9th Circuit - "Good Cause" Requirement Unconstitutional

Before we even get to concealed carry, wasn't Heller supposed to make LTC-B's and/or restricted LTC-A's shall-issue?
 
Re circuit split.

I got this from the Wall Street Journal law blog:

The court’s ruling aligns with one by the Chicago-based Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but conflicts with the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-recognizes-right-to-bear-arms-outside-the-home/

The split makes it more likely that the SOTUS will take this up. the sooner the better. Fingers crossed that one of the conservative judges doesn't die before King Obama leaves office.
 
Re circuit split.

I got this from the Wall Street Journal law blog:

The court’s ruling aligns with one by the Chicago-based Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but conflicts with the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/02/13/ninth-circuit-recognizes-right-to-bear-arms-outside-the-home/

The split makes it more likely that the SOTUS will take this up. the sooner the better. Fingers crossed that one of the conservative judges doesn't die before King Obama leaves office.

Why, so a bunch of hired hands in black robes can "issue" thier "opinion" about RKBA?

Secede. It's a word that needs to screamed out loud. State Legislatures need to take action.
 
Whoa. Does that say the 2A enshrines ONLY a right for self defense and not for the purpose of deterring governmental tyranny?

That would be very very bad for us, perhaps opening the door to limiting the right to low very power weapons.

The SCOTUS has an interest (a conflict of interest, perhaps) in preservation of this government.

I understand what your saying, and i think heller does mention it. But they dont view tyranny suppression as the core part of 2A. I personally view that in the "Self Defense" catagory, as does James Madison in Federalist 46 ( i think its 46).

This is in one of the footnotes... in the opinion.

"
"4Heller and McDonald focus on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense—the core component of the right, which this case implicates. We need not consider, therefore, whether the right has other ends. See Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1448 (2009) (suggesting that the right “may have other components,” such as the right to keep and bear arms for recreation, hunting, or resisting government tyranny)."
 
The plaintiffs lawyers must have shit a brick when they got this panel.

If this is heard en banc, I'd put money on it getting overturned.
 
hey- self defense is a human right. So is self government. stop depending on courts and start getting RKBA issues won at the town, county and state level.

Todays "win" is not enough. Shall not be infringed will not be achieved until all federal prohibitions are removed.
 
The plaintiffs lawyers must have shit a brick when they got this panel.

If this is heard en banc, I'd put money on it getting overturned.

Yup, and they will probably grant an en banc because someone in power won't like the ruling. Based on Mr. Dragger's comment about 3 judges from a 29 judge panel, there are 1044 different draws of judges that could have heard the case (assuming random selection of the 3 judge pools). Given that, I wonder how many of those 1044 panels would have had a majority in our favor.
 
Yup, and they will probably grant an en banc because someone in power won't like the ruling. Based on Mr. Dragger's comment about 3 judges from a 29 judge panel, there are 1044 different draws of judges that could have heard the case (assuming random selection of the 3 judge pools). Given that, I wonder how many of those 1044 panels would have had a majority in our favor.

Oh, I dunno. Kind of embarrassing to overturn one of your own colleagues only to be slapped down by SCOTUS.

I know they don't seem to care about wackadoodle rulings being overturned, but overturning a couple of their own on a core right knowing that they're going to be overturned?

I dunno.
 
Arrogant asses banned open carry. Schadenfreude.
^This in spades. They had no idea how big a hole they opened when they did that. This aspect of the win is probably greatly under appreciated.

Before we even get to concealed carry, wasn't Heller supposed to make LTC-B's and/or restricted LTC-A's shall-issue?
Yes, it should have. However the state managed to use the "FID with a PTP satisfies Heller" rational. That won't work again.

The plaintiffs lawyers must have shit a brick when they got this panel.

If this is heard en banc, I'd put money on it getting overturned.
Yes, I'm sure this was a surprise. The 9th is pretty unpredictable though. I wouldn't put money either way on an en banc outcome.

Oh, I dunno. Kind of embarrassing to overturn one of your own colleagues only to be slapped down by SCOTUS.
I don't think they care. Judges, especially circuit judges, are highly intelligent, sure of themselves, and don't want for self esteem. Combine that with a lifetime appointment and they pretty much don't give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks.

Also, the 9th Circuit is overturned by SCOTUS more than any other. They may even be overturned more than the other circuits put together. But don't quote me on that.
 
Oh, I dunno. Kind of embarrassing to overturn one of your own colleagues only to be slapped down by SCOTUS.

I know they don't seem to care about wackadoodle rulings being overturned, but overturning a couple of their own on a core right knowing that they're going to be overturned?

I dunno.

Have you read up on Stephan Reinhardt, a Carter appointee to the bench? He sees he job is to make new liberal law. This is from '97 but he's continued over the past 16 years to be a loon. I believe he was on the panels which declared the pledge unconstitutional and the under god on money a no go. His wife was the chief lawyer for the CA ACLU, still might be. He's very proud of his activist rep.

[h=1]The Judge the Supreme Court Loves to Overturn[/h] [h=2]From the May 5, 1997 issue: Judge Stephen Reinhardt was notorious long before his 9th Circuit's Pledge of Allegiance decision.[/h] May 5, 1997, Vol. 2, No. 33 • By MATT REES

STEPHEN REINHARDT is the liberal badboy of the federal judiciary. He is ideological, outlandish, and never dull. The 66-year-old judge, appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1980 to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, is well known to the Supreme Court, which has a habit of overturning his opinions.
In fact, Reinhardt is one of the most overturned judges in history. In this term alone, the high court has reversed seven opinions that Reinhardt has either written or been party to. These haven't been narrow reversals, either--all seven of them have been unanimous. Moreover, four other opinions in which Reinhardt had a hand--including his notorious conclusion that there is a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide--are now pending before the court. In his many years on the bench, Reinhardt has proven himself one of those judges who view the Constitution as an infinitely malleable document in which myriad "rights" can be divined. He has ruled that farmers lack the standing to challenge the Endangered Species Act because they are motivated by "an economic interest." He has ruled that the use of police dogs to track down drugs or criminal suspects violates the Fourth Amendment (which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures). Decisions such as these have made him a revered figure of the legal Left--in 1987, the California Trial Lawyers named him "Appellate Judge of the Year." With every reversal, Reinhardt's image grows in the eyes of those who view him as a last, left-activist outpost.

Reinhardt explains his reversals by claiming that he is specially targeted by the high court. He told the San Francisco Chronicle last October that the justices are "probably more aware of my opinions than those of some judges and they probably read them with more care." Here, Reinhardt is on the mark. A former Supreme Court clerk confirms that justices have privately referred to Reinhardt as a "renegade judge" and have given his opinions extra scrutiny.
The judge is overturned--by justices across the philosophical spectrum--for good reason: His jurisprudence has become increasingly eccentric and sloppy. Of his seven reversals this term, three came on a per curiam basis. This rare procedure signals the agreement of all nine justices that a lower court's ruling is so flawed, there is no need for oral argument.
Reinhardt is clearly descending further into the fever swamps. His Ninth Circuit colleague Judge Stephen Trott acknowledges that Reinhardt is "pushing the envelope harder now." But why? There are a couple of theories. One says that, as a bench veteran, Reinhardt is more secure in handing down provocative opinions. "He's feeling less constrained," says Arthur Hellman, a Ninth Circuit expert at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. But there is a more persuasive explanation: Reinhardt is frustrated over the judiciary's failure to move his way.
After Carter placed him on the bench, in the final months of his presidency, Reinhardt had to endure 12 years of conservative Republican appointments. He had hoped that Bill Clinton would be equally aggressive in appointing liberals, for Reinhardt believes that courts can and should be used as agents of social change. (For him, Earl Warren is "one of the greatest justices of all time.") But by the standards of left-wing legal tastes, Clinton's judges have been a fairly moderate bunch.
This infuriates a warrior like Reinhardt, who in 1994 took the highly unorthodox step of blasting the president: "Reagan and Bush really changed the philosophy of the courts, and not for the better," he said. "Clinton had the opportunity to do the same, and he blew it." A year later, he wrote to Eleanor Acheson, the assistant attorney general in charge of judicial nominations, and asked, "Do you stand for anything?" And a few days prior to Clinton's second inauguration, Reinhardt zinged the president in a San Francisco speech for not having nominated a black or a Hispanic judge to the Ninth Circuit. In the same speech, he hailed Thelton E. Henderson, the district-court judge who blocked implementation of the anti-affirmative-action California Civil Rights Initiative, as "a shining judicial star" and charged that "an abler, more committed president would have found a way" to promote Henderson to the Ninth Circuit.
Reinhardt, unsurprisingly, is an ardent defender of racial preferences and just as ardent a foe of the death penalty. Abortion, he considers a "fundamental right." In 1993, he wrote in the Washington Post about the need for openly homosexual judges. When such a judge was named the next year, Reinhardt complained that the appointment received too little publicity, telling the journal of the American Bar Association, "It was like hiring Jackie Robinson, putting him on the field and no one saying anything about it. That's not how firsts work."



continued at the link. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/414ilyss.asp#
 
Oh, I dunno. Kind of embarrassing to overturn one of your own colleagues only to be slapped down by SCOTUS.

I know they don't seem to care about wackadoodle rulings being overturned, but overturning a couple of their own on a core right knowing that they're going to be overturned?

I dunno.

Notice in that article I posted, one of his clerks was Deval Patrick. Birds of a feather.
 
Interesting. How many times have they overturned en banc a decision and then be overturned by SCOTUS?

I'm just wondering if they have any deference for their own colleagues' opinions on issues that are already split and obviously will be going up to the Supremes immediately.

I feel that's very different than just making yet another questionable ruling that might someday be overturned.
 
One interesting thing about CA9 is that its en banc isn't truly en banc because there are so many judges. Its standard en banc is a draw of about 1/3rd of the active judges. However, once a "normal" en banc is heard, a dissatisfied judge can ask for super-duper en banc (which CA9 has never granted) where all active judges would participate.


http://www.volokh.com/2009/11/05/ni...super-en-banc-for-comprehensive-drug-testing/
 
Oh, I dunno. Kind of embarrassing to overturn one of your own colleagues only to be slapped down by SCOTUS.

I know they don't seem to care about wackadoodle rulings being overturned, but overturning a couple of their own on a core right knowing that they're going to be overturned?

I dunno.

Look up Nordyke and how long that case has taken to resolve.
 
Fun poll: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/feb/13/ccw-gun-conceal-carry-sheriff-opinion-peruta/

Californians will not be carrying whether or not this ruling stands.

And how will it be stopped if the ruling stands?

Chicago residents are covered under the IL "shall issue" CCW law, and I can't imagine a jurisdiction that would be more motivated to ignore a pro-gun ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

Love to see a recap of the minority opinion.

"The law is fine since it allows special people to carry while protecting us from carry by ordinary persons without political power or connections"
 
And how will it be stopped if the ruling stands?
The _ruling_ would not have to be "stopped" but rather mitigated by any means possible.
  • Implement hyper-expensive licensing scheme.
  • Implement hyper-expensive costs relative to ownership of handguns, such as staggeringly-high taxes on handguns and/or ammo.
  • Prohibit persons based on any criteria imaginable.
  • Outlaw carrying _loaded_ / redefine the term "loaded" to mean whatever gov't wants it to mean.
  • Outlaw the carrying of ammo based on the fact that it is explosive / redefine ammo as a prohibited explosive.
  • Outlaw holsters.
  • Outlaw _features_ of handguns, such as a pistol grip. (Seriously.)
  • Outlaw any handgun that does not use _smart_ tech.
  • Enforce microstamping restriction.

The fact that these things would generate yet more lawsuits is irrelevant.
 
Yet it seems to be working quite nicely in some states, and holding up to a degree of judicial review. And as soon as you say '.mil std' I flash back to Lizzie Warren telling me that I shouldn't be allowed to have a 'Rambo-style' magazine. We're civilians, bud.

To StevieP's point, only 6% of MA residents are licensed gun owners. I would argue that no firearms in MA are in common use. Every house I see has a car in front of it. They all have TV's inside. And cable wires running from the street. Those items are in common use. But AR-15's and AK-47's? How many houses would I have to go to in order to find one? And how many people would I have to stop on the street before I found someone carrying an AR-15? It seems like these are not only not in common use, but no one is using them at all, unless I go to one of those icky ranges that allows machine guns.

Sorry, I don't mean to derail the thread.


I think that means common firearm, not common anything. Look in any gun store, or website, or sales figures, the AR-15 is clearly in common use.
 
I think that means common firearm, not common anything. Look in any gun store, or website, or sales figures, the AR-15 is clearly in common use.
The funny thing is if this "in common use" doctrine gets serious review, Miller in all of its bizarre glory comes back and the standard that a short barreled shotgun was not in miltiary use at the time (despite the fact that it was):
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
 
Because for some people the sky is always falling.

And how will it be stopped if the ruling stands?

Chicago residents are covered under the IL "shall issue" CCW law, and I can't imagine a jurisdiction that would be more motivated to ignore a pro-gun ruling.

- - - Updated - - -



"The law is fine since it allows special people to carry while protecting us from carry by ordinary persons without political power or connections"
 
Back
Top Bottom