Quantcast
Breaking news: Ninth Circuit Rules California May Issue Unconstituional - Page 5 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Legal

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 14, 2014, 07:27 PM   #101
ChaoSS
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 23, 2009
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wind View Post
Even with all the backup citations, with a full 9th Circuit, I peg the odds at 50-50 at best.
Not to be pessimistic, but it is the 9th, the most liberal.

And this ruling only affects California and Hawaii,none of the other 9th Circuit states, I've been told.
It may only affect two states, but it applies to the full circuit. The other states are just already in compliance, as I understand that quote.
ChaoSS is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 07:30 PM   #102
Red Wind
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 13, 2013
Location: Rock Harbor,Florida
Posts: 671
^ That seems to be the case,thankfully! To repeat Volokh:

Quote:
The ruling affects only California and Hawaii among 9th Circuit states because the others have rules that favor the granting of permits to carry guns in public, according to Eugene Volokh, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA.
Red Wind is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 07:34 PM   #103
danez71
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 18, 2009
Posts: 1,759
I particularly like this part... admittedly because, in part, it back hands the 2, 3, & 4 Circuits:

Quote:
The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also
to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us
the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court
already has supplied the word’s plain meaning
: “At the time of the founding, as
now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the
ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry
groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a
particular purpose—confrontation.” Id. The “natural meaning of ‘bear arms,’”
according to the Heller majority, was best articulated by Justice Ginsburg in her
dissenting opinion in Muscarello v. United States
, 524 U.S. 125 (1998): to “‘wear,
bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose
. . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict
with another person.’”


Immediately follow up with:


Quote:
Speakers of the English language will all agree: “bearing a weapon inside
the home” does not exhaust this definition of “carry.”
For one thing, the very risk
occasioning such carriage, “confrontation,” is “not limited to the home.” Moore v.
Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 2012). One needn’t point to statistics to
recognize that the prospect of conflict—at least, the sort of conflict for which one
would wish to be “armed and ready”—is just as menacing (and likely more so)
beyond the front porch as it is in the living room. For that reason, “[t]o speak of
‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward
usage.” Id. To be sure, the idea of carrying a gun “in the clothing or in a pocket,
for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready,” does not exactly conjure up images
of father stuffing a six-shooter in his pajama’s pocket before heading downstairs to
start the morning’s coffee, or mother concealing a handgun in her coat before
stepping outside to retrieve the mail. Instead, it brings to mind scenes such as a
woman toting a small handgun in her purse as she walks through a dangerous
neighborhood, or a night-shift worker carrying a handgun in his coat as he travels
to and from his job site.

Other good stuff:
Quote:
Other passages in Heller and McDonald suggest that the Court shares
Sumner’s view of the scope of the right. The Second Amendment, Heller tells us,
secures “the right to ‘protect[] [oneself] against both public and private violence,’
thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed
to public or private violence.” United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458, 467

Quote:
The Court reinforced this view by clarifying that the need
for the right is “most acute” in the home, Heller, 554 U.S. at 628, thus implying
that the right exists outside the home, though the need is not always as “acute.”
See also McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044 (2010) (“[T]he Second Amendment
protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably
for self-defense within the home.”). In a similar vein, Heller identifies “laws
forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as school and
government buildings” as presumptively lawful. 554 U.S. at 626. Were the right
restricted to the home, the constitutional invincibility of such restrictions would go
without saying. Finally, both Heller and McDonald identify the “core component”
of the right as self-defense, which necessarily “take[s] place wherever [a] person
happens to be,” whether in a back alley or on the back deck


There is so much Heller and McDonald in the ruling that its clear the 9th is sending a message.

Maybe the 9th isn't so liberal after all and is really more Libertarian than anyone thought. CA used to be more Conservative Libertarian.
__________________
.

Ask yourself, Is the goal to get more states to support the 2A or to voluntarily handover to the Anti's one state at a time?

The US was founded because people ran away and left,... However, the Constitution came to be because we STOPPED RUNNING AND FOUGHT for our Rights.
danez71 is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 07:39 PM   #104
Red Wind
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 13, 2013
Location: Rock Harbor,Florida
Posts: 671
Quote:
Maybe the 9th isn't so liberal after all and is really more Libertarian than anyone thought. CA used to be more Conservative Libertarian.
We can pray that your analysis is correct! As a former Californian (San Francisco), I like it.
Red Wind is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 07:54 PM   #105
Praxidike
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by danez71 View Post
I particularly like this part... admittedly because, in part, it back hands the 2, 3, & 4 Circuits:





Immediately follow up with:





Other good stuff:







There is so much Heller and McDonald in the ruling that its clear the 9th is sending a message.

Maybe the 9th isn't so liberal after all and is really more Libertarian than anyone thought. CA used to be more Conservative Libertarian.
What, if any, reason was given by the 1 judge that voted against it?
Praxidike is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 07:57 PM   #106
joeschmoe
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 27, 2012
Posts: 1,291
Isn't this a strange ruling for a 3 person review panel? A 127 page decision and summary judgement? I thought review panels main job is to determine if it should go to the full panel, be dismissed or offer judgements in the most obvious clear cut cases. While we may like it, 127 pages doesn't sound like an obvious clear cut case, which some major fall out. To then allow an appeal to the full panel set's the court up to reverse itself. That could make it look like a kangaroo court.

If they do hear it, could this not force the 9th to have to deal with it's tragic mistake in Silveira v. Lockyer since the SCOTUS has now clearly said there is an individual right to arms in Heller and McDonald? (when they claimed their is no individual right to arms)
__________________
Sent via Laser Telegraphy Encryption from my Mobile Moon Base.

Last edited by joeschmoe; February 14, 2014 at 08:03 PM.
joeschmoe is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 08:22 PM   #107
Trent
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: December 6, 2010
Posts: 8,453
joeschmoe;

No, a 3 person review panel tossed Illinois Unlawful use of Weapons code right out of the ballpark.

The en banc panel didn't even try to take it on, because the chances were NIL ; the decision was solid.

The en-banc panel refused to take it on, and States Attorney Madigan didn't file cert with the Supreme Court (I've speculated this was due to pressure from New York, etc.)

We may see the same thing happen here in California - if the en banc panel accepts and reverses the smaller panel, OUR side is certain to appeal it to the USSC. THEY may not be so willing to do so, as it could easily spell the end of *all* may issue, country wide.

As it is, "may issue" is on very weak footing - growing weaker with every federal decision we have seen. Won't be long, I suspect.
__________________
Tyrant:
1. a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.
Example: http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Trent is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 08:27 PM   #108
danez71
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 18, 2009
Posts: 1,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxidike View Post
What, if any, reason was given by the 1 judge that voted against it?

Here is the summary of the dissent:

Quote:
This case involves California’s “presumptively lawful” and longstanding
restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in public and, more specifically, an even narrower question: the constitutionality of San Diego County’s policy of
allowing persons who show good cause to carry concealed firearms in public.


Unfortunately, the majority never answers the question posed. Instead, in a
sweeping decision that unnecessarily decides questions not presented, the majority
not only strikes down San Diego County’s concealed carry policy, but upends the
entire California firearm regulatory scheme.

Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
But the majority DID answer the question in regards to "good cause". They said that, based on precedents, "self defense" is sufficient good cause.

Additionally,
The majority's counter to the dissent is that the 2A does include "outside the home" and that when the complete picture is evaluated, either OC or CC must be allowed.

The majority stated:

Quote:
To be clear, we are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the
states to permit concealed carry. But the Second Amendment does require that the
states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.
__________________
.

Ask yourself, Is the goal to get more states to support the 2A or to voluntarily handover to the Anti's one state at a time?

The US was founded because people ran away and left,... However, the Constitution came to be because we STOPPED RUNNING AND FOUGHT for our Rights.
danez71 is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 09:30 PM   #109
Praxidike
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by danez71 View Post
Here is the summary of the dissent:



But the majority DID answer the question in regards to "good cause". They said that, based on precedents, "self defense" is sufficient good cause.

Additionally,
The majority's counter to the dissent is that the 2A does include "outside the home" and that when the complete picture is evaluated, either OC or CC must be allowed.

The majority stated:
Thanks... Sounds as if the hold out wanted to vote against it no matter what, and only gave a reason why he didn't agree with the majority, but never gave a reason why San Diego County’s policies were constitutional. I'd like to know what he thought and why about the actual constitutionality of the policy rather than why he disagreed with the rational of the other 2 judges however...
Praxidike is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 09:36 PM   #110
danez71
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 18, 2009
Posts: 1,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxidike View Post
Thanks... Sounds as if the hold out wanted to vote against it no matter what, and only gave a reason why he didn't agree with the majority, but never gave a reason why San Diego County’s policies were constitutional. I'd like to know what he thought and why about the actual constitutionality of the policy rather than why he disagreed with the rational of the other 2 judges however...

That's how I take it.

In the none summarized version he says more.

But youre right, he never says why San Diegos position is Constitution and he basically says his reason is "its always been this way" and cites the 2,3, & 4th Circuits decisions.

He really doesn't have any input as to his own thought process.
__________________
.

Ask yourself, Is the goal to get more states to support the 2A or to voluntarily handover to the Anti's one state at a time?

The US was founded because people ran away and left,... However, the Constitution came to be because we STOPPED RUNNING AND FOUGHT for our Rights.
danez71 is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 09:48 PM   #111
Frank Ettin
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: April 29, 2006
Location: California - San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 7,730
Quote:
...Isn't this a strange ruling for a 3 person review panel? A 127 page decision ...127 pages doesn't sound like an obvious clear cut case,...
You might want to read the decision. True it's long, but a good portion of the is the dissent.

But in the majority opinion Judge O'Scannlain has made the effort to write a thorough and detailed opinion. He examines in some depth the the historical background, extensively relates his opinion back to the opinions in Heller and McDonald and goes into some detail explaining why those Circuits reaching contrary conclusions were wrong and pointing out their errors.

It appears to me that Judge O'Scannlain was in effect addressing his opinion to the Supreme Court, laying out what he thinks SCOTUS should say if the case gets there.
__________________
"Though boys throw stones at frogs in sport, the frogs do not die in sport, but in earnest." Bion (Greek poet, ca. 100 BCE)
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 10:50 PM   #112
Somewhere in NM
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 16, 2012
Posts: 60
Interesting analysis of the ruling

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/02/sw...c/#more-205182
Somewhere in NM is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 01:25 AM   #113
Trent
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: December 6, 2010
Posts: 8,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin View Post
It appears to me that Judge O'Scannlain was in effect addressing his opinion to the Supreme Court, laying out what he thinks SCOTUS should say if the case gets there.
I concur with your view; he was definitely writing this from the vantage of "this is my opinion, but it must survive an appeal intact." A great deal of thought, careful research, and very selective wording went in to that 70+ page opinion.

Clearly they recognized the importance of what they were undertaking with that opinion, and spent a great deal of time and energy making sure it was "just right."
__________________
Tyrant:
1. a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.
Example: http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Trent is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 09:18 AM   #114
Willie Sutton
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 1,781
^^

This 10X

It's very carefully written, and leaves very little room for successful appeal. It's written to be read by SCOTUS as it's primary audience, and is a solid home run. The dissent is weak and virtually pro forma.

One can only hope that with the developing circuit splits that SCOTUS will address the splits and resolve, once in for all, the serious problems in New Jersey & Maryland as the final result. This decision has potential to be the cornerstone of the final argument.


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 09:51 AM   #115
C0untZer0
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 7, 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,055
The dissenting opinion from Judge Thomas was more rational basis arguments.

I don't see where Thomas deals with the issue logically stemming from Heller. And the other part of the dissent seems to say "all these other judges said otherwise - so they must be right"

His dissent was not a strong logical argument.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 10:53 AM   #116
larryh1108
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 29, 2008
Location: ex-IL, ex-CT, now NC
Posts: 1,882
Quote:
...once in for all, the serious problems in New Jersey & Maryland as the final result.
It seems Maryland got a shall issue ruling per this thread in Legal:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=669504
__________________
A closed mind is an empty mind.
larryh1108 is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 11:20 AM   #117
gc70
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryh1108
It seems Maryland got a shall issue ruling per this thread in Legal:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=669504
The District Court's ruling in Woollard v Gallagher was reversed by the 4th Circuit.
gc70 is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 11:22 AM   #118
Frank Ettin
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: April 29, 2006
Location: California - San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 7,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryh1108
...It seems Maryland got a shall issue ruling per this thread in Legal...
That was at the trial court level. It was later tossed by the Fourth Circuit, and that is one of the contrary Circuit Court decisions criticized by O'Scannlian in Peruta.
__________________
"Though boys throw stones at frogs in sport, the frogs do not die in sport, but in earnest." Bion (Greek poet, ca. 100 BCE)
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 12:30 PM   #119
steve4102
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Sutton
One can only hope that with the developing circuit splits that SCOTUS will address the splits and resolve, once in for all, the serious problems in New Jersey & Maryland as the final result. This decision has potential to be the cornerstone of the final argument.


Willie
If SD is successful in getting the Full Court to rule on this, and they overturn the 3 judge panel, that would remove the "Split" correct?

Without the "split" what are the chance the SCOTUS will even hear this case?
steve4102 is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 12:38 PM   #120
JRH6856
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 5, 2011
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 3,546
Quote:
If SD is successful in getting the Full Court to rule on this, and they overturn the 3 judge panel, that would remove the "Split" correct?

Without the "split" what are the chance the SCOTUS will even hear this case?
If the en banc court reverses, then Peruta appeals to SCOTUS. The panel opinion is probably too well written for SCOTUS to ignore.
__________________
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" US Constitution, 2A, 1791
“Rights are not supposed to be open to popularity contests." Rachel Maddow, 2013

The only thing you can count on being set in stone is your epitaph...if you're lucky
JRH6856 is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 02:36 PM   #121
vincyr
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 20, 2013
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wind View Post
Even with all the backup citations, with a full 9th Circuit, I peg the odds at 50-50 at best.
Not to be pessimistic, but it is the 9th, the most liberal.

And this ruling only affects California and Hawaii,none of the other 9th Circuit states, I've been told.
Actually, it sets a precedent that could affect the whole country, if upheld.
__________________
They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself.
-Malcolm Reynolds

“It was sad music. But it waved its sadness like a battle flag. It said the universe had done all it could, but you were still alive.”
― Terry Pratchett, Soul Music

"What kind of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from,say, the average voter."
– also Terry Pratchett
vincyr is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 02:40 PM   #122
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 28,812
Quote:
Actually, it sets a precedent that could affect the whole country, if upheld.
Its precedent will only affect the states in the 9th district. If the case goes to the US Supreme Court and their decision concurs, then THAT decision will set precedent that applies to the whole nation.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 03:01 PM   #123
gc70
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102
If SD is successful in getting the Full Court to rule on this, and they overturn the 3 judge panel, that would remove the "Split" correct?
No. A split would still exist between the 7CA decision in Moore and the decisions in the 2CA, 3CA, and 4CA. Unfortunately, the question in Illinois was so different (no carry) from those in the other states (restrictions on carry) that Moore does not provide the stark contrasts that a highly similar case like Peruta provides.
gc70 is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 06:24 PM   #124
danez71
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 18, 2009
Posts: 1,759
Hit this poll.

Its currently lopsided in our favor. Lets keep it that way.

Is a desire for self defense enough reason to be granted a concealed weapon permit?

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/...pinion-peruta/
__________________
.

Ask yourself, Is the goal to get more states to support the 2A or to voluntarily handover to the Anti's one state at a time?

The US was founded because people ran away and left,... However, the Constitution came to be because we STOPPED RUNNING AND FOUGHT for our Rights.
danez71 is offline  
Old February 15, 2014, 06:44 PM   #125
streak
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 25, 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 30
From the Sdsheriff website:-

LICENSING DIVISION

LICENSING

APPLYING FOR A CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSE

With regard to the recent 127-page opinion in Peruta v. San Diego, proffered by the 9th Circuit, we are in the process of reviewing and studying the decision, as well as conferring with Legal Counsel.

We will continue with existing procedures and all CCW applications will be handled by appointment only.
streak is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.