SpaceCritter
NES Member
A civil right to be "free from fear."
Fear is an emotion. It may or may not have a rational basis.
Or...
If someone is afraid of, say, black people (or redheads or Jews or pick your favorite category)...
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
A civil right to be "free from fear."
Here-f'ing-here on all of the above. It may come as no surprise, but I think all this "rational" and "balancing" nonsense is an excuse to usurp power not granted in the Constitution.A key legal issue is that this is not something that should be subject to "rational basis" or "balancing" but rather "strict scrutiny". The key to strict scrutiny is that a right is a right - nobody decides if there is a "rational basis" for restricting what church someone may attend or what speech is acceptable by a "balancing" standard.
Makes about as much sense as a civil right to be free from the knowledge that gays may legally pork each other (ie, none).
I think it goes without saying that this is a lunatic concept, but the cup-cake society has embraced all sorts of lunacy and we've long entertained their delusions and allowed them to live in a dream world supported by our taxes and loss of liberty.Fear is an emotion. It may or may not have a rational basis.
Or...
If someone is afraid of, say, black people (or redheads or Jews or pick your favorite category)...
A key legal issue is that this is not something that should be subject to "rational basis" or "balancing" but rather "strict scrutiny". The key to strict scrutiny is that a right is a right - nobody decides if there is a "rational basis" for restricting what church someone may attend or what speech is acceptable by a "balancing" standard.
Indeed, all claims to the contrary conflate abridgement of fundamental right AFTER due process with blanket restrictions on 2A that are legion...I'd argue that even strict scrutiny is a balancing test. I think the right answer is a categorical approach, and in fact, that was the approach taken in Heller, whose majority explicitly rejected judicial interest balancing. “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.” Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2821 (2008).
Interesting article from Eugene Volokh in the 1A context that I need to read and digest later: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/scrutiny.htm
Richards, the other case challenging a CA sherriff's interpretation of good cause, came down today. In an 2 page unpublished memorandum, the court held:
"In light of our disposition of the same issue in Peruta v. County of San
Diego, No. 10-56971, — F.3d — (Feb. 13, 2014), we conclude that the district
court in this case erred in denying Richard’s motion for summary judgment
because the Yolo County policy impermissibly infringes on the Second
Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
REVERSED and REMANDED."
This suggests to me that the panel is going to deny CA and the Brady's motions to intervene in Peruta. If they were going to let Peruta continue, why issue this order only to rescind it soon after?
Agreed. I noticed that the same judges who ruled in Richard's also ruled in Peruta. Will Baker be the same judges? If it is, then I think we would get another win.
A civil right to be "free from fear."
BELLEVUE, WA, and ROSEVILLE, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation and The Calguns Foundation earned a significant victory today when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case of Richards v. Prieto, challenging the handgun carry license issuing policy of Yolo County, California, Sheriff Ed Prieto.
“Today’s ruling reinforces the Second Amendment’s application to state and local governments, and will help clear the way for more California citizens to exercise their right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “California officials have been put on notice that they can no longer treat the Second Amendment as a heavily-regulated government privilege.”
The case was originally filed in 2009 as Sykes v. McGinness, and challenged not only Yolo County’s policies, but Sacramento County’s then-restrictive practices as well. SAF, Calguns and two private citizens, Adam Richards and Brett Stewart, continued pursuing the case against Yolo County after Sacramento County agreed to relax its policy. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Alan Gura and Don Kilmer.
“We are confident that the win today will stand the test of time,” said Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman.
The Richards case was argued at the same time, and to the same panel, that earlier decided Peruta v. County of San Diego, a similar case challenging overly-restrictive carry license policies. Yolo County and Sheriff Prieto argued that their policies were distinguishable from those struck down in Peruta, but apparently, the three-judge panel unanimously disagreed.
In light of our disposition of the same issue in Peruta v. County of San Diego , No. 10-56971, — F.3d — (Feb. 13, 2014), we conclude that the district court in this case erred in denying Richard’s motion for summary judgment because the Yolo County policy impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense
This suggests to me that the panel is going to deny CA and the Brady's motions to intervene in Peruta. If they were going to let Peruta continue, why issue this order only to rescind it soon after?
This suggests to me that the panel is going to deny CA and the Brady's motions to intervene in Peruta. If they were going to let Peruta continue, why issue this order only to rescind it soon after?
They did, but the court can change it's mind.I thought they had until today to decide if they were going to allow an appeal by the full court. Has this changed?
I thought they had until today to decide if they were going to allow an appeal by the full court. Has this changed?
So, what "came down"?
Nothing. The court could still take this on their own for some time (jar says another week so lets say that), but now they would not be giving the plaintiffs the opportunity to weigh in. Or they may be waiting on the plaintiffs to file a response to the amicus briefs.
I was just having this conversation with someone and the above is very similar to where we landed on the topic. It's over and they will deny the motions.
I thought they had until today to decide if they were going to allow an appeal by the full court. Has this changed?
They did, but the court can change it's mind.
Calif. Fight Over Concealed Weapons Could Head To High Court
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/18/290252895/calif-fight-over-concealed-weapons-could-head-to-high-court
Warning: some of the quoted sources will make you vomit your breakfast and cause your head to explode.
Also, the 'immediate need' standard seems odd to me. So you only issue an LTC to someone who is highly likely to shoot someone in the very near term? What?!? So your ex is stalking you, you are granted a permit. Your ex attacks you, you shoot him/her, and then you lose your permit because you no longer need it or because, you know, you shot someone(it's CA, right?). Do LTC's come with a loaner gun?
I like the implication on Blek. His son was killed by criminals 20 years ago and he has devoted the time since then to denying law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves.
Also, the 'immediate need' standard seems odd to me. So you only issue an LTC to someone who is highly likely to shoot someone in the very near term? What?!? So your ex is stalking you, you are granted a permit. Your ex attacks you, you shoot him/her, and then you lose your permit because you no longer need it or because, you know, you shot someone(it's CA, right?). Do LTC's come with a loaner gun?
Seems to me if there are only 1000 people who need permits in all of NJ in such imminent danger that they are in need of a pistol permit, they should each be assigned police escort on the job, or wherever/whenever they are in that particular need. It would be for the public good to do that rather than give them a killy gun without hollow points.
In a state with 6 million people, 1,000 detail officers seems reasonable for the public good.
Yup. Logic has nothing to do with the law. Or was that common sense. One of them. Or both.As with Peruta & Richards, it would come down to whether the standard had the effect of denying people their Second Amendment rights or whether it's a de facto prohibition on average citizens carrying for self defense.
Logically, and we know that the law has little to nothing to do with logic, you'd think that this would be an easy case to decide.
And now Sherriff Prieto has petitioned for en banc review.
Petition
If the 9th circuit grants review in this case they could over-turn Peruta.