Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Breaking news: Ninth Circuit Rules California May Issue Unconstituional

Discussion in 'Legal' started by dc dalton, Feb 13, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,577
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    ^^^
    Why would you expect anything different? The fat lady hasn't sing yet. The County can ask for an en banc hearing or petition the Supreme Court to hear it.

    Nothing changes until the whole process is worked through.
     
  2. streak

    streak Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    Location:
    SoCal
    I did not say anything about expecting anything different.
    For interest I just cut and paste what what was on their website.

    This could still take years to settle.
     
  3. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    Why? Is the 9th Circuit going to rule on the basis of a poll?
     
  4. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    12,006
    Location:
    Illinois
    The rest of the states in this circuit are already shall-issue. It might have some affect on some minor Pacific territories as well.
     
  5. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Is the desire for free speech enough reason to be granted an assembly permit?
     
  6. Red Wind

    Red Wind Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,419
    Location:
    Rock Harbor,Florida
    ilbob,please see my posts #100 and #102. You are the 3rd person to partially quote me! I have already twice mentioned (now 3 times), that per Volokh of UCLA, the.rest of the 9th Circuit is already in compliance. :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2014
  7. Crashbox
    • Contributing Member

    Crashbox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    659
    Location:
    Lynden, Washington
    Since I just LOVE to read, I sat down and read the first 78 pages. I'll read the dissent when I feel masochistic.

    I must admit that I'm still in a state of semi-unbelief WRT the NINTH handing this down. This opinion is very well-written and very tight IMO. I do hope it is upheld by the SCOTUS; I think it has a good chance of doing so because of its in-depth and correct analysis.
     
  8. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    This 3 judge panel just happened to have two Republican appointees. O'Scannlain was appointed by Reagan and was on the first board of directors of Young Americans for Freedom.

    The 9th is a strange beast. It is the largest circuit with 29 active judges. Because of this, it has unique rules for en banc hearings. While other circuits en banc panels consist of all the judges of the court, the 9th only empanels 11 randomly selected judges out of the 29.

    This means that an en banc panel may not necessarily include the judges who made the ruling being reviewed. Or it might include only the dissenting judge. Also, the ruling of this limited en banc panel may not actually represent the opinion of the majority of the full court. This opens the door for intracircuit conflicts of law when opinions differ. But en banc review is apparently a rarity and there are rules that allow a full en banc panel in some circumstances.

    Interestingly, Judge Thomas (dissenting) is the en banc coordinator for the 9th Circuit, with parliamentarian type duties that can affect the outcome of any case, though he is said to be even-handed in his rulings in that role.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2014
  9. steve4102

    steve4102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,452
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Who were the Attorneys and organizations that were/are responsible for fighting this battle for us?
     
  10. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,734
    Location:
    CAAZ
    For the same reason that everyone else that posts a poll to hit.

    To show the desires of the people.

    Possibly it could sway the SD Sheriffs Dept to not request an en banc review. Sheriffs are elected by the people.

    San Diego also has a new Mayor and he is a member of the Republican party. Hes not a staunch Republican but he is compare to the last Mayor.



    Also, if more people in SD that don't openly support the 2A see how many others are in favor of the ruling, they may feel compelled to also speak out in support.

    For some, supporting the 2A is the new black. Lets take advantage of that.


    .
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2014
  11. Luger_carbine

    Luger_carbine Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    73
    California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation,

    Carl D. Michel and Paul H Neuharth attorneys
     
  12. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    Good points, but I had to ask.
     
  13. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    12,006
    Location:
    Illinois
    is the county funding the other side or is it coming out of the sheriff's dept budget?
     
  14. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,812
    Location:
    northern california
    By law, it can't come out of the Sheriff's budget, it comes out of the County Budget. His job is to decide policy for enforcement, they decide if it should be defended.

    If they suddenly decided not to pursue the appeal in Court the Sheriff would have no say in it.
     
  15. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    Really? The suit names not only "San Diego County" but "William D. Gore individually and in his capacity as Sheriff". I guessing that means he could pursue it on his on if the County declines to do so. But maybe not. :confused: Though perhaps not with the Sheriff's budget.
     
  16. 9mmepiphany

    9mmepiphany Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,812
    Location:
    northern california
    If the County declines, he could not as the Sheriff and he'd be a fool to do it as an individual unless he has the resources of a Bloomberg.

    Also if he were to pursue it as an individual, he's lose any indemnification for legal fees by the County
     
  17. JRH6856

    JRH6856 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,828
    Location:
    Flower Mound, TX
    Thanks for confirming my guess. And I concur that continuing without the County would be foolish. OTOH, Bloomberg seems to like throwing money at foolish causes.
     
  18. Praxidike

    Praxidike Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    461
    Could this be reversed based on a technicality? The dissenting judge, Sidney R. Thomas, stated that the majority erred because:

    The plaintiff's case was about whether San Diego County's "conceal weapons" "show good cause" licencing policy was constitutional or not; however, the Majority answered an even broader question. They didn't answer the question that was specifically before them; they answered and ruled on whether both an open AND conceal carry ban was constitutional. The dissenting judge does have a point there.

    Even in the Heller case, the Supreme Court strictly stuck to the question at hand which was whether a firearm ban in the home was constitutional. They did not tackle whether or not that right extended to outside of the home. More specifically, they stated:

    The dissenting judge reiterates the latter by stating:

    I wounder if the Majority's decision is a "technically" correct answer to the wrong question; therefore, may be a plausible reason for reversal.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2014
  19. stressed

    stressed Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    754
    It's a good day in California. especially to turn LA into shall issue. I expect crime to drop.
     
  20. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    The Peruta decision answered the question, but the question could not be answered in a vacuum as the dissenting judge advocated.

    California bans open carry. No problem.
    California prescribes a permit system for concealed carry. No problem.
    San Diego effectively makes permits unobtainable through its "good cause" requirement. Big problem because the combination of the three factors prevents the exercise of the right altogether.

    The ruling in Peruta only found San Diego's "good cause" permit requirement (which was the precise question posed) to be an infringement.

     
  21. raa-7

    raa-7 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    308
    Location:
    North Country / Florida
    Yep, that's what I'm thinking ! I'm not trying to put a damper on a positive note but you damn sure know that there will be more "Government rules to all this. I hope it all works out for Calif. the people there need a break ! I used to live out there ...
     
  22. Praxidike

    Praxidike Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    461
    I'm not a lawyer, and I do not know how big of a deal it is that the majority didn't strictly stick to the question that was before them, but the dissenting judges does bring up some "possibly" valid chinks in the armor that more liberal judges (or even the Supreme Court) might exploit as cause for a reversal. Not that I agree with his dissent, but some could buy into his logic depending on the residing judge. Even though it's a wonderfully written opinion, I do not believe it's as rock solid as some seem to think or as it appears.

    Another example that Judge Thomas brought up was the majority basically found the entire state of CA's law unconstitutional, but by law, the state of CA would have to be named in the law suit and be given a chance to defend their law. They were not listed and were not given such chance. Again, I do not know how much of an issue that is.

    He also brings up the fact that unlike in the Chicago and DC lawsuit, Judge Thomas points out that San Diego's licencing policy was not a "complete ban." A gun owner’s residence, place of business, and private property are exempt from. Carrying a concealable firearm within a vehicle is not a crime if the firearm is within a vehicle and is either locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container. Peace officers, retired officers, military personnel, and retired federal officers are permitted to carry concealed weapons. Hunters and anglers may carry concealable firearms while hunting or fishing. He also states that conceal weapon law does not apply to transportation of firearms to or from gun shows or similar events, nor does it apply to people practicing shooting targets at established target ranges, whether public or private.. Last, he points out that on top of all of that, CA still issues CCW permits (even though they do it extremely conservatively.)

    Add all of the above together, and this case is different than the just about outright bans that were in the other cases that we won. It seem as though they'll have some ammunition for an appeal and we're not out of hot water yet.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2014
  23. Al Norris

    Al Norris Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    Rupert, ID.
    That technicality does not exist in the majority opinion.

    The question about about the "good cause" policy of San Diego's Sheriff has a direct relationship about whether the right extends beyond the home. That becomes the first question to be answered.

    If the right does not extend to the public sphere, then the analysis stops right there and the central question does not even need to be determined.

    That is exactly what the CA2, CA3 and CA4 did not do. There was no determination if the right to self defense existed beyond the home. Fact is, those circuits never even defined the core of the right. They assumed that the specific facts of Heller applied to a different question (as have the majority of the courts). Regardless, without that determination, any and all CC laws are rational and therefore constitutional.

    Here, the court made that determination. Once it was determined that the right to self defense was the core right, and hence existed beyond the door stop, then the court turned to whether or not the CC "good cause" policy was in accord with the right. As long as self defense was a good cause, then the policy is constitutional. If not, the policy infringes the right to extinction, since OC is against the law.

    Judge O'Scannlain followed exactly how the Heller majority laid out as the reasons for finding what they did in the D.C. case.

    In the D.C. case, the Supreme Court could not answer the question, until they answered whether or not the right was an individual right. They found that it was a personal right and then answered the question.

    This is exactly what O'Scannlain did.
     
  24. Praxidike

    Praxidike Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Messages:
    461
    If you read Judge Thomas' descent, he directly rebutted Judge O'Scannlain interpretation and application of Heller to this case, and the question that was before the court and the question that the plaintiff explicitly asked for relief from in his original complaint was whether the concealed carry policy was constitutional and not if carry outside the home was. Courts tend to be extremely technical, and if that turns out to be the question that the Judges "had" to answer, then the answer would be that CA's CCW policy is constitutional. Another possible problem that I already mentioned is that Judge Thomas states that this ruling found the state of CA's entire law unconstitutional, and to be able to to that, according to him, the state of CA would have had to been one of the defendants and been given a chance to defend their law. Unlike in the other cases in Chicago and DC, the de facto ban in CA wasn't the question that was before the court.

    I'm not saying that their ruling won't hold up, but I'm saying that it's not as clear cut as we might think.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2014
  25. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,734
    Location:
    CAAZ


    No he doesn't.

    It was answered and it was also addressed several times with the reasoning explained in great detail with several citations of other cases including Heller.

    From the ruling:


    How much more clear can it be answer?




    .
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page