Re: California

151
DispositionMatrix wrote:Order will be restored.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... z2ua0OCcpe
“Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon," Harris said. "I will do everything possible to restore law enforcement's authority to protect public safety, and so today am calling on the court to review and reverse its decision."
Perhaps she should either read the 2nd amendment or if she is unable have someone read it to her. The law enforcement community exists to protect our rights - not revoke them. The clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is not ambiguous nor is it difficult to understand. It does not empower local law enforcement to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon.

Last time I checked a map the state of California is within the confines of the United States of America.

I believe the tide has turned. Yes, I am an optimist. I do believe the time when elected officials who seek to abolish our rights just because they want to is coming to an end. The ruling by the 3 member panel of the 9th circuit court of appeals is in hand. Useless thrashing about by Harris and other elected officials is just that - useless. Fingers crossed...

Re: California

152
We expected an appeal.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris asked a federal appeals court Thursday to review and reverse its recent decision that declared unconstitutional the restrictions many counties use to limit the right to carry a concealed handgun.

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore -- whose policy the lawsuit had challenged -- announced last week that he would not appeal the three-judge panel's Feb. 13 ruling. So Harris on Thursday moved to intervene in the case, asking that the 2-1 ruling be reviewed by an 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
link:

http://www.mercurynews.com/california/c ... ala-harris

Citizens must be allowed to bear arms. That's how it will shake out. Open carry is more honest to me.

Stay tuned. This to me is a very interesting case.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: California

153
Peruta vs County of San Diego is really aimed at metropolitan areas where CCW is almost non-existent. If you live in a rural CA county like I do, there is a high probability of getting a CCW permit based on needing it for "self protection". If I lived in LA County or SF County, I'm wasting my time and money applying. It's an arbitrary system based on county and sheriff.

A comparison of California Counties - population and CCW permits issued:
http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-con ... bits.A.pdf

As a comparison this is Arizona CCW stats by county:
http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed ... tatistics/

Peruta was argued before the 9th Circuit panel in 2012 and we just got the opinion in 2014, I hope we don't have to wait that long for the next step. I'll probably never agree with Circuit Judges Diarmuid O'Scannlain and Consuelo Callahan on any other case.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

154
CDFingers wrote:We expected an appeal.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris asked a federal appeals court Thursday to review and reverse its recent decision that declared unconstitutional the restrictions many counties use to limit the right to carry a concealed handgun.

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore -- whose policy the lawsuit had challenged -- announced last week that he would not appeal the three-judge panel's Feb. 13 ruling. So Harris on Thursday moved to intervene in the case, asking that the 2-1 ruling be reviewed by an 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
link:

http://www.mercurynews.com/california/c ... ala-harris

Citizens must be allowed to bear arms. That's how it will shake out. Open carry is more honest to me.

Stay tuned. This to me is a very interesting case.

CDFingers
Attached is a PDF of the State's petition.

ETA: The Brady Bunch has also filed a motion to intervene. The 9th Circuit has granted a stay pending its decision on the State's and the Brady Bunch's motions to intervene. From PACER:
02/28/2014 126 Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN) The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s Motion to Extend Time for Filing a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Stay the Issuance of the Mandate, and Proposed Intervenor State of California’s Motion to Extend Time to File a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and Stay Issuance of the Mandate, both filed with this Court on February 27, 2014, are GRANTED. Any proposed petitions for rehearing filed with this Court by February 27, 2014 will be considered timely if this Court grants the petitioners’ concurrently filed motions to intervene. This order does not extend the time for filing petitions for rehearing for any petitioner who did not move to intervene by February 27, 2014. Submission with respect to the pending motions to intervene is deferred pending further order of the Court. Issuance of the mandate is stayed pending further order of the Court. [8997978] (WL)
Anything unattempted remains impossible.

Like coffee? (or tea?)

Image
Attachments
Peruta-State-Petition-for-En-Banc.pdf
(1.06 MiB) Downloaded 205 times

Re: California

156
Ewok wrote:Another ruling today in a similar case: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1775038
"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."
Sheesh. Imma have to request contributions from the club for all the PACER charges I'm incurring tracking these cases.

It's an unpublished memorandum decision, basically saying "we just decided this issue in Peruta, so plaintiff wins." Since it's unpublished, it has no precedential value. Here ya go:
Anything unattempted remains impossible.

Like coffee? (or tea?)

Image
Attachments
richards prieto.pdf
(174.4 KiB) Downloaded 203 times

Re: California

159
I thought the state didn't have standing to appeal because they removed themselves from the case earlier?

If the court refuses to grant standing and the Sheriff has decided to not appeal, does that mean it's settled?

If the "good cause" clause gets upheld at the en banc or SCOTUS level, would it take a separate lawsuit to reverse the prohibition on open carry?

Re: California

160
SmokeFan, Can you clarify exactly what the En Banc accomplishes? From appearances, it's just a protest on the decision asking the court to reconsider the decision with added arguments? Or is that overly simplistic? It doesn't elevate the case to the next level, just to the same court again?
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: California

162
shinzen wrote:SmokeFan, Can you clarify exactly what the En Banc accomplishes? From appearances, it's just a protest on the decision asking the court to reconsider the decision with added arguments? Or is that overly simplistic? It doesn't elevate the case to the next level, just to the same court again?
That's pretty much correct, shin. Except it's not with "added arguments," it's with "added judges." In other words, all the judges on the 9th Circuit (well, 11 of them since as PiratePenguin points out, CTA 9 has too many for a full en banc), not just the 3-judge panel the appeal was originally assigned to.
Anything unattempted remains impossible.

Like coffee? (or tea?)

Image

Re: California

163
shinzen wrote:It doesn't elevate the case to the next level, just to the same court again?
Same court, but a panel of 11 judges instead of 3. (Normally it's all of the judges of the court, but the 9th has too many judges to make that practical so you get 11/29).

Apparently the request for en banc has to be agreed upon by a majority of the judges.

Re: California

164
PiratePenguin wrote:I thought the state didn't have standing to appeal because they removed themselves from the case earlier?

If the court refuses to grant standing and the Sheriff has decided to not appeal, does that mean it's settled?
There still remains the possibility that another 9th Circuit judge could request an en banc review. The metabolically challenged soprano has yet to sing.
If the "good cause" clause gets upheld at the en banc or SCOTUS level, would it take a separate lawsuit to reverse the prohibition on open carry?
Yes. Either that, or a legislative change (unlikely).
Anything unattempted remains impossible.

Like coffee? (or tea?)

Image

Re: California

166
Update.
03/05/2014 135 Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN) Each party is each directed to file a response of no more than 6,000 words addressing the pending motions to intervene filed with this Court on February 27, 2014. Each response shall address: 1) Motion to Intervene by the State of California, 2) Motion for Leave to Intervene by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and 3) Petition for Rehearing En Banc by Amici Curiae California Police Chiefs’ Association and California Peace Officers’ Association insofar as the Petition is a motion to intervene. See p. 2, n.2. The responses shall be filed within 21 days of this order. [9004006] (SM)
English translation: The 3-judge panel has ordered the State, the Brady Bunch, the California cops' associations, and presumably the original parties (Peruta, et al. and San Diego County) to file briefs on whether the motions to intervene should be granted. Briefs are due by March 26. In the meantime, the 9th Circuit has stayed the three-judge panel's Order reversing the district court's decision, however it sounds like some sheriffs are issuing CC permits regardless. http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... 12&t=26639
Anything unattempted remains impossible.

Like coffee? (or tea?)

Image

Re: California

167
The 9th Circuit is considered the most "liberal" and most "Democratic" circuit within the US Court of Appeals. Judges Diarmuid O'Scannlain (Dermot O'Scanlan) [Reagan appointee] and Consuelo Callahan [GW Bush appointee] are on the far right wing of the Court. The Chief Judge Alex Kozinski is also a Reagan appointee. The 9th Circuit covers some very conservative states: Alaska; Arizona; Montana; and Nevada along with liberal California; Oregon; Washington; and Hawaii. It will be very interesting to see what a randomly selected en Banc panel of 11 judges decides. US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy also came from this Circuit.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: California

169
After all this time, and after all the scrutiny we've given the Brady's about their .org, one would think nothing new could be found. Ah.
Charlie Blek, president of a local Southern California chapter of the Brady Campaign, says that local sheriffs need that extra layer of power to deny concealed carry permits, and that the current ruling sets a bad precedent.
link:

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/mar/18/ca ... ould-head/

Apparently the Brady's want the cops to be more equal than the rest of us.

Some thoughts:

There are three broad ways to deal with power: One can keep power. One can give up power. Or one can share power. The Brady's want to give it up. I want to share it. If the Brady's give it up, will the cops share theirs?

It reminds me of a great line in "Jack Straw": "We can share what we got of yours, 'cause we done shared all of mine."

By the way, Jack Straw (from Wichita) cut his buddy down.

http://artsites.ucsc.edu/GDead/agdl/jstraw.html

on edit, this cop does not want to share power:
Orange County Sheriff's Department Lieutenant Jeff Hallock told Paul Elias of the Associated Press that the sheriff will likely wait until the regulations are settled before granting any permits.

“The sheriff does respect the ruling of the three-judge panel,” Hallock said.

Exactly how long that will take remains to be seen. The argument could go before the US Supreme Court, as the appeals court's decision stands in contrast to the high court's stance on guns – which is considered lenient on guns in the home while taking a more regulatory approach regarding firearms in public.
From RT:

http://rt.com/usa/gun-permits-overturn- ... earms-682/

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: California

171
Himar wrote:All the follow up coverage I hear on the radio or read about implies that people will be able to walk in and get a permit no questions asked, totally forgetting about background checks and training.
That's because facts don't seem to mean much to the antis.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... =1&t=26804

http://smartgunlaws.org/law-center-and- ... se-peruta/
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: California

172
Himar wrote:All the follow up coverage I hear on the radio or read about implies that people will be able to walk in and get a permit no questions asked, totally forgetting about background checks and training.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, and SYG allows you to murder people in cold blood and walk free, CCW significantly increases the threat of innocent people being gunned down in public, "assault weapons" can fire 30 rounds in under a second, there are no background checks at gun shows, etc., etc.

Re: California

173
Just saw this article http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... z2wXQPy4IT about backlog of applications in OC. I predict that even if the "shall issue" case is held up, backlogged permits and background checks is how CA DOJ will make the CCW process almost impossible. Even in pro-CCW counties I've heard from deputies that CA DOJ makes the process as slow and difficult as possible.
Check out the Loud Pedal @ http://www.theLoudPedalBlog.com

https://www.facebook.com/theloudpedal/

Re: California

175
CowboyT wrote:
Himar wrote:All the follow up coverage I hear on the radio or read about implies that people will be able to walk in and get a permit no questions asked, totally forgetting about background checks and training.
That's because facts don't seem to mean much to the antis.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3 ... =1&t=26804

http://smartgunlaws.org/law-center-and- ... se-peruta/
Yeah, because facts tend to go against the anti-gun stances.

It would be very difficult to get anti-gun support with an honest appraisal like "OMG, people can actually claim self defense to get concealed carry permits provided they pass background checks (which even includes traffic violations!), get fingerprinted, undergo a psych evaluation, get specific training and meet qualifications with each concealed gun, pay hundreds of dollars for an application they can be rejected for and wait patiently for months to find out if they can carry guns in the street!! It's no longer just the Sheriff's friends and campaign contributors doing it! Oh the horror!"

It just doesn't have the punch and fear mongering fund-raising potential of the "OMG people are going to just get guns and legally carry them with like no regulation or process at all! It will be a blood bath of ghost guns with spectral things that go up and ectoplasmic bullet buttons flying everywhere, standing their haunted ground racistly! Oh and NRA fits in somehow as well. (Please send money, thanks. -Bradys)"
"These are hard times, NOT end times!"
- Jon Stewart, Rally to Restore Sanity

Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 3 guests