Peruta STANDS! Update post 70: Nope

I started reading that decision, but realized it was bad for my blood pressure. Instead, I'll start reading more about FISMA (just shoot me now...).
 
So would it make sense for the plaintiffs to hold off on taking it to the SCOTUS if we don't get another Scalia?

But then again, does this now allow the states in the 9th Circuit the ability to do something crazy like deny all carry permits?
 
MachineHead said:
So would it make sense for the plaintiffs to hold off on taking it to the SCOTUS if we don't get another Scalia?

But then again, does this now allow the states in the 9th Circuit the ability to do something crazy like deny all carry permits?
Click to expand...

To your first question - you only have so much time to file an appeal. At this point, they probably realize that an appeal to SCOTUS is pointless. I don't think they have the ability to wait long enough on this case to see who gets appointed.

To your second point - Yes. Hawaii already does deny all carry permits.

- - - Updated - - -

yanici said:
Once Hillary gets her judges in, there will be more Peruta type cases brought before other anti states. When there are enough, SCOTUS will be forced to hear one and then the 2nd Amendment will lose "the right to bear arms." I fear the Trump will talk his way into losing the election big time.
Click to expand...

I'm worried that he already has. He's gotta learn to stop speaking off the cuff. Hillary is a horrible politician, just listen to her speeches, they are terrible. He needs to stop alienating people and focus on taking Hillary apart.
 
We can only lose the 2nd if we surrender it, for the courts actions will be unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Thomas Jefferson said the judges are not the final arbiters, We the People are.

yanici said:
Once Hillary gets her judges in, there will be more Peruta type cases brought before other anti states. When there are enough, SCOTUS will be forced to hear one and then the 2nd Amendment will lose "the right to bear arms." I fear the Trump will talk his way into losing the election big time.
Click to expand...
 
wahsben said:
We can only lose the 2nd if we surrender it, for the courts actions will be unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Thomas Jefferson said the judges are not the final arbiters, We the People are.
Click to expand...

TJ was a wise man. And our #s are only growing.
 
I have faith in some people but sadly I'm not sure if there's enough, although it does seem more people are awakening to the reality that our govt. is very corrupt and is part of the problem and therefore things won't be fixed by govt.

browncoat said:
I admit, I don't have much faith in the People.
Click to expand...
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Except that the California Legislature banned unlicensed open carry a few years back while this case was going on.
Click to expand...
An interesting example of how some right are lost if exercised, whereas others are strengthened of exercised.

In CA, exercising an unpopular right generally leads to loss of that right.
 
Did these judges reference Merriam-Webster for the definition of "bear"? - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear
If you don't want to read it all
bear arms

  • 1 : to carry or possess arms

    so....a group of liberal activist judges think they know better than our founders and the Bill of Rights or Constitution?
    Just a reminder of how it's written -

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Keep your guns oiled and powder dry
    Brian

 
Next Level said:
Did these judges reference Merriam-Webster for the definition of "bear"? - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear
If you don't want to read it all
bear arms

  • 1 : to carry or possess arms

    so....a group of liberal activist judges think they know better than our founders and the Bill of Rights or Constitution?
    Just a reminder of how it's written -

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Keep your guns oiled and powder dry
    Brian

Click to expand...

From Black's Law Dictionary and from Ginsburg's dissenting opinion in Muscarello:

“wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in
the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being
armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case
of conflict with another person.”
Click to expand...
 
The opinions are a super interesting read. Will CA pro2a need to start a case to get the open carry laws gone? It almost seems like the court painted themselves in a corner and would have to find that the prohibition on open carry is unconstitutional(using their brand of logic). I highly doubt they ever would when it came down to it but I would love to see the arguments to squirm out of that finding.
 
Tango680 said:
The opinions are a super interesting read. Will CA pro2a need to start a case to get the open carry laws gone? It almost seems like the court painted themselves in a corner and would have to find that the prohibition on open carry is unconstitutional(using their brand of logic). I highly doubt they ever would when it came down to it but I would love to see the arguments to squirm out of that finding.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. CA bans OC and now this decision bans CC in crappy counties. So, these two ban the "bearing" of arms altogether. Sounds like a direct strike against the language of the 2A.
 
MachineHead said:
I see what you're saying. CA bans OC and now this decision bans CC in crappy counties. So, these two ban the "bearing" of arms altogether. Sounds like a direct strike against the language of the 2A.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS left carry outside the home unaddressed in Heller and McDonald.

The other constitutional issue is equal protection under the law. Is it really "equal protection" if having wealth, fame, a position in media, powerful connections, etc. affords one access to a license unavailable to ordinary people?
 
This really, really sucks.

The best case is this goes to SCOTUS while it is still 8 people, in which case it'll tie 4-4 which will uphold the CA9 decision but w/o any precedential value. Otherwise, when it goes to the Clinton Supreme Court the CA9 decision will be upheld 5-4. :(

Why oh why oh why did the Heller/McDonald majority totally ignore 2A cases after McDonald?? This could and should have been settled, in a pro-2A fashion, years ago. What the heck were they thinking?
 
Just curious, I see that some states consider it a right and others don't where is this eventually heading?

Here in RI, we had the Mosby case which affirmed that it was a constitutional right to carry a firearm: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ri-supreme-court/1471879.html

Talk about a fair and impartial justice, as quoted from the case:
As judges, our job is not to decide whether this constitutional right to keep and bear arms was or remains a good idea; or whether it should enjoy the constitutional status of an essential and unquestionable right. That issue has been decided for us already by the people of this state when they enshrined it in our constitution’s “Declaration of Rights” and decided to leave it there for more than 160 years, unamended and unqualified, where it still continues in force to this day.
And certainly our task is not to interpret the constitution in such a way that we rewrite this provision to add exceptions, limitations, and qualifications to a right that the constitution does not except, limit, or qualify. Rather, our paramount job is to protect fundamental constitutional rights and to check the exercise of arbitrary government power. The people secured this fundamental right in our constitution so that it would be protected against any and all attempts to infringe upon or to abridge it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lagrangian said:
This really, really sucks.

The best case is this goes to SCOTUS while it is still 8 people, in which case it'll tie 4-4 which will uphold the CA9 decision but w/o any precedential value. Otherwise, when it goes to the Clinton Supreme Court the CA9 decision will be upheld 5-4. :(

Why oh why oh why did the Heller/McDonald majority totally ignore 2A cases after McDonald?? This could and should have been settled, in a pro-2A fashion, years ago. What the heck were they thinking?
Click to expand...

It should have been settled by this words, but people are too stupid. it's right there in writing. Its not that ****ing hard to understand. ! **** [banghead]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
the assualt on the bill rights continues.
[h=3]Amendment I[/h]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
[h=3]Amendment II[/h]A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
[h=3]Amendment III[/h]No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
[h=3]Amendment IV[/h]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[h=3]Amendment V[/h]No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
[h=3]Amendment VI[/h]In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
[h=3]Amendment VII[/h]In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
[h=3]Amendment VIII[/h]Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
[h=3]Amendment IX[/h]The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[h=3]Amendment X[/h]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 

Similar threads

Update-Liberty Safe Electronic Lock Fail
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
GaryO
GaryO
Man shot in the head in NYC subway during rush hour; person of interest in custody - UPDATE POST 16
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Reptile
Reptile
Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
post trump, covid vax family relations: conservatives vs liberals
3 4 5
Replies
130
Views
3K
67ray
67ray
Cant post an add in the Classiifieds, what gives?
Replies
13
Views
624
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Back
Top Bottom