Peruta CA9 petitioned to SCOTUS -

Discussion in 'Legal' started by danez71, Jan 16, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,951
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-Final-Cert-Petition-1.pdf


    The first 2 paragraphs for summary. The question to SCOTUS is at the end below.

    I'm not sure why the question is worded exactly as it is; if its because its specific to the scenario in CA, or tailored to the original Peruta case, or to keep it very narrow for some other strategy purpose.

     
  2. jdc1244

    jdc1244 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    875
    Location:
    Florida

    It’s encouraging to see a consistent argument being made with regard to the scope of citizens’ rights.

    Just as the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from forcing a woman to give birth against her will, and prohibits the states from denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, so too does the 2nd Amendment prohibit the states from denying citizens the right to lawfully carry firearms.

    A consistent argument is a compelling argument, and likely successful.
     
  3. roscoe

    roscoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,709
    Location:
    NV
    Well said.

    I always wondered why the 14th might not be applied to gun rights. Typically, only a subsection of the population (typically a very specific demographic) has actual access to gun rights in places like CA, NJ, NYC, MD, etc.
     
  4. gun_with_a_view

    gun_with_a_view Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    471
    <<<Justice Scalia wrote (Heller) that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” adding that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues>>>

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/the-supreme-courts-next-gun-battle.html?emc=edit_ty_20170119&nl=opinion-today&nlid=4873700&te=1&_r=0

    Constitutional law expert Eugen Volokh wrote some years back that there was not a concealed carry law in the past that was good law. The existing statutes and analogues worked to keep guns out of the hands of undesirables such as vagabonds, outlaws, minorities, poor folks and the like, strictly for the benefit of more privileged folk (read only the swells had guns back in the day). If that's true, the despite what Scalia wrote, there are no established prohibitions on concealed carry to date that can be applied in the instant case of Peruta.
     
  5. dwjwin50

    dwjwin50 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2011
    Messages:
    73
    Amazing that this came from the 9th Circuit Court. It's the most leftist court in the nation.
     
    gripper likes this.
  6. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,951
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX

    I'd say that's a good indication of why it's coming out of the 9th.

    We won the original case then it was appealed by the State and overturned and then went to the 9th where the overturn was upheld with some reasoning that didn't address, or maybe was tanget to, the original case.
     
  7. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    That's also why they were sure to do an en banc hearing with the whole court to ensure it got overturned by political partisans, even though the opinion raised no controversial arguments of precedent and was extremely well supported, if not unassailable. Not that we'd dare to go down this path of precedent, but I can't help but wonder if there is an argument to be made that the decision to hear en banc was itself legally questionable (i.e. kangaroo court tactics pursuing policy unsupported by legal arguments or precedent). That sort of question was thankfully mooted by the fact that the appeal may likely be heard in the near future, as opposed to eight years or more from now.

    "No, that can't be right; bring in the rest of the robed hacks and try it again...ah, that's more like it"

    Whole lotta selection bias when it comes to these types of cases (i.e. they only come from staunchly anti-gun areas), and why I don't buy the argument of some folks that "it's not unconstitutional because there's no appellate conflicts & SCOTUS hasn't seen fit to weigh in yet." Basic tenant of our system that even laymen are allowed to hold an opinion on whether our laws are in accordance with the way we chose our government to run (i.e. the ratified constitution w/ amendments), even if it does not carry binding legal authority.

    TCB
     
    230RN and gripper like this.
  8. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    19,418
    The en banc ruling specifically said it was not addressing the issue as to whether given the ban on open carry, not having a shall issue policy for concealed carry takes away Californians' right to keep and bear arms.
     
  9. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,951
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    Update for the petition for Peruta to be heard by SCOTUS

    This is a case that is boiling down to the question of whether or not the ability to carry outside the home is a Right protected by the 2nd Amendment or not.

    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-v.-California_-Brief-of-Amicus-Curiae-National-Rifle-Association-of-America-Inc.-in-Support-of-Petitioner.pdf


    The following are Petition for Writ of Certiorari. IMO; Most notable are that 9 Governors and 26 State Attorney General are asking for the Peruta case to be heard in the SCOTUS.

    I'm still reading but the 3rd and 4th links (down below) have been most interesting so far.

    For example, in the 3rd link of 9 Governors that support Peruta to be heard, (This also could be peek in to the level of support by states for National Reciprocity)






    From the 4th link of Stat AG's that support Peruta to be heard:

    Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
    – National Rifle Association of America, Inc.

    The Governors of Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina, and South Dakota

    The States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming

    Western States Sheriffs’ Association, California Reserve Peace Officers Association, International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Law Enforcement Action Network, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and Sheriffs from 17 California counties

    New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.; Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc.; Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc.; Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Inc.; Maryland State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.; and Gun Owners of California
     
  10. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,273
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    I'm not sure about nat'l reciprocity but it certainly is a very good argument for shall issue.

    Here is a link to the running statistics that Texas keeps on it's concealed carry permit holders.

    https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2015.pdf

    I can't believe that people that live in CA are that much different than people that live in TX.
     
  11. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,951
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    I just meant that from the perspective that a significant part of the 9 Governor's argument was about 'not forcing travelers choose between their 2A right (carry in pubic) and their right to travel into CA (NY etc etc).

    Depending on how National Reciprocity was written/passed, it would solve that issue for the most part.
     
  12. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,273
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    I understand. I'm in agreement with you about Nat'l Reciprocity. I travel in the western states myself and have to deal with CA and OR laws. It's a major PIA and the reason I carry insurance to deal with it. The thing that really needs to be changed ASAP however is shall issue in states that don't have it. I have a feeling that some counties in CA don't want to deal with shall issue to avoid the administrative costs. The argument about public safety is bogus and can be easily defeated with crime stats like the ones TX keeps. Some states are already way ahead of the curve on concealed carry by just doing away with permits. When a cost-benefit analysis is done people quickly see that there is no good reason to permit concealed carry. This will become more apparent as more states drop their CC permitting process.

    I'm not optimistic about national reciprocity. I am however very optimistic about shall issue. It's the first step toward constitutional carry. When you force the state to accept that they will provide a means to administer an unbiased and fair system of permits they start to look at the real benefit, which happens to be none.

    CA is playing a losing game here. They just don't know it yet.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  13. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,951
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    For the most part, I agree.

    I just hope SCOTUS knows it too. That's when it will have meaningful impact.
     
  14. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    19,418
    I just hope Gorsuch is already seated before this is heard.
     
    Twiki357 likes this.
  15. jdc1244

    jdc1244 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    875
    Location:
    Florida
    But Gorsuch is an advocate of “states’ rights”:

    And as an advocate of “states’ rights,” Gorsuch should vote to respect the right of the state of California to regulate firearms as it sees fit; unless, of course, Gorsuch is an inconsistent hypocrite.

    Moreover, “limited Federal government” would apply also to the Federal courts, who should acknowledge the will of the people of the states to govern themselves absent interference from the Federal courts.

    Indeed, far too many supporters of gun rights are also supporters of this sort of judicial activism and legislating from the bench, to the detriment of the people of the states and local communities.
     
  16. steve4102

    steve4102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,458
    Location:
    Minnesota
    ...and if he is not?

    What happens if the (8) sitting Justices decide not to grant CT?

    What happens if the (8) Justices Grand CT and it comes down to a 4-4 split?

    What happens of (8) Justices grant CT and it is ruled 3-5 or worse?

    IMO, without Gorsuch involved right from the get go, this is a bad move bringing this before these (8) justices.
     
  17. steve4102

    steve4102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,458
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Please explain.
     
  18. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,951
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX

    Wow. Hypocrit?!? Nothing like cherry picking, I suppose.

    You could also cite a different case, one that may have more relevancy, that actually involves guns.

    Judge Gorsuch wrote in United States v. Games-Perez that “there is ‘a long tradition of widespread gun ownership by private individuals in this country,’ and the Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”
     
  19. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    4,951
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX
    1) Then it's stat us quo
    2) The the 9th decision stands.
    3) Then there is SCOTUS ruling and we finally know.

    4) They waited until the last minute to file for cert. The actions of 26 State AGs and 9 Govenors, many from gun friendly states than have little to gain and a lot to lost/jeopardize, seem to indicate a difference of opinion than yours.
     
  20. Cannibul

    Cannibul Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2016
    Messages:
    937
    Location:
    Post Oak Bend, Texas
    Let's say that Utah passes a law where everyone in the state has to pay tithing to the LDS Church. This of course would end up before the SC. You're saying that Gorsuch would vote in favor of the state?
     
  21. steve4102

    steve4102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,458
    Location:
    Minnesota
    2) Would this decision still only pertain to the 9th?
     
  22. Librarian

    Librarian Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,475
    Location:
    Concord, CA
    Do you support the idea that California 'state's rights' would include enslaving some sub-group of its residents, as a crime prevention measure? I suspect not - there's that pesky 13th Amendment.

    So too is the 2nd Amendment a bar to a state doing as California is doing; the issue is developing judicial opinion consonant with protecting individual right over state's assumed rights.
     
  23. Twiki357

    Twiki357 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    Prescott Valley, AZ
    My fear with National Reciprocity is that regardless of how it is written, there will be paces like Los Angeles, New York City, New Jersey, and others that will not honor it. This will cause legal concealed carriers significant legal expense to defend themselves unless there is a provision to mandate that the noncompliant government entity to reimburse them the cost of their defense.
     
  24. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    4,273
    Location:
    Somewhere in WA.
    Peruta is about the right to bear arms..... period. That happens in one of two ways, through open carry or concealed carry. The San Diego county sheriff has decided that some people do not have a right to carry by his discretion. For me that is the same as being denied the right to vote. Because CA has no open carry, and because a sheriff has the power to deny a permit to anyone he wants, that will be seen as an unconstitutional restriction by the supreme court. CA, HI, MD, CT, NY and NJ (I might have missed one or two) will become shall issue.

    CA. just has the misfortune of being the first to be tested. There are states rights and there are individual rights. The states will have the right to regulate carry but they won't have the right to totally and completely deny that right to anyone without good cause. McDonald and Heller supports that position.

    Here is a good summary of what Peruta is about.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/11/peruta-v-san-diego-analyzed/?utm_term=.b34e7a8c8e9c

    Because CA has made open carry illegal, concealed carry is the only option left. Which means that 8 states will become shall issue states whether they like it or not, just like 42 other states that are shall issue or unrestricted.

    This one's a no brainer, even for the SC. I'm giving this one about 3 to 1 odds that the SC makes all states shall issue.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2017
  25. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    19,418
    All the above possibilities are why I wrote what I wrote. I did see somewhere that if they agree to hear it it won't happen for months, but I too would have preferred the interested parties had waited until he was seated.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice