9th Circuit - "Good Cause" Requirement Unconstitutional

. Harry Reid's changing of the senate rules will be used often by the next R POTUS to start to correct the 9th.

[rofl][rofl]

The FSA will efectively prevent that from ever happening again. Sorry. Killary 2016 [sad2]



Not likely this will ever be settled once and for all

Not for the good anyway
 
I just finished the majority opinion. O'Scanlan just eviscerates the 2A two-step logic used in the other four circuits. What we have now is a 4-2 circuit split on the question of a fundamental right, with one case (Drake) pending cert before SCOUTS. What's next?
  • The 9th circuit (same panel) issues their decisions in Richards and Baker
  • San Diego petitions SCOTUS for cert (or not)
  • Lawyers in other pending RTC cases rush to their federal courthouses to file Supplemental Authority Notices
  • SCOTUS decides to grant cert (or not) in Drake
  • [popcorn]
 
Last edited:
[rofl][rofl]

The FSA will efectively prevent that from ever happening again. Sorry. Killary 2016 [sad2]





Not for the good anyway

She was a sure thing in '08 too. I'm underwhelmed by Hillary in every way. I love how her sycophants say how scary smart she is. Whatever. She was a so so lawyer at some law firm in Arkansas then used her husband to get everything she has. If the R nominee is a Jindal or Rubio, Walker, etc. I think we'll be fine.
 
I was reading on cal guns, a poster on the site said the 9th district covers Hawaii too. Does this ruling only affect San Diego, or does it go to Hawaii? If it does, then that should get interesting since Hawaii has more B.S. laws than mass.

This. As my wife and I are looking at purchasing a home in Hawaii, I am anxious to see how this affects their draconian laws there.
 
Before San Diego petitions SCOTUS, it's likely they'll petition for an en banc rehearing by the 9th.

I just finished the majority opinion. O'Scanlan just eviscerates the 2A two-step logic used in the other four circuits. What we have now is a 4-2 circuit split on the question of a fundamental right, with one case (Drake) pending cert before SCOUTS. What's next?
  • The 9th circuit (same panel) issues their decisions in Richards and Kehoe
  • San Diego petitions SCOTUS for cert (or not)
  • Lawyers in other pending RTC cases rush to their federal courthouses to file Supplemental Authority Notices
  • SCOTUS decides to grant cert (or not) in Drake
  • [popcorn]
 
Before San Diego petitions SCOTUS, it's likely they'll petition for an en banc rehearing by the 9th.
That's what 'they' are saying. Probably true. If they lose there however, they may let it sit the way Illinois did. The antis are willing to accept these defeats in the circuit and avoid having the question go to SCOTUS.
 
I just finished the majority opinion. O'Scanlan just eviscerates the 2A two-step logic used in the other four circuits. What we have now is a 4-2 circuit split on the question of a fundamental right, with one case (Drake) pending cert before SCOUTS. What's next?
  • The 9th circuit (same panel) issues their decisions in Richards and Baker
  • San Diego petitions SCOTUS for cert (or not)
  • Lawyers in other pending RTC cases rush to their federal courthouses to file Supplemental Authority Notices
  • SCOTUS decides to grant cert (or not) in Drake
  • [popcorn]

Thank you for all the updates and interpretations! Much appreciated!
 
Just as there was in Moore, there will be tremendous pressure on the County and State not to appeal the decision to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS upholds this decision, than the flood gates are open. The stakes were the same with Moore and last year I talked with people who were involved in that case and their belief was that the AG in IL came under a lot of pressure to let the case stay in the Circuit.

That may happen here as well, but I think it less likely. At some point this issue is going to get before SCOTUS.

That's what 'they' are saying. Probably true. If they lose there however, they may let it sit the way Illinois did. The antis are willing to accept these defeats in the circuit and avoid having the question go to SCOTUS.
 
People,

This is a very well written Opinion. It is surprisingly consistent in argument, and content. It makes very good use of the fundamentals in Heller and mcDonald, and many others that i still need to read. I will create a serious shit storm for sure.

It makes a very clear point on which level of scrutiny they are using and why. Rational-Basis, Intermediate or strict determines how much they can "flex" away from the right. Most courts have been using rational basis, or some hybrid of that and intermediate in order to get the legal logic to deny 2A Rights. This is how these courts can say its "legally" sound, and still deny a core right.

Also, they again quote heller : "It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Heller at 626."... you watch they are going to use that line to justify that only BB Guns are allowed. :/
 
I just finished the majority opinion. O'Scanlan just eviscerates the 2A two-step logic used in the other four circuits. What we have now is a 4-2 circuit split on the question of a fundamental right, with one case (Drake) pending cert before SCOUTS. What's next?
  • The 9th circuit (same panel) issues their decisions in Richards and Baker
  • San Diego petitions SCOTUS for cert (or not)
  • Lawyers in other pending RTC cases rush to their federal courthouses to file Supplemental Authority Notices
  • SCOTUS decides to grant cert (or not) in Drake
  • [popcorn]

I couldn't agree more... the opinion has a refreshing logical consistency...
 
Also, they again quote heller : "It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Heller at 626."... you watch they are going to use that line to justify that only BB Guns are allowed. :/

In Heller the Court also spoke to firearms in common use. BB guns aren't in common use for self defense, hence they are not likely to be the only firearm allowed. 9mm, .38 Special, and .45 are the calibers most commonly used for self defense. OTOH, arguably restrictions on magazine capacity would be allowable.
 
This is a great section in the opinion....

"... with Heller on the books, the Second Amendment’s original meaning is now settled in at least two relevant respects. First, Heller clarifies that the keeping and bearing of arms is, and has always been, an individual right. See, e.g., 554 U.S. at 616. Second, the right is, and has always been, oriented to the end of self-defense. See, e.g., id. Any contrary interpretation of the right, whether propounded in 1791 or just last week, is error."

- - - Updated - - -

In Heller the Court also spoke to firearms in common use. BB guns aren't in common use for self defense, hence they are not likely to be the only firearm allowed. 9mm, .38 Special, and .45 are the calibers most commonly used for self defense. OTOH, arguably restrictions on magazine capacity would be allowable.

Understood. I am speaking with what they will try to "exploit".. not what is logical or reasonable...
 
How would that follow if they are in common use?

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

get it?
 
They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

They're not in common use because they're banned.

They're allowed to be banned because they're not in common use.

get it?

Honestly? :)

I guess the point is that the standard capacity mag for 556 = 30+ and for 762 its 20-30+

Always has been.....unless you live in Mass or Md

~40+ states have no such restrictions.

Heck....the .mil std for M4 is 30 rnd.

Trying to argue to the contrary will be like pissing into a northeaster.
 
Honestly? :)

I guess the point is that the standard capacity mag for 556 = 30+ and for 762 its 20-30+

Always has been.....unless you live in Mass or Md

~40+ states have no such restrictions.

Heck....the .mil std for M4 is 30 rnd.

Trying to argue to the contrary will be like pissing into a northeaster.

Thats one of the hopes in the CT federal suit. Which was just lost but will be appealed.
 
Since this is binding in CA until overturned, it will be interesting to see what emergency order is issued to free CA of the obligation of issuing carry permits to the little people.
 
I predict chicago like legal gymnastics.


In case any of you don't know, Ed Peruta is also a resident of CT and is on the Board of CT Carry.

He tried and failed with essentially the same suit a few years ago. But back then, you could carry openly and unloaded in CA, so the right was not properly infringed. (according to the court)

In the last couple of years, CA has outlawed the open carry of handguns and then a year later, long guns.

This effectively banned any kind of carry in many cities in CA.
 
Last edited:
This is a great section in the opinion....

"... with Heller on the books, the Second Amendment’s original meaning is now settled in at least two relevant respects. First, Heller clarifies that the keeping and bearing of arms is, and has always been, an individual right. See, e.g., 554 U.S. at 616. Second, the right is, and has always been, oriented to the end of self-defense. See, e.g., id. Any contrary interpretation of the right, whether propounded in 1791 or just last week, is error."

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.
 
Honestly? :)

Trying to argue to the contrary will be like pissing into a northeaster.

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.
 
Since this is binding in CA until overturned, it will be interesting to see what emergency order is issued to free CA of the obligation of issuing carry permits to the little people.

I'd predict they'll seek a stay pending rehearing... and just ignore applications in the intervening time.
 
Great news, so they'll be allowed to buy guns, but not able to because the manufacturers all pulled out due to onerous ca specific requirements
 
Back
Top Bottom