Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

201
highdesert wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:26 pm CA law does allow campers to have a gun at their campsite or fishing site for protection. At National Parks you just can't carry into any of their facilities.
Make sure it's loaded with non lead bullets like copper. Don't even have any lead ammo with you. Strict hunting regs.

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

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

202
sikacz wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:49 am I won’t be voting for dems at this point unless they have the guts to dump the bloomie message. F these assholes like harris.
Yup, I've had it with the hypocrisy of both political parties. They lead voters along with their promises whether it's the "gun control Democrats" or the "national concealed carry reciprocity Republicans", they both lie and take donations and do nothing and give us excuses. I can also promise I'll vote for them and screw them at election time.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

204
21-1194 DUNCAN, VIRGINIA, ET AL. V. BONTA, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated, and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022).
Cert was granted in Duncan v Bonta, the case that challenged CAs 10 round magazine requirement. It granted cert, reversed the 9th Circuit en banc ruling overturning Judge Benitez's summary judgement and remanded it back to the 9th Circuit. A 3 judge panel of the 9th had upheld Judge Benitez, but an en banc panel of 11 judges overruled the panel and district court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... -1194.html


SCOTUS also granted cert to three other gun cases, vacating the circuit courts and remanding for further review in consideration of the Bruen decision.

Association of New Jersey Rifle, et al. v. Bruck...the lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of New Jersey’s fees and permit requirements for firearm ownership and magazine size restrictions.

Bianchi v. Frosh...challenges MD ban on assault rifles.

Young v. Hawaii...challenged the en banc 9th Circuit ruling upholding HI ban on open carry since concealed carry licenses are impossible to obtain.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_5he6.pdf

Duncan was remanded back to the 9th Circuit so we'll have to see if the 9th panel or Benitez vacates the stay and we're finally able to buy "regular size" magazines, not "large capacity" as CAs AG calls them.
https://reason.com/2022/07/01/scotus-va ... -doubtful/
Last edited by highdesert on Fri Jul 08, 2022 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

209
featureless wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:27 pm Yes, exciting (if not frustratingly slow) times for CA gun owners.
Sorry, didn't realize you posted it on the "Post Bruen..." thread.

If the case goes back to the 9th Circuit panel, that was before Callahan, Lee and Lynn a district judge assigned to the panel from Texas. Callahan and Lee upheld Benitez's ruling for Duncan so it was a 2/1 vote. Hopefully they will move faster than glaciers.
Renna v Bonta that deals with the roster is still in the Southern District of CA, nothing happening since 2/2022.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

211
featureless wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:44 pm No worries, highdesert. Hard to keep track of where everything is and should be. I'd rather the redundancy than miss something. :)
Glad the two step process used by circuit courts is dead. As one expert stated that process used the text and history required by Heller in step one so gun rights organizations would win, but then the circuits applied intermediate scrutiny and states ended up winning step two and the whole case. It was a rigged process to give deference to all state laws no matter how outrageous, like the CA microstamping law.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

212
highdesert wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 6:06 am
featureless wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:44 pm No worries, highdesert. Hard to keep track of where everything is and should be. I'd rather the redundancy than miss something. :)
Glad the two step process used by circuit courts is dead. As one expert stated that process used the text and history required by Heller in step one so gun rights organizations would win, but then the circuits applied intermediate scrutiny and states ended up winning step two and the whole case. It was a rigged process to give deference to all state laws no matter how outrageous, like the CA microstamping law.
Yep. This wrongheaded (and dishonest) process employed by lower courts since Heller is what gave us NYSRPA and further cemented THT now applied against abortion (one could argue "liberal activist" judges are as much to blame for Roe's overturn as anyone by continuing to read into the 2A what isn't there). I still have a hard time understanding what about the 2A is so unclear that CA9 could rule it conveys no right to bear outside the home in Young. Interesting times. I fear for our country.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

213
featureless wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:02 am
highdesert wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 6:06 am
featureless wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:44 pm No worries, highdesert. Hard to keep track of where everything is and should be. I'd rather the redundancy than miss something. :)
Glad the two step process used by circuit courts is dead. As one expert stated that process used the text and history required by Heller in step one so gun rights organizations would win, but then the circuits applied intermediate scrutiny and states ended up winning step two and the whole case. It was a rigged process to give deference to all state laws no matter how outrageous, like the CA microstamping law.
Yep. This wrongheaded (and dishonest) process employed by lower courts since Heller is what gave us NYSRPA and further cemented THT now applied against abortion (one could argue "liberal activist" judges are as much to blame for Roe's overturn as anyone by continuing to read into the 2A what isn't there). I still have a hard time understanding what about the 2A is so unclear that CA9 could rule it conveys no right to bear outside the home in Young. Interesting times. I fear for our country.
Yes, Roe was rushed and RBG well understood that US attitudes needed to be at the right point to overcome the opposition of the Catholic Church and legalize abortion. The Protestant churches weren't involved in abortion at that time, it was just a Catholic thing. The left always wants to rush change, but the US is a center-right country and it takes time to change attitudes.

IIRC most of the judges work out of the USCA courthouse on top of the US Post Office building in SF, working and living in the Bay Area they start thinking the same. Judge Jay S Bybee who wrote the en banc decision in Young v Hawaii was part of W's administration and was appointed by W to the 9th Circuit. He went to BYU and the BYU law school and most Democrats would assume he'd be a staunch conservative and pro-gun rights.

I'm more and more a believer that the 9th Circuit needs to be broken up into smaller circuits, they don't relate to the cases in their circuit. John McCain pushed a bill he wrote to break out a 10th circuit containing AZ, NV, ID, MT, AK and WA and leaving the 9th as OR, CA, HI, Guam and the Marianas. not sure it's the right split but it does need to be broken up. I'd like to see the Central and Southern districts of CA aligned with AZ and NV but not sure that Congress would divide states.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

214
Blue states are testing the limits of gun restrictions under a conservative Supreme Court. Moments after the justices nullified concealed carry laws in New York, lawmakers and governors in states with similar rules rushed to fortify their restrictions in the face of the court decision. Their attempts to thread the legal needle previewed what will likely be a years-long effort to defend and extend firearm rules under the court’s sweeping new Second Amendment test.

“Much of what will have to be done now by California, by New York, by many other states that have enacted these laws, is to try and limit the reach and harm of the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Ari Freilich, state policy director for the Giffords Law Center, including getting “a little more creative and innovative about ways in which we can work smartly to respond to what we know will be a wave of lawsuits.”
“I think that New York state is intentionally doing everything you can to violate the constitution with impunity,” said Amy Bellantoni, a New York lawyer focused on Second Amendment issues. “It ultimately will land at the feet of the judges of the state to uphold their oath to protect the constitution of the U.S. and the ultimate decision of what that constitution means comes from the Supreme Court.” The legal fallout could be far broader than concealed-carry regulations. Jubilant Second Amendment advocates said the Supreme Court’s decision should revive or spur challenges to a range of other restrictions, pointing to the decision’s expansive new test that any regulations are consistent with “the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.”
The ruling “makes the last 14 years, with its thousands of Second Amendment cases decided by the lower courts, largely irrelevant,” said Adam Winkler, a UCLA professor who specializes in constitutional law and gun policy. The next few years of court cases will determine the extent of the shift. “The only certainty from these laws is that they will inspire more litigation, almost no matter what these states do,” Winkler said. “It’s states like California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Massachusetts, that are going to see their laws rewritten. The impact of the Second Amendment ruling will be most acutely felt in the handful of blue states that have continued to innovate in gun regulation.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/0 ... r-00044486
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

216
Bruen answered one question: Whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms is limited to the home. (It’s not.) But it failed to answer another: When and why a government can designate a location “sensitive” — meaning, no guns are allowed — even under Bruen’s more relaxed standard for public carry.
https://archive.ph/r5fk7

I'd add that it didn't answer the question of what type of firearms restrictions are appropriate under T, H & T. That's probably the subject of the next SCOTUS decision post Heller, McDonald and Bruen.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

217
highdesert wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 10:54 am
Bruen answered one question: Whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms is limited to the home. (It’s not.) But it failed to answer another: When and why a government can designate a location “sensitive” — meaning, no guns are allowed — even under Bruen’s more relaxed standard for public carry.
https://archive.ph/r5fk7

I'd add that it didn't answer the question of what type of firearms restrictions are appropriate under T, H & T. That's probably the subject of the next SCOTUS decision post Heller, McDonald and Bruen.
NYSRPA said long-standing sensitive places restrictions are likely constitutional and making all of Manhattan a sensitive place was not. Does the sensitive place hava a historical analog? May be constitutional. Does it not have a historical analog? Not constitutional. Really, it provided very solid guidelines. Just CA and NY legislatures don't read such things.

Types of bans were answered in Heller. If it's in common use and not dangerous and unusual, it's protected.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

219
featureless wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:26 pm Injunction request filed against NYs stupid fucking new carry law. https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/up ... hibits.pdf
New York's new facetiously titled "Concealed Carry Improvement Act" (CCIA) is their legislature's one finger salute to gun owners in that state.
But in spite of the Supreme Court’s clear pronouncements in Bruen, New York
apparently did not ‘get the memo.’ On the contrary, rather than representing a good-faith attempt to bring New York law into compliance with the Second Amendment and the Bruen decision, the CCIA instead doubles down, flouting the people’s right to keep and bear arms, and in fact creating a far more onerous and restrictive concealed carry scheme even than that which existed prior to the Bruen decision (if such thing is possible)
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

220
Why doesn’t any of this BS surprise me. It’s been obvious at least since Heller that there were states and courts that had no intention of adhering to what the SCOTUS says unless it’s what they want. California and the ninth should have fell in line then as should have New York and the rest of them. Our system is a joke.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

221
sikacz wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 5:07 am Why doesn’t any of this BS surprise me. It’s been obvious at least since Heller that there were states and courts that had no intention of adhering to what the SCOTUS says unless it’s what they want. California and the ninth should have fell in line then as should have New York and the rest of them. Our system is a joke.
Yes and they are political even though people want to believe that courts are above the fray of politics. Republicans and Democrats go judge shopping to get rulings they want, they understand the game. Just like people used to treat presidents as semi divine until Nixon and the Watergate Scandal, judges in their robes are just human. Hopefully the majority of SCOTUS justices will keep monitoring gun cases after Bruen and keep the federal bench and states in line.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

222
highdesert wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 7:10 am
sikacz wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 5:07 am Why doesn’t any of this BS surprise me. It’s been obvious at least since Heller that there were states and courts that had no intention of adhering to what the SCOTUS says unless it’s what they want. California and the ninth should have fell in line then as should have New York and the rest of them. Our system is a joke.
Yes and they are political even though people want to believe that courts are above the fray of politics. Republicans and Democrats go judge shopping to get rulings they want, they understand the game. Just like people used to treat presidents as semi divine until Nixon and the Watergate Scandal, judges in their robes are just human. Hopefully the majority of SCOTUS justices will keep monitoring gun cases after Bruen and keep the federal bench and states in line.
Absolutely. Good luck though.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

224
featureless wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 9:42 am Such antics aren't really new. Seems Jim Crow laws and segregation attempts after Brown were very similar. Can you just imagine Biden sending the troops in to get CA and NY to fall in line with NYSRPA? TeeHee. Snort.
Yeah, only if it’s serves his agenda, this doesn’t.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Right to Carry petition to SCOTUS

225
featureless wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 9:42 am Such antics aren't really new. Seems Jim Crow laws and segregation attempts after Brown were very similar. Can you just imagine Biden sending the troops in to get CA and NY to fall in line with NYSRPA? TeeHee. Snort.
Yes when Hell freezes over, Biden tows the Democratic Party line. The 1960-70s were the era of a liberal activist Supreme Court and Republicans complained and this is an the era of a conservative activist Supreme Court and Democrats are complaining.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests