9th Circuit - "Good Cause" Requirement Unconstitutional

Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,174
Likes
1,243
The more important point of McDonald is that Heller is incorporated (ie, binding on the states). The government argued that it was only binding on non-state enclaves (ie, Washington DC).

Justice Sontamayer's decision showed a total disregard for stare decisis, when she said "she could find nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to own a handgun". If she respected the court's decision in Heller, she would have treated that issue as settled law rather than use McDonald as an opportunity to undermine a concept already accepted by the court.
Do you have a link for that quote? Thanks
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,293
Likes
3,985
Location
My forest stronghold
The Ninth Circuit is ordering Sheriff Gore to weight in

Order:

Appellee William D. Gore is ordered to notify this Court in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order of his position on the pending motions to intervene or that he takes no position.

Appellee William D. Gore is further ordered to respond within fourteen days of the date of this order to the suggestion that this case is moot. See Opp’n to Pet. for Reh’g En Banc 16, Richards v. Prieto, No. 11-16255 (“Even were Peruta vacated tomorrow, neither this Court nor the state could do anything to keep Gore from printing permits to all otherwise-qualified comers. The Peruta dispute is moot.”). He shall explain any change in his policy that could affect this Court’s jurisdiction over this case.
This furthers my suspicion that the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit are waiting to see if the other moves first. I'm willing to bet that Monday's orders from SCOTUS will NOT include Drake.
The answer is in, short and sweet.
The Court has requested the position of Appellee William Gore on the
pending motions to intervene and a response to the suggestion that this case is
moot. Appellee responds as follows:

Motions to Intervene.
Appellee believes that the Attorney General is the appropriate intervenor in
this case because the panel opinion finds California’s legislative scheme regarding
the carrying of handguns unconstitutional. Appellee requests that the Court grant
the Attorney General’s Motion to Intervene. Appellee takes no position on other
intervenors.

Mootness.
This case is not moot. Appellee has not changed his policy or procedures for
the issuance of concealed carry licenses. All current applications that do not meet
the existing policy are being held without action, pending final direction from the
Court or the Legislature.
This increases the odds that the 9CA will grant intervenor status to the CA AG and proceed to en banc review.
 

terraformer

NES Member
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,887
Likes
2,530
This case is not moot. Appellee has not changed his policy or procedures for
the issuance of concealed carry licenses. All current applications that do not meet
the existing policy are being held without action, pending final direction from the
Court or the Legislature.
Talk about a spineless statement. It addresses the question in the most vapid manner possible. They don't call the CA9 the 9th Circus for no reason...
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,293
Likes
3,985
Location
My forest stronghold
It is contained in the dissenting opinion in McDonald. I am not having much luck pasting from the PDF right now, and I am too ergophobic to copy it, so have your PDF reader search for "find nothing" in the following decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Mr. Boudrie was slightly mistaken. It was Justice Breyer, not Justice Sotomayor who wrote the dissent in McDonald.

I shall therefore separately consider the question of “incorporation.” I can find nothing in the Second Amenment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as “fundamental” insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes. Nor can I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms from democratically elected legislatures to courts or from the States to the Federal Government. I therefore conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment does not “incorporate” the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear Arms.” And I consequently dissent.
 
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,174
Likes
1,243
Mr. Boudrie was slightly mistaken. It was Justice Breyer, not Justice Sotomayor who wrote the dissent in McDonald.
Thanks (and thanks Rob).

So it seems that not only did he (and the rest of the dissenting judges) ignore Heller but they also ignored Miller, given that handguns are in common use and consistent with use in a militia.
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
36,643
Likes
14,102
Mr. Boudrie was slightly mistaken. It was Justice Breyer, not Justice Sotomayor who wrote the dissent in McDonald.
The dissent is the combined opinion of the losers. I seem to remember Justice Sontamayor making that statement, however, I am unable to find a cite.

But, one fact is certain - at least one justice believes in ignoring even recent stare decisis when given the opportunity.
 
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
7,293
Likes
3,985
Location
My forest stronghold
Breyer appointed by a Repub. How wrong , what a big f up.
No. Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Justice John Paul Stevens who authored the Heller dissent was appointed by President Gerald Ford.

And just to set the record straight, republican presidents have done no favors for the Second Amendment. Richard Nixon referred to guns as an 'abomination'. Perhaps it was the Quaker in him, but then how do explain carpet bombing Hanoi? George H W. Bush was also no friend and in fact lost a Texas Senate race to democrat Lloyd Benson in large part over their differing stances on the Second Amendment.
 
Rating - 100%
106   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
7,610
Likes
2,029
Location
Vermont
No. Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Justice John Paul Stevens who authored the Heller dissent was appointed by President Gerald Ford.

And just to set the record straight, republican presidents have done no favors for the Second Amendment. Richard Nixon referred to guns as an 'abomination'. Perhaps it was the Quaker in him, but then how do explain carpet bombing Hanoi? George H W. Bush was also no friend and in fact lost a Texas Senate race to democrat Lloyd Benson in large part over their differing stances on the Second Amendment.
B-but we've got to vote a straight R ticket 'cuz justices! [rolleyes]
 
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
8,084
Likes
2,842
Location
south of Dedham
No. Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Justice John Paul Stevens who authored the Heller dissent was appointed by President Gerald Ford.

And just to set the record straight, republican presidents have done no favors for the Second Amendment. Richard Nixon referred to guns as an 'abomination'. Perhaps it was the Quaker in him, but then how do explain carpet bombing Hanoi? George H W. Bush was also no friend and in fact lost a Texas Senate race to democrat Lloyd Benson in large part over their differing stances on the Second Amendment.
Didn't know that, thanks for the info !! Ohhh , where do we turn.
 

M1911

Moderator
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,570
Likes
7,765
Location
Near Framingham
B-but we've got to vote a straight R ticket 'cuz justices! [rolleyes]
I certainly don't agree with straight ticket voting. That said, elections do have consequences. Look at the SCOTUS justices nominated by W: Roberts and Alito.

Now look at the SCOTUS justices nominated by Obama: Sotomayor and Kagan.

Which do you prefer?

Do presidents sometimes get surprised by the person that they nominate? Sure. But chances are a justice from a Democratic president will be anti-2a and a justice from a Republican president will be pro-2a.
 
Rating - 100%
106   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
7,610
Likes
2,029
Location
Vermont
I certainly don't agree with straight ticket voting. That said, elections do have consequences. Look at the SCOTUS justices nominated by W: Roberts and Alito.

Now look at the SCOTUS justices nominated by Obama: Sotomayor and Kagan.

Which do you prefer?

Do presidents sometimes get surprised by the person that they nominate? Sure. But chances are a justice from a Democratic president will be anti-2a and a justice from a Republican president will be pro-2a.
And look at their record on everything else. It's all garbage coming from SCOTUS, we've just gotten tossed a pro-2A bone here and there.

For the record, I think Democrats are worse choices than Republicans, but they're both awful and I'm done playing the "lesser of two evils" game.
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,808
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
And look at their record on everything else. It's all garbage coming from SCOTUS, we've just gotten tossed a pro-2A bone here and there.

For the record, I think Democrats are worse choices than Republicans, but they're both awful and I'm done playing the "lesser of two evils" game.
Ya? Which game are you going to start playing then? The "Vote for Obama" game? "Encourage Collapse" game?

We've been winning in the Supreme court. Elections matter to the composition of the court. If you/we vote in (or refuse to vote against) the evil ones, we will stop winning.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face on porpoise.
 

M1911

Moderator
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,570
Likes
7,765
Location
Near Framingham
And look at their record on everything else. It's all garbage coming from SCOTUS, we've just gotten tossed a pro-2A bone here and there. For the record, I think Democrats are worse choices than Republicans, but they're both awful and I'm done playing the "lesser of two evils" game.
So you'd prefer the greater of the two evils?

I agree that some of the decisions coming from the conservative wing of the SCOTUS have been odious. But I don't know what the solution is.
 
Rating - 100%
106   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
7,610
Likes
2,029
Location
Vermont
Ya? Which game are you going to start playing then? The "Vote for Obama" game? "Encourage Collapse" game?

We've been winning in the Supreme court. Elections matter to the composition of the court. If you/we vote in (or refuse to vote against) the evil ones, we will stop winning.

Don't cut off your nose to spite your face on porpoise.
I'm done playing games period. If there's a real choice on the ballot I'll exercise it. If the choice is big government socialist vs big government fascist I'll stay home.
 
Rating - 100%
106   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
7,610
Likes
2,029
Location
Vermont
So you'd prefer the greater of the two evils?

I agree that some of the decisions coming from the conservative wing of the SCOTUS have been odious. But I don't know what the solution is.
I don't know what the solution is, either, but I'm pretty sure it's not "do the same thing and hope for different results".
 

Lionking

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
71
Likes
10
Location
central mass
Souter was certainly a disaster. He was Sununu's pick from the NH courts without much record on national constitutional issues. Turned out to be a liberal. Thank goodness he's retired.
 
Rating - 100%
106   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
7,610
Likes
2,029
Location
Vermont
Maybe we need to continue to vote to preserve 2A for when the other Amendments are in need of a little assistance.
The other amendments already are in need of assistance. The 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th have been variously gutted by creative interpretations of the courts over the years. And now the FedGov and many States just ignore your rights with relative impunity.

But ain't nobody shootin' yet.
 
Top Bottom