THE KING Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:08 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:08 PM Thanks Skinny for your post #27. After reading that post I just had to laugh a little. Why, cause what was in the written opinion is what WE already know to be true. It just amazes me that we as non judges, non lawyers and non constitutional scholars have such a good understanding of the second amendment and others don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:09 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:09 PM San Diego will petition for en banc, and the odds of en banc being granted are rather high as are the odds of this ruling being overturned on en banc. It would behoove San Diego to not push this any further because this, along with Moore, creates a circuit split like none other especially with Judge O'Scannlain's ripping of the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits' analysis and conclusions in Kachalsky, Drake, and Woollard. For all intents, he stated that they applied rational basis and called it intermediate scrutiny. The silver lining is that Judge Kozinski's term as Chief Judge isn't up til October so he automatically sits on en banc panels. If it is overturned, he will write a scathing dissent which will definitely attract the attention of the Justices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miztic Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:11 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:11 PM The opinion was a great read, thanks for posting that Skinny!2014 is going to be one heck of a year for gun rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson24 Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:29 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:29 PM If they don't request en banc it shouldn't take anytime at all to make the change. They already have the system in place and I assume they do grant a few of these licenses now don't they? (unlike Hawaii) I am guessing they fight this though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt-45 Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:41 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:41 PM good read. 2014 here we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt B Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:43 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:43 PM I don't see any reason why San Diego wouldn't request en banc. At the very least we will have to wait for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearsmithy Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:45 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:45 PM http://static1.fjcdn.com/comments/4351140+_93ae0c10893ec10246c42668b1e30a1d.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lee Swagger Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:56 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:56 PM so open carry it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagt48 Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:06 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:06 PM so open carry it is. I doubt that. I think the thing these types of people hate more than the idea of people carrying guns is actually seeing people carry guns. It didn't take them long to ban open carrying unloaded pistols when people were protesting the restriction on carrying loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:08 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:08 PM OMG this is GREAT!@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BShawn Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:15 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:15 PM May want to conduct a well being check on Dianne Feinstein, make sure she didn't go into cardiac arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigelitedark Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:16 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:16 PM I wonder if this will make its way to SCOTUS. Has anybody informed Dart that "May issue" is unconstitutional?It does seem that Dart has a "May Issue" attitude. Under board review myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeper13 Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:17 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:17 PM <<< Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cain8768 Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:23 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:23 PM It will be interesting if Hawaii gets pulled into this as well. They are covered by the 9th! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defaultdotxbe Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:26 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:26 PM It will be interesting if Hawaii gets pulled into this as well. They are covered by the 9th!The ISP's ploy to prevent anyone from having a non-resident permit may backfire lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:28 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:28 PM Another time. Good luck California. Kurt on G+ http://goo.gl/EX4gL2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt B Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:38 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:38 PM San Diego has already declared they will seek en banc review. Lets hope that is denied... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ming Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:40 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:40 PM San Diego has already declared they will seek en banc review. Lets hope that is denied...That would be very unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:46 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:46 PM Guam and the Marianas fall under the jurisdiction of CA9 and Guam has a statutory ban on carry. This will be interesting. I'll keep my eye on the Peruta docket. The three cases, Baker v. Kealoha (Hawaii RTC) Richards v. Prieto (CA RTC) and Peruta v. San Diego (CA RTC) and the Court was holding McKay (another may issue challenge) until Baker/Richards/Peruta were ruled on. Let me paint a very disgusting picture for everyone. Peruta's notice of appeal was filed in December, 2010. Richards' was filed in May of 2011. Baker's NOA was filed in June 2012. Oral arguments for these three took place in December 2012. The median time from NOA to disposition in CA9 is 15 months give or take a few days. Contrast that with CA7 where the Moore and Shepard NOAs were filed in February and April of 2012, orals a few months later, opinion and order in December 2012. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBarnacles9mm Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:53 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 09:53 PM These are exciting times in the kingdom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:05 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:05 PM This is a good thing. Kurt on G+ http://goo.gl/EX4gL2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxriver6 Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:40 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:40 PM How cool is this!!!! Feinstein has to be ready to explode! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:43 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:43 PM boo hoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xd9subcompact Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:45 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:45 PM OK, now the spoiler. Since this was a may issue law, was there a statutory time table that requires a permit to be issued by a certain number of days once an application is received? Like we have in IL?If not, they could drag this on by taking their good old time to issue. It would take another trip though the courts to get that resolved.Plus it looks like these CA permits are good for 2 years and cost $300 by the time its all said and done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:49 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:49 PM ^yeah, we need a SCOTUS ruling that it is a right so that we can begin push back on training requirements, fees, banned locations, etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xd9subcompact Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:54 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:54 PM I notice in what I read was they didn't say it wasn't ok to burden permit holders, just that it wasn't ok to deny them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt555gs Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:54 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:54 PM Right? Concealed carry permit a RIGHT? look at South Carolina if you want to talk about regaining rights. In California this is just a better permission slip. Kurt on G+ http://goo.gl/EX4gL2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:54 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:54 PM Wow, Californians may get their permits before we do. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFC Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:55 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 10:55 PM I need a cigarette..... that was good for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverpilot Posted February 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 11:06 PM As was stated previously, if the supreme court does take this up, it needs to be done now. 1 more liberal judge, and things could very well go the wrong way. You know, the judges who think that other countries constitutions should be considered when ruling on our constitution? Ya... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.