Laderbuilt
NES Member
Unable to view link. It says I must log in. Do you mind putting the jist here?
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***
Best I can tell it sends a case that was looking for 2 preliminary injucntions back to the lower court with instructions to re-decide one of the requests in light of Peruta, but with a pat on the back for the other decision to deny.I wonder if this voids Hawaii's requirement, that an applicant must provide a medical waiver allowing the police to view medical records.
I agree with your reading of the dissent. It was more thought out and reasoned more clearly. The majority opinion was more of just a "no, go screw" opinion.
Do you have a link that does not require a login?
Yes, post #240Anyone see this...?
Hawaii man to get 2nd shot at gun license request http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268743/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=CPFltOae
You're absolutely right about that. If the Supreme Court doesn't grant cert in Drake, there's a very real possibility that Peruta/Richards/Baker will drag on for two years or more.I don't think that their headline is completely accurate. It was remanded for more proceedings, but I think that it's far from over.
Yes, post #240
You're absolutely right about that. If the Supreme Court doesn't grant cert in Drake, there's a very real possibility that Peruta/Richards/Baker will drag on for two years or more.
Yesterday Plaintiff-Appellant Peruta filed an opposition to motions to intervene filed by the California AG, the Brady Center, and another.
Opposition.
Oh the irony of arguing that those seeking to intervene in Peruta cannot show good cause...The Campaign does not allege that any of its members has been denied Carry Licenses in San Diego County; nor is the Campaign responsible for Sheriff Gore’s Carry License policies. And the harms that its members allege that they may suffer as a result of the panel’s decision are not remotely concrete and particularized, let alone actual or imminent. To the contrary, they are precisely the kind of generalized allegations that are insufficient to demonstrate injury in fact for standing purposes.
Yesterday Plaintiff-Appellant Peruta filed an opposition to motions to intervene filed by the California AG, the Brady Center, and another.
Opposition.
That there is gold Jerry. GOLD!!!
I love reading these things. Let me paraphrase how I hear this translated in my head: The Brady campaign is imagining things and delusional. The CPCA/CPOA didn't even make a proper motion, but even if they did they have absolutely nothing to do with this since they're essentially a union and not a government regulatory body that they insanely try to claim.
That there is gold Jerry. GOLD!!!
I love reading these things. Let me paraphrase how I hear this translated in my head: The Brady campaign is imagining things and delusional. The CPCA/CPOA didn't even make a proper motion, but even if they did they have absolutely nothing to do with this since they're essentially a union and not a government regulatory body that they insanely try to claim.
What the opposition is really afraid of is that shall-issue CCWs will start to be issued in CA and nothing will happen. The murder rate won't go up, CCW carriers won't have gunfights over parking spaces, and the bodies will not be stacked like cordwood.
Over 90% of the LTCs issued in MA are LTC-A/restriction:none and crime by LTC holders is virtually unheard of.That is what they are always afraid of and that's what always happens.
True, but those lies are losing credibility over time as shall issue CCW becomes more the norm than the exception.None of it happens, but that just means they'll use those same lies again the next time.
Yes, exactly that. Plus, "if this court wants to humor the AG, we don't care...bring it!"
It tells me a couple of possible things:I have to say that position left me scratching my head. Why invite in an intervenor who brings with them a whole bunch of gravitas and perhaps chits to be cashed?
Over 90% of the LTCs issued in MA are LTC-A/restriction:none and crime by LTC holders is virtually unheard of.
True, but those lies are losing credibility over time as shall issue CCW becomes more the norm than the exception.
It tells me a couple of possible things:
- Peruta feels that they can handle anything the AG throws at them;
- That the 9th may be unlikely to grant intervenor status at this junction given that the AG had every opportunity up until this point to intervene and declined;
- It's better to have a victory untainted by the claim that the issues weren't fully vetted
That they want their case appealed to SCOTUS...
EXACTLY. I've been hanging back reading because frankly you all know a lot more about this than I do. But this is one item that seems pretty apparent.
Peruta solidifies the federal split at the appellate level on a question of significant constitutional relevance. Its a natural for the SCOTUS to pickup. CA just wants to limit the issuance of LTCs.
Peruta wants to make case law. His attorney Alan Gura has had just a bit of success in that area lately.