Quantcast
Breaking news: Ninth Circuit Rules California May Issue Unconstituional - Page 3 - 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 13, 2014, 09:46 PM   #51
MikePGS
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 4, 2006
Location: Metro Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 2,343
Very happy to hear that the good people of California are making progress in their struggle.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
To use Google to search THR click http://tinyurl.com/2u5aaz
MikePGS is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 10:19 PM   #52
Librarian
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 14, 2003
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 1,343
One of the interesting bits here is how CA Legislators helped the case.

Back in 1967, the Legislature passed the Mulford Act; banning open carry of loaded guns.

A bunch of clever folks analyzed the Penal Code, and discovered that OPEN carry UNLOADED was not prohibited. We had a number of little demonstrations of that here in CA.

The demonstrations put bees in the bonnets of some legislators, and 2011 they passed AB 144 that banned even unloaded open carry (UOC) starting 2012.

However.

The lower court made much of UOC as an alternative path to self defense; it was still legal when that ruling came out.

Now that UOC is also banned, the only path to exercising the right of carry for self-defense is the permit system.

So the Court says
Quote:
In California, the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen
can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a
concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off
the table. The San Diego County policy specifies that concern for “one’s personal
safety alone” does not satisfy the “good cause” requirement for issuance of a
permit. Instead, an applicant must demonstrate that he suffers a unique risk of
harm: he must show “a set of circumstances that distinguish [him] from the
mainstream and cause[] him . . . to be placed in harm’s way.” Given this
requirement, the “typical” responsible, law-abiding citizen in San Diego County
cannot bear arms in public for self-defense; a typical citizen fearing for his
“personal safety”—by definition—cannot “distinguish [himself] from the
mainstream.”
...
In other words, D.C.’s complete ban on handguns in the home
amounted to a destruction of the right precisely because it matched in severity the
kinds of complete carry prohibitions confronted (and struck down) in Nunn and
Andrews. These, in turn, resemble the severe restrictions in effect in San Diego
County, where the open or concealed carriage of a gun, loaded or not, is forbidden.
Heller teaches that a near-total prohibition on keeping arms (Heller) is hardly
better than a near-total prohibition on bearing them (this case), and vice versa.
Both go too far.
There are still hurdles to traverse, but this is a very nice start.
__________________
Teach a man to fish ....
Calguns Foundation WIKI; California law; Federal firearms law - U S Code, Title 18
FBI UCR; CDC WISQARS - Death and Injury statistics.
Librarian is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 10:40 PM   #53
ICE1210
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Posts: 80
I don't it is going to make much difference. Pretty soon in California, the only handgun still legal will be cap and ball revolvers. The percussion caps would have to be micro stamped of course.
ICE1210 is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 10:52 PM   #54
Queen_of_Thunder
member
 
 
Join Date: July 28, 2012
Location: Where God purifies the soul. The West Texas desert.
Posts: 1,881
The Ninth Circuit? The bastion of liberalism.
Queen_of_Thunder is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 10:55 PM   #55
charlie echo
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 3, 2010
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70 View Post
This decision may also be a reminder about the importance of judicial appointments. O'Scannlain and Callahan were respectively appointed by Reagan and Bush; Thomas was appointed by Clinton.
Good reminder, thanks
__________________
You like the M4/M16/AR15 and the .223 ammo? Cool, check this out: http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/...ietnam_ki.html
charlie echo is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 10:59 PM   #56
larryh1108
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 29, 2008
Location: ex-IL, ex-CT, now NC
Posts: 1,885
Quote:
*May/Shall Issue, AWBs, gun free zones, growing insanity of the NFA & BATFE enforcement, open carry, reciprocity, 'reasonable restrictions,' the list is getting to be quite long and we're pushing firmly on all fronts and making actual progress.
Does it seem possible that the Supreme Court, realizing all of the potential legislation coming their way due to their recent rulings, can just decide to look at the entire right-to-carry system as a whole and make a ruling based on their previous decisions? They've already stated that states can impose certain limits to types of arms but basic rights like mentioned above could be ruled on in one, fell swoop and save millions of dollars in litigation and thousands of hours of court time because 50 states could ask the same question, with variations, on a hundred different issues. Things like right-to-carry, all states honoring a permit to carry, shall issue, etc., are all things that can be put to rest with one decision.

Is it feasible?
__________________
A closed mind is an empty mind.
larryh1108 is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 11:18 PM   #57
danez71
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 18, 2009
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE1210 View Post
I don't it is going to make much difference. Pretty soon in California, the only handgun still legal will be cap and ball revolvers. The percussion caps would have to be micro stamped of course.
Part of... what I like about the ruling is the logic that went behind it.

If the same line of thinking continues, I can see the microstamping law being overturned and the Roster in big jeopardy too.
__________________
.

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 13, 2014, 11:22 PM   #58
martymcfly
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 17, 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 38
I find it disappointing how little news play this is getting. Seems like a big deal to me and boy howdy, did all the gun control stuff get play all over the place. But it's been darn hard to find much coverage on various CA news sites or the national news sites.
martymcfly is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 11:55 PM   #59
another pake
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 24, 2013
Location: Min ne sota, ya
Posts: 175
Yahoo picked up the Associated Press story a few hours ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/court-tosses-c...200215313.html

Reading the comments at the end of the piece, most are favorable to our cause. I noticed the same when reading local accounts of the Connecticut "resistance" story today.

I'm encouraged.
another pake is offline  
Old February 13, 2014, 11:55 PM   #60
JRH6856
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 5, 2011
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 3,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryh1108 View Post
Does it seem possible that the Supreme Court, realizing all of the potential legislation coming their way due to their recent rulings, can just decide to look at the entire right-to-carry system as a whole and make a ruling based on their previous decisions? They've already stated that states can impose certain limits to types of arms but basic rights like mentioned above could be ruled on in one, fell swoop and save millions of dollars in litigation and thousands of hours of court time because 50 states could ask the same question, with variations, on a hundred different issues. Things like right-to-carry, all states honoring a permit to carry, shall issue, etc., are all things that can be put to rest with one decision.

Is it feasible?
The Courts generally try to avoid making law. They rule on the issues brought before them and if they find the law involved to be flawed, their only real option is to declare it unconstitutional and thus invite the legislative branch to try to get it right.

What the Courts do not do is look ahead and rule on cases before they reach them.
__________________
"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 14, 2014, 12:09 AM   #61
Frank Ettin
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: April 29, 2006
Location: California - San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 7,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryh1108
Does it seem possible that the Supreme Court, realizing all of the potential legislation coming their way due to their recent rulings, can just decide to look at the entire right-to-carry system as a whole and make a ruling based on their previous decisions? ....

Is it feasible?
The short answer is "no." A court decides a case, i. e., the dispute in front of it.

The principles and interpretations of law used by a court to decide the case in front of it will, under the doctrine of stare decisis, be applied by other courts for which the deciding court makes binding precedent. Stare decisis reflects the principle that similar disputes should be decided in a similar way.

But the sort of thing you describe is really the province of legislatures.
__________________
"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, 12:17 AM   #62
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 30, 2008
Location: "The Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,537
Quote:
Will this only apply to California? Or can people from 'needs based essentially may issue' states like NJ, MD and HI can use this as an argument. What are the chances for this to affect New York State since both CA and NYS have may issue/shall issue areas.
Midwest,

This case only directly strikes down to San Diego’s “good cause” requirement to obtain carry permit.

However, all United States District Courts in California, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington (state) and Alaska have to follow the reasoning in this opinion with respect to “need” for a carry permit.

This opinion does little for New Jersey and Maryland since those states are not in the Ninth Circuit, and the Second and Fourth circuits have already ruled the other way. However, this opinion contributes to the Circuit split making it more likely that the Supreme Court will take up the issue.

Quote:
But, since this ruling was by a three-judge panel, might this be further reviewed by the full court, if California requests it?
Pendennis,

Yes, California will likely request en banc review.

Quote:
Does that mean that since California already has procedures on the book for issuing CCW license that immediately everyone that qualifies and applies for a license must be given one now?
JellyJar,

No, not right now. This case specifically reversed the District Court’s summary judgment rulings on the constitutionality of the “good cause” requirement in San Diego. This will now go back to the District Court to enter an injunction instructing San Diego to issue permits to people whose good cause is self-defense.

Quote:
Starting on page 64, they start punching holes in the decisions made by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th circuit decisions on carry outside the home.
Madsen 81,

I loved this part. They are daring another panel to disagree and look foolish.

Quote:
I wonder if there's something in there that would apply to reciprocity/recognition of non-resident permits.
Morcey2,

Nope, at least not directly. For the most part reciprocity is done by agreements between the states.


Quote:
What's the chance of them bypassing a full review from the 11 judge panel and appeal right to SCOTUS?
USMarine,

Small. California probably has better shot of winning en banc. Also, two chances is better than one.

Quote:
Is it feasible?
larryh1108,

Nope. The Supreme Court doesn’t like doing “one fell swoop.” They like sitting back and watching how things play out in the lower courts. Even if there were a case which brought up all of those issues, the Court would decide it as narrowly as possible and pass on the rest.
Sebastian the Ibis is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 02:25 AM   #63
morcey2
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 31, 2010
Location: Central Utah
Posts: 1,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebastian the Ibis View Post

Morcey2,

Nope, at least not directly. For the most part reciprocity is done by agreements between the states.
I'm just hoping. There are some really great rivers in Northern Cal that I'd love to fish for steelhead and sea-run cutts. I've gotten so used to carrying that I can't stand being unarmed, especially in the outdoors.

Matt
morcey2 is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 03:21 AM   #64
Midwest
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 13, 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post

Back in 1967, the Legislature passed the Mulford Act; banning open carry of loaded guns.
If anyone is interested, here is the account on what happened that led to the banning of open carrying in California.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...guns/308608/1/
__________________
I am not a lawyer, I just study the history of gun control laws.
__________________________________________________________________________
Looking for "ghost guns" which shoot "heat seeking bullets that cook animals" with "more thrusts per squeeze" using "magazines that can only be used once" featuring "the shoulder thing that goes up" and "assault weapons that can be bought at a store without a NICS check".
.

Last edited by Midwest; February 14, 2014 at 03:27 AM.
Midwest is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 06:48 AM   #65
toivo
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 27, 2005
Location: New York State
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
CA is unusual in that a CCW here isn't issued by the State but rather by each separate county...however, it is good anywhere in the state
Same in NY. There is a great deal of difference from county to county. Some are virtually "shall issue," while others are "probably won't issue."
toivo is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 06:57 AM   #66
Field Tester
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 943
While I am incredibly happy that there's a win in our corner, and I somewhat understand what the ruling means, how will it change things for me?

Obviously this affects me greatly considering where I live. I've long wished for the opportunity to CCW, but was always told it was a pipe dream. It looks like that dream may come true.

So what do I do now? When does this go into effect? Is there a chance it can be overturned? If I obtain my CCW and it's overturned am I grandfathered?

But the most important to me right now is am I now able to obtain my CCW? If so, what do I have to do to obtain it?

God I will frame Bill Gore's signature if he has to sign it. I will smile every day as I walk out the door as I'm carrying. I will kiss it the day I vote his pompous a** out of office.
Field Tester is online now  
Old February 14, 2014, 07:21 AM   #67
BigBore44
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 11, 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 790
Haven't been to California since I was a small child. When I was old enough to understand what a "leftist" and "liberal" was, and how they ruled there, I had no desire to ever return. Still, I am ecstatic for the 2A's win in the 9th. This is not over. But like in boxing, this hopefully will be the left jab that sets up the right cross. And then "Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!".
__________________
"We are reporting live tonight that the President, by executive order, has abolished the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. All citizens are hereby ordered to relinquish ownership of all firearms. Effective...immediately." - A Socialist's wet dream..
BigBore44 is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 07:29 AM   #68
NavyLCDR
member
 
 
Join Date: December 14, 2005
Location: Stanwood, WA
Posts: 7,691
There have been past discussions where the open carry groups in California were vilified for their "activism" which was blamed for California banning open carry. There has also been, in the past, some which claimed "Don't exercise that right, because if you do exercise that right, the government will ban it" and "just because you can do something doesn't mean the you should."

This is a perfect example of forcing government to play it's hand, instead of folding when the government threatens to go "all in". If unloaded open carry without a license had not been banned in California, then the first question the court would have had to answer was whether that unloaded open carry was sufficient for self-defense purposes. I suspect they likely would have ruled that unloaded open carry was a sufficient means of carrying a firearm for self-protection and we would have seen a different decision.

As I commented in those previous threads - it is better that the government pass a law than outright bans an activity because the law can be fought in court. Caving in under the fear of threatened government action does nothing because the voluntary surrendering of the right cannot be fought in court.
NavyLCDR is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 08:48 AM   #69
HexHead
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 15, 2008
Location: TN
Posts: 2,441
Quote:
Yes, California will likely request en banc review.
If it goes to the full 9th circuit court for review, I expect the decision would be reversed.
__________________
"If it's a miracle Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry, point 4-5 caliber miracle." (Chard)

"And a bayonet Sir! With some guts behind it!" (CS Bourne)
HexHead is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 09:33 AM   #70
barnbwt
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Posts: 3,696
I personally wish the opinion had been shorter (maybe Circuit rulings can't be) because the more verbiage there is, the more likely some future jurist can find a flaw to exploit. Hopefully the panel was thorough enough that there are no conflicts in the logic.

TCB
__________________
"Don't rock the boat; the only way we ever achieve change is by doing absolutely nothing...over a long period of time"

"I just took an action to change the law"
--President Barack Obama on exceeding his authority, 11/25/2014
Now, how about we get the next guy to stop enforcing the NFA in its entirety? Precedent and all that...
barnbwt is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 09:46 AM   #71
DeadMoneyDrew
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 20, 2013
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HexHead View Post
If it goes to the full 9th circuit court for review, I expect the decision would be reversed.
San Diego plans to ask for a full review according to that SFGate article that was posted earlier.
__________________
Buckle your seat belt Dorothy, 'cause Kansas is going bye-bye!
DeadMoneyDrew is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 09:47 AM   #72
gc70
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbbwt
I personally wish the opinion had been shorter (maybe Circuit rulings can't be) because the more verbiage there is, the more likely some future jurist can find a flaw to exploit. Hopefully the panel was thorough enough that there are no conflicts in the logic.
Circuit court rulings don't have to be as long as this one, but I suspect that this one was purposely loaded up with citations to help insulate it from rebuttal in an en banc review and to provide more weight to the conclusions if the case goes to the Supreme Court.
gc70 is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 09:50 AM   #73
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
 
 
Join Date: March 30, 2008
Location: "The Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,537
Quote:
So what do I do now?
Go to pacer.gov (the U.S. Federal Court's docketing system), and sign up with your credit card. Then you can pull the docket for this case in the District Court (it costs ten cents a page). Pull the injunction when it is issued and apply for a concealed weapons permit making sure you comply with whatever requirements are included in the injunction.

Quote:
When does this go into effect?
The opinion tells the lower court what to do - issue an injunction. So you will likely need to wait until the injunction is issued, San Diego backs down or some combination of both.

Quote:
Is there a chance it can be overturned?
Yes.

Quote:
If I obtain my CCW and it's overturned am I grandfathered?
It is way to early to say.
Sebastian the Ibis is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 09:57 AM   #74
MedWheeler
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 14, 2008
Location: SouthEastern FL
Posts: 3,709
NavyLCDR writes:

Quote:
..it is better that the government pass a law than outright bans an activity because the law can be fought in court. Caving in under the fear of threatened government action does nothing because the voluntary surrendering of the right cannot be fought in court.
I agree. Apparently, so do up to 300,000 people in Connecticut, regarding the required registration of their so-called assault rifles.
__________________
If you're not picking out your wife's sewing machine, hair dryer, slow cooker, or shoes, why are you picking out her gun?
MedWheeler is offline  
Old February 14, 2014, 10:34 AM   #75
ChaoSS
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 23, 2009
Posts: 976
I have been wondering which was more likely, Feinstein and Pelosi cosponsoring a bill to repeal the NFA and GCA, or the 9th circuit standing up for the 2nd amendment.


Pelosi, we are waiting.....
ChaoSS 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 03:29 AM.


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.