't very specific and is, indeed, open to much interpretation. I do believe that some level of interpretation is in fact a state's right - and more importantly, needs to remain so to keep the 2A intact.

[skinnyb82]

Only insofar as the Second Amendment? Not the First, not the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth? Just the Second Amendment? Saying "The 'decision' to permit carriage of firearms outside the home and the permitting framework should be left up to the states" is the equivalent of saying "The definition of marriage should be left to states. School segregation should be constitutional and left to the states. Abortion regulation should be left to the states." It's an asinine argument when you have states like California and New York, with their huge population centers concentrated in small areas yet exercising full control over the entire population, infringing on their residents' civil liberties. And another note, the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th Amendment, as evidenced by cases such as Moore v. Madigan, McDonald v. City of Chicago, Roe v. Wade, and Brown v. Board of Education. Different states have different views on abortion and marriage, but apparently that is not OK. Only views on guns and regulations.

 

It's one thing to say "You can decide between open or concealed, but you cannot ban it altogether." It's another for the federal government to stick its nose in and say "Do it this way." Federal government could decide to pass a bill that strips that power from the states altogether and guess what? It'd be constitutional because it would no longer be a state's rights issue. Preempt all of it. I do not want that but it is possible.

 

California is the most egregious offender when it comes to squatting on its residents' civil liberties. To them, the constitution is toilet paper. It infringes on its citizens' First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, do I need to keep going? New York, well, they're creating an implied consent law for searching cell phones of everyone involved in an accident. That's not even close to being constitutional. And California's tax scheme is borderline criminal.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Talonap]

Only insofar as the Second Amendment? Not the First, not the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth? Just the Second Amendment? Saying "The 'decision' to permit carriage of firearms outside the home and the permitting framework should be left up to the states" is the equivalent of saying "The definition of marriage should be left to states. School segregation should be constitutional and left to the states. Abortion regulation should be left to the states." It's an asinine argument when you have states like California and New York, with their huge population centers concentrated in small areas yet exercising full control over the entire population, infringing on their residents' civil liberties. And another note, the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th Amendment, as evidenced by cases such as Moore v. Madigan, McDonald v. City of Chicago, Roe v. Wade, and Brown v. Board of Education. Different states have different views on abortion and marriage, but apparently that is not OK. Only views on guns and regulations. It's one thing to say "You can decide between open or concealed, but you cannot ban it altogether." It's another for the federal government to stick its nose in and say "Do it this way." Federal government could decide to pass a bill that strips that power from the states altogether and guess what? It'd be constitutional because it would no longer be a state's rights issue. Preempt all of it. I do not want that but it is possible. California is the most egregious offender when it comes to squatting on its residents' civil liberties. To them, the constitution is toilet paper. It infringes on its citizens' First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, do I need to keep going? New York, well, they're creating an implied consent law for searching cell phones of everyone involved in an accident. That's not even close to being constitutional. And California's tax scheme is borderline criminal. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

What he said ...

[lockman]

I would like to offer a counter point, though I'm not exactly sure a ruling *would* have affected this, but the possibility exists.

 

Do we REALLY want SCOTUS ruling on every single facet of the second amendment? Imagine SCOTUS did take this case, and in their wisdom decided OPEN CARRY was the protected right, and the state could not prohibit that. Wouldn't that leave a lot of CC only states' residents up a creek? Who thinks Illinois would for any reason try to square itself with that decision?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No, they can now open carry without regard to what the CC rules were.

[tkroenlein]

I would like to offer a counter point, though I'm not exactly sure a ruling *would* have affected this, but the possibility exists.

Do we REALLY want SCOTUS ruling on every single facet of the second amendment? Imagine SCOTUS did take this case, and in their wisdom decided OPEN CARRY was the protected right, and the state could not prohibit that. Wouldn't that leave a lot of CC only states' residents up a creek? Who thinks Illinois would for any reason try to square itself with that decision?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

No, they can now open carry without regard to what the CC rules were.

You'd have assume "free for all" OC. What if they said reasonably regulated OC?

[ChicagoRonin70]

Only insofar as the Second Amendment? Not the First, not the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth? Just the Second Amendment? Saying "The 'decision' to permit carriage of firearms outside the home and the permitting framework should be left up to the states" is the equivalent of saying "The definition of marriage should be left to states. School segregation should be constitutional and left to the states. Abortion regulation should be left to the states." It's an asinine argument when you have states like California and New York, with their huge population centers concentrated in small areas yet exercising full control over the entire population, infringing on their residents' civil liberties. And another note, the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th Amendment, as evidenced by cases such as Moore v. Madigan, McDonald v. City of Chicago, Roe v. Wade, and Brown v. Board of Education. Different states have different views on abortion and marriage, but apparently that is not OK. Only views on guns and regulations. It's one thing to say "You can decide between open or concealed, but you cannot ban it altogether." It's another for the federal government to stick its nose in and say "Do it this way." Federal government could decide to pass a bill that strips that power from the states altogether and guess what? It'd be constitutional because it would no longer be a state's rights issue. Preempt all of it. I do not want that but it is possible. California is the most egregious offender when it comes to squatting on its residents' civil liberties. To them, the constitution is toilet paper. It infringes on its citizens' First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, do I need to keep going? New York, well, they're creating an implied consent law for searching cell phones of everyone involved in an accident. That's not even close to being constitutional. And California's tax scheme is borderline criminal. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Aww-snay-AP! skinnyb in the court-hay-owse layin' down the know-lidge!

 

This reminds me of some Trey Gowdy stuff.

 

Can somebody get this man a gavel?

[kemikos]

 

 

 

Aww-snay-AP! skinnyb in the court-hay-owse layin' down the know-lidge!

 

This reminds me of some Trey Gowdy stuff.

 

Can somebody get this man a gavel?

 

I love reading Skinny posts...

[Hipshot Percussion]

 

 

 

 

Aww-snay-AP! skinnyb in the court-hay-owse layin' down the know-lidge!

 

This reminds me of some Trey Gowdy stuff.

 

Can somebody get this man a gavel?

 

I love reading Skinny posts...

 

+1000

[Plinkermostly]

Truth to tell -- sometimes I need someone to 'splain Skinny's posts. Just saying.

[TomKoz]

 

 

I fully support state's rights. I do not think it should be left to the federal government, whom I do not trust, to have the final say on gun rights. It is very short-sighted, too: just because they're on your side today, doesn't mean they will be tomorrow. It's the same reason I think the federal government should stay away from my concealed carry license.

 

I think there are different solutions for different states - and if the laws in your state don't suit you, you are free to move. Capitalism will take care of it.

 

But wait, are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights is open to 50 different interpretations? States do have the right to legislate to their hearts content - up to the point they infringe on Federal rights. That when the SCOTUS comes in, and is exactly what it's there for.

I think there's a certain point at which states are allowed to interpret rights, yes. Each state has its own set of laws and rules in relation to speech, press, trials and bail, what is considered "cruel and unusual punishment"

 

The second amendment isn't very specific and is, indeed, open to much interpretation. I do believe that some level of interpretation is in fact a state's right - and more importantly, needs to remain so to keep the 2A intact.

"... Shall not be infringed." Seems pretty clear to me! I believe the only people who can think that that phrase is open to interpretation, do in fact WANT to infringe!!

 

There have been all sorts of 2A SC cases in the past. Has there ever been one specifically on "... Shall not be infringed." ???

[mrmagloo]

 

 

I fully support state's rights. I do not think it should be left to the federal government, whom I do not trust, to have the final say on gun rights. It is very short-sighted, too: just because they're on your side today, doesn't mean they will be tomorrow. It's the same reason I think the federal government should stay away from my concealed carry license.

 

I think there are different solutions for different states - and if the laws in your state don't suit you, you are free to move. Capitalism will take care of it.

 

But wait, are you suggesting that the Bill of Rights is open to 50 different interpretations? States do have the right to legislate to their hearts content - up to the point they infringe on Federal rights. That when the SCOTUS comes in, and is exactly what it's there for.

 

 

I think there's a certain point at which states are allowed to interpret rights, yes. Each state has its own set of laws and rules in relation to speech, press, trials and bail, what is considered "cruel and unusual punishment"

 

The second amendment isn't very specific and is, indeed, open to much interpretation. I do believe that some level of interpretation is in fact a state's right - and more importantly, needs to remain so to keep the 2A intact.

 

 

I've been busy all day but seems the rest of the crew covered nicely. I'll just sit back and admire the others posts I missed.

[Charles Nichols]

Peruta v. California was denied cert?

 

Wow! Who could have possibly seen that coming?