Peruta STANDS! Update post 70: Nope

[MachineHead]

That ruling undid a previous 2014 ruling of the same court that tossed out the restrictions and prompted thousands of Californians to flood sheriff's departments with concealed weapons applications seeking the permits for personal safety.

The San Diego sheriff received some 2,463 applications that didn't show "good cause" and placed them on hold while the court sorted out the issue.

Robert Faigan, a lawyer for the San Diego sheriff, said those applications won't be granted unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the ruling Thursday.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ruling-concealed-weapons-applications-hold-39745957

If that's not a kick in the pants then I don't know what is. Could you imagine being an FFL in one of those counties and being denied a carry permit? Unlikely but possible.

 

[GM-GUY]

I personally am at the point, I carry, I don't really care where I am or what border I cross, what signage is posted or what Federal/State laws are on the books - unless there are metal detectors, I carry everywhere.

I'm tired of this complying route while the courts sort it out - nothing ever gets sorted out until we lose more rights, then it's settled law.

 

[Scott7980]

Ccw application

Reason for permit - A tyrannical government, and a useless judicial system.

Will this work

 

[Cabinetman]

What I see evolving from this continued attempt to weaken the 2A or even remove it.....is a state's rights battle brewing. Anyone ever read "Molon Labe" written by "Boston T. Party" back in 2004 and what happens in Wyoming?

I'll bet that fewer than 10% of anyone on this forum have read that particular novel. As someone who has been in this hobby for a while I would strongly recommend that EVERYONE read that book. Each of you will recognize some of the situations that continue to evolve in this country. When I read it years ago and then once again recently, it seems to me that the situation in this USofA have continued to erode and a "Molon Labe" situation could easily become reality.

Rome

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=a9_sc_...+labe,+boston+t.+party&ie=UTF8&qid=1465561637

 

[Glockster30]

I personally am at the point, I carry, I don't really care where I am or what border I cross, what signage is posted or what Federal/State laws are on the books - unless there are metal detectors, I carry everywhere.

I'm tired of this complying route while the courts sort it out - nothing ever gets sorted out until we lose more rights, then it's settled law.

I know that more and more people are thinking this way. How else can "will not be infringed" by .gov be interpreted, not to mention that where does it state, "to keep and bear arms" shall be limited to one's home in the 2A?

I've mentioned it before that the lower courts are ignoring Heller & McDonald and are wording their decisions to get around or ignore the SCOTUS decisions, even though the decisions did not address carrying outside one's home. Wherever there is an opening in the language, the activist judges and jurists will find a way to reword it.

This is why HRC needs to be DEFEATED at the polls!!!

 

[Glockster30]

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?

Rob, can't it be argued that Heller did address carry outside of the home? (I know, anything can be argued). However, after going through Heller again, one of the paragraph near the end of the decision states that:

Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms.

Doesn't that statement in Heller that says, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places" imply that carrying outside the home is constitutional?

 

[Ringworm]

I hope the judges are tarred and feathered if/when an innocent is attacked and unable to defend themselves due to the DIRECT effect this ruling has on an individuals' right to self preservation.

Of course, this is california, so what did we really expect from these shills?

 

[RImike]

I hope the judges are tarred and feathered if/when an innocent is attacked and unable to defend themselves due to the DIRECT effect this ruling has on an individuals' right to self preservation.

Of course, this is california, so what did we really expect from these shills?

I wish the frackign liberals didn't destroy CA, it's really a nice area and the outdoors are splendid (except for the shitties)

 

[drgrant]

A little more freedom died today. A sad day

Not really, we already knew they were going to do this; The bigger "suck" aspects about this is that appealing to the supremes really isn't possible now.

The thing that pisses me off the most is that the media, the douchebags that they are, have tried to twist this into something more than it actually is. I've been getting calls from friends who aren't as savvy as many here are asking me stupid questions about "this new supreme court decision" thats how woefully bad a lot of the headlines are reading as....

-Mike

 

[RImike]

Not really, we already knew they were going to do this; The bigger "suck" aspects about this is that appealing to the supremes really isn't possible now.

The thing that pisses me off the most is that the media, the douchebags that they are, have tried to twist this into something more than it actually is. I've been getting calls from friends who aren't as savvy as many here are asking me stupid questions about "this new supreme court decision" thats how woefully bad a lot of the headlines are reading as....

-Mike

Considering that CA has no state constitutional rights relating to firearms is that how they are allowed to be so restrictive?

 

[drgrant]

Considering that CA has no state constitutional rights relating to firearms is that how they are allowed to be so restrictive?

Even if they did have such things the state would simply overrule and ignore its own constitution, and just do whatever they want, much like mass has done in the past. (eg, I think it was Comm. V Davis or something like that where MA courts basically pissed on the MA constitution RKBA provision).

-Mike

 

[dennism]

This case seems to be very similar to me to the Stun Gun case in MA. IMO it is a good opportunity to challenge to SCOTUS. What are the odds they do?

 

[M1911]

This case seems to be very similar to me to the Stun Gun case in MA. IMO it is a good opportunity to challenge to SCOTUS. What are the odds they do?

Given the current make up of SCOTUS, I'm not sure that's a good idea.

 

[dennism]

Given the current make up of SCOTUS, I'm not sure that's a good idea.

I mean isn't the worst case scenario a tie? SCOTUS went unanimous on the tazer and that ultimately involved the right to carry outside of the home. Maybe I am feeling to aggressive on it but at the moment I think they should go for it.

This may be the last opportunity for right to carry cases for some serious time.

 

[MachineHead]

I mean isn't the worst case scenario a tie? SCOTUS went unanimous on the tazer and that ultimately involved the right to carry outside of the home. Maybe I am feeling to aggressive on it but at the moment I think they should go for it.

This may be the last opportunity for right to carry cases for some serious time.

A tie would be bad, I think. You pretty much get one crack to present your best hand to SCOTUS. IACNAL, but a tie pretty much lets the decision stand, right?

 

[dennism]

A tie would be bad, I think. You pretty much get one crack to present your best hand to SCOTUS. IACNAL, but a tie pretty much lets the decision stand, right?

But when you look at the tazer case and compare the two it seems (to me) that there are a lot of similarities between the two and SCOTUS implicitly recognized that the defensive tools are to be carried for defensive purposes in public.

Maybe the tazer case is clouding my judgement.

 

[drgrant]

I mean isn't the worst case scenario a tie? SCOTUS went unanimous on the tazer and that ultimately involved the right to carry outside of the home.

The reason they went unanimous on that was because the MA SJC decision on that case was so horrendously bad from a fundamental standpoint that even the liberal justices thought it was 110% terrible.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

The reason they went unanimous on that was because the MA SJC decision on that case was so horrendously bad from a fundamental standpoint that even the liberal justices thought it was 110% terrible.

It was also a "contempt of SCOTUS" type of decision. So SCOTUS response was along the lines of:

 

[dennism]

It was also a "contempt of SCOTUS" type of decision. So SCOTUS response was along the lines of:

But the CA court is basically saying that the right may not exist outside of the home at all. As illustrated in the homeless tazer case that doesn't matter.

 

[MachineHead]

https://youtu.be/7sualy8OiKk

The guy is really cheesy but explains the SCOTUS procedure well.

 

[bfm]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...ed-carry-gun-ruling-is-nonsense/#5ba4e5bb38b9

 

[bfm]

Doesn't that statement in Heller that says, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places" imply that carrying outside the home is constitutional?

Well, California is a "sensitive" place.

 

[MachineHead]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmi...ed-carry-gun-ruling-is-nonsense/#5ba4e5bb38b9

Solid article. I can't believe they went back to the definition of bearing arms from 1299AD.

 

[slipknot]

not surprised of this with people voting in hacks like this tard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlrQaxiEjaM&feature=youtu.be

 

[Dadstoys]

This thread has made me want to go out and get a sign now.
So many ideas, so little time

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

David Kopel: Peruta v. San Diego, analyzed

 

[Glockster30]

David Kopel: Peruta v. San Diego, analyzed

Although I read Kopel's analysis several times, I still have problems following all of it. Kopel said in a 1822 decision, a concealed carry ban was ruled unconstitutional in Kentucky, but in subsequent decisions from circa 1840s through 1897, it was ruled that concealed carry could be restricted or prohibited.

However, is Kopel stating that since the CA legislature banned open carry of firearms, and now that the Peruta ruling banned concealed carry, that the state of CA can't have it both ways, i.e., the state has to allow either open carry or concealed carry, but cannot restrict or prohibit both on constitutional grounds, which means the Ninth Circuit would have to rule that open carry is constitutional in a new case?

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Although I read Kopel's analysis several times, I still have problems following all of it. Kopel said in a 1822 decision, a concealed carry ban was ruled unconstitutional in Kentucky, but in subsequent decisions from circa 1840s through 1897, it was ruled that concealed carry could be restricted or prohibited.

However, is Kopel stating that since the CA legislature banned open carry of firearms, and now that the Peruta ruling banned concealed carry, that the state of CA can't have it both ways, i.e., the state has to allow either open carry or concealed carry, but cannot restrict or prohibit both on constitutional grounds, which means the Ninth Circuit would have to rule that open carry is constitutional in a new case?

That's correct. Our side has usually taken the position that there's no right to concealed carry per se. Concealed vs. open carry is a matter of regulation. There is a fundamental right to 'bear' or carry arms for personal protection. The state may be able to dictate the manner - concealed vs. open - in which the right is exercised, but it must not infringe upon the core right to bear arms. Or so goes the argument.

Much of the South and indeed the country has traditionally banned the concealed carry of firearms while have no regulations regarding the open carry of firearms. In fact the concealed carrying of firearms was often thought of as nefarious or unseemly. Only criminals take measures to conceal the guns that they carry. Attitudes on this topic has clearly changed over the last couple of centuries. Nevertheless, the gun controllers seem intent on resurrecting this notion by referring to concealed carry has carrying 'hidden' guns.

In Peruta, the en banc majority failed to address the change in California law that happened while this case was moving through the courts. The original district court opinion (as I recall) which went against plaintiffs was justified in part because California at the time permitted open carry. That changed before the the three judge panel reversed the district court, However, the en banc majority seems to never have addressed this issue.

 

[Coyote33]

I personally am at the point, I carry, I don't really care where I am or what border I cross, what signage is posted or what Federal/State laws are on the books - unless there are metal detectors, I carry everywhere.

I'm tired of this complying route while the courts sort it out - nothing ever gets sorted out until we lose more rights, then it's settled law.

Laws have lost their meaning. For me, stop signs have become optional since "it's not illegal to be illegal". That and "no hablo englese" (or whatever it is).

...Much of the South and indeed the country has traditionally banned the concealed carry of firearms while have no regulations regarding the open carry of firearms. In fact the concealed carrying of firearms was often thought of as nefarious or unseemly. Only criminals take measures to conceal the guns that they carry. Attitudes on this topic has clearly changed over the last couple of centuries. Nevertheless, the gun controllers seem intent on resurrecting this notion by referring to concealed carry has carrying 'hidden' guns. ...

I remember as a kid here in Mass, that my father said you always had to have some part of the gun showing, or you'd be breaking the law. Anyone else remember this?

De facto firearm ban. No OC, no CC. Grab some popcorn.

... In Peruta, the en banc majority failed to address the change in California law that happened while this case was moving through the courts. The original district court opinion (as I recall) which went against plaintiffs was justified in part because California at the time permitted open carry. That changed before the the three judge panel reversed the district court, However, the en banc majority seems to never have addressed this issue.

So, is it concealed, open, or other, or no carry? Choose ONE.

 

[KBCraig]

I personally am at the point, I carry, I don't really care where I am or what border I cross, what signage is posted or what Federal/State laws are on the books - unless there are metal detectors, I carry everywhere.

I'm tired of this complying route while the courts sort it out - nothing ever gets sorted out until we lose more rights, then it's settled law.

http://www.lneilsmith.org/atlanta.html

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

"Someday to demonstrate that principle -- before I'm lying on my deathbed in a hospital with green plastic tubes up my nose, before arthritis sets in and I have to do it on crutches -- I intend to walk the length of Manhattan Island with a handgun openly on my hip, unmolested by any freelance or official parasite.

"The question is, how do I get there from here?"