Merged 9th Circuit Strikes Down "May Issue" Concealed carry In California

[WildCat]

A friend told me today that San Diego County is appealing- and I don't mean the weather.

I'm going to go a-googling.

Link < http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?120578-Peruta-v-San-Diego-en-banc-petitions-filed >

9Th has stayed the mandate until it decides whether to en-banc Peruta. Which hinges on whether some johnny-come latelies have standing. Brady bunch, Ca. AG, and a LEO group. None look likely to me, and we all know how valuable my opinion is.

But also the host of that link (Nichols) has an appeal of the OC law nearing the 9Th.

That link is rather enlightening.

If those idiots get an open carry law they can ban concealed carry. Open carry advocates are the attention whores of the gun world.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

9Th has stayed the mandate until it decides whether to en-banc Peruta. Which hinges on whether some johnny-come latelies have standing. Brady bunch, Ca. AG, and a LEO group. None look likely to me, and we all know how valuable my opinion is.

You can read the motions and petitions at the Ninth Circuit Court's web site for this case.

 

[newyorkguy]

This case is expected to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And if it is, as of right now, a lot of pundits expect the ruling would be upheld by the same 5-4 vote that produced Heller and McDonald.

But you never know.

Both Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are in their late 70s. Scalia turned 78 today. Kennedy will turn 78 in July. Both will be 80 before President Obama's term is up. What if one -- dare we imagine both! -- were to leave the court before November 2016? What if Barack Obama got to appoint a Supreme Court jurist or two? Then the chances of the Ninth Circuit being upheld might not be so good.

Another factor though, would be if the Republicans can regain a majority in the Senate. If they do then they might be able to dictate who Obama could pick.

 

[WildCat]

This case is expected to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And if it is, as of right now, a lot of pundits expect the ruling would be upheld by the same 5-4 vote that produced Heller and McDonald.

But you never know.

Both Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are in their late 70s. Scalia turned 78 today. Kennedy will turn 78 in July. Both will be 80 before President Obama's term is up. What if one -- dare we imagine both! -- were to leave the court before November 2016? What if Barack Obama got to appoint a Supreme Court jurist or two? Then the chances of the Ninth Circuit being upheld might not be so good.

Another factor though, would be if the Republicans can regain a majority in the Senate. If they do then they might be able to dictate who Obama could pick.

How old are Breyer and Ginsburg again?

At any rate, have you had any luck in finding historical precedent that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment didn't include an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense? You were so damn sure this was the case...

 

[jj]

It's a common law right.

So that part you made up. Right.

 

[newyorkguy]

Open carry advocates are the attention whores of the gun world.

I thought it was all about the lawful self defense?

 

[Old man]

Open carry advocates are the attention whores of the gun world.

I thought it was all about the lawful self defense?

Actually, attention whores are probably more likely to need to exercise their right to self defense than the rest of us.

 

[WildCat]

I thought it was all about the lawful self defense?

I'm sorry, I don't see the contradiction?

 

[Xulld]

This case is expected to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And if it is, as of right now, a lot of pundits expect the ruling would be upheld by the same 5-4 vote that produced Heller and McDonald.

But you never know.

Both Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are in their late 70s. Scalia turned 78 today. Kennedy will turn 78 in July. Both will be 80 before President Obama's term is up. What if one -- dare we imagine both! -- were to leave the court before November 2016? What if Barack Obama got to appoint a Supreme Court jurist or two? Then the chances of the Ninth Circuit being upheld might not be so good.

Another factor though, would be if the Republicans can regain a majority in the Senate. If they do then they might be able to dictate who Obama could pick.

This IMHO illustrates that you do not care about original intent, you just care about your team winning, and would prefer the path of least resistance, ie not a constitutional amendment, but to interpret away the intentions of the founding fathers.

 

[newyorkguy]

What if Barack Obama got to appoint a Supreme Court jurist or two?

How old are Breyer and Ginsburg again?

What if Barack Obama got to appoint a Supreme Court jurist or four?

 

[The Norseman]

If those idiots get an open carry law they can ban concealed carry. Open carry advocates are the attention whores of the gun world.

This offensive statement displays your ignorance that in some jurisdictions, open carry is either the only lawful carry or the only lawful carry with no permit.

 

[Xulld]

This offensive statement displays your ignorance that in some jurisdictions, open carry is either the only lawful carry or the only lawful carry with no permit.

OR just more comfortable. After I got over the fact that no one cared, I started carrying openly because to be honest in the waist band sucks when you have a lower back injury, disc hernia etc.

 

[The Norseman]

OR just more comfortable. After I got over the fact that no one cared, I started carrying openly because to be honest in the waist band sucks when you have a lower back injury, disc hernia etc.

Yes, thank you for reminding me that there are a plethora of legitimate reasons for open carry. Using open carry as an activist tool is also a legitimate use and not "attention whor[ing]".

 

[tyr_13]

What if Barack Obama got to appoint a Supreme Court jurist or four?

And what if, like me, they're fairly liberal and still don't agree with your ideas about the law? What if the conclusion they come to based on the evidence doesn't align with what you think, and they support it with case law and historic evidence?

I think you're over estimating the support for your viewpoint. There have been times where I agree with the dissent of a Supreme Court decision, and there are times where I disagree but can say they had valid support. The dissent in Heller, in my opinion (and many other liberals), was seriously lacking in valid reasoning and historic support. Your assumption appears to be that the other side only disagrees because they're ideological bias forces them to do so.

Well, that's my analysis of some on the anti-gun side. Disagreeing with what the Constitution says, trying to get it changed, or arguing that we'd be better of with restrictions that run afoul of the Constitution are all well and good (besides from a tactical standpoint of actually getting something done), but pretending it (and all the common law, case law, etc) says something it clearly does not isn't.

 

[Old man]

If those idiots get an open carry law they can ban concealed carry. Open carry advocates are the attention whores of the gun world.

This offensive statement displays your ignorance that in some jurisdictions, open carry is either the only lawful carry or the only lawful carry with no permit.

You're right of course, but I have go with Wildcat on this one. While I much prefer to have both options available, If I have to choose one or the other, only concealed is better than only open.

 

[newyorkguy]

And what if, like me, they're fairly liberal and still don't agree with your ideas about the law?

You continue to ignore it's not "my idea." You (and others) continue to try to personalize this question. The fact is, four of the Supreme Court jurists dissented in both Heller and McDonald. So it's not "my idea."

You also ignore -- or don't know -- that many (yes, not all), political pundits and Supreme Court watchers believe that if Scalia or Kennedy retired and Obama appointed a new judge that might affect the outcome of the appeal of the Ninth Circuit ruling in Peruta. So that's not my idea either.

Personalizing it makes it easier to knock down, I get that. You don't have to recognize there is a wide difference of opinion on what the Second Amendment does or does not convey. You can ignore that a former Supreme Court chief justice once called the "individual right" theory "a fraud."

So go ahead and ignore all that and make it out that it's just me and a couple of other posters that think this while everybody else in the whole world agrees with you. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[The Norseman]

You're right of course, but I have go with Wildcat on this one. While I much prefer to have both options available, If I have to choose one or the other, only concealed is better than only open.

Personal preference is fine as long as there is true choice, but denigrating people who may choose (or are forced) to open carry is going a bit too far. Other than that, I fully agree with what WildCat says in these threads and he often says things much better than I.

 

[The Norseman]

You continue to ignore it's not "my idea." You (and others) continue to try to personalize this question. The fact is, four of the Supreme Court jurists dissented in both Heller and McDonald. So it's not "my idea."

You also ignore -- or don't know -- that many (yes, not all), political pundits and Supreme Court watchers believe that if Scalia or Kennedy retired and Obama appointed a new judge that might affect the outcome of the appeal of the Ninth Circuit ruling in Peruta. So that's not my idea either.

Personalizing it makes it easier to knock down, I get that. You don't have to recognize there is a wide difference of opinion on what the Second Amendment does or does not convey. You can ignore that a former Supreme Court chief justice once called the "individual right" theory "a fraud."

So go ahead and ignore all that and make it out that it's just me and a couple of other posters that think this while everybody else in the whole world agrees with you. Whatever floats your boat.

I think the evidence points to this wide difference of opinion only existing within a very short time, relative to the age of our country. I'm still hoping you'll come forth with some evidence that the founders or contemporaries endorsed the idea that the militia was only for a formal army structure (for lack of a better way of saying it) and not a personal right. The "personal right" portion of my last sentence is what I wish to focus on.

 

[Xulld]

You continue to ignore it's not "my idea." You (and others) continue to try to personalize this question. The fact is, four of the Supreme Court jurists dissented in both Heller and McDonald. So it's not "my idea."

You also ignore -- or don't know -- that many (yes, not all), political pundits and Supreme Court watchers believe that if Scalia or Kennedy retired and Obama appointed a new judge that might affect the outcome of the appeal of the Ninth Circuit ruling in Peruta. So that's not my idea either.

Personalizing it makes it easier to knock down, I get that. You don't have to recognize there is a wide difference of opinion on what the Second Amendment does or does not convey. You can ignore that a former Supreme Court chief justice once called the "individual right" theory "a fraud."

So go ahead and ignore all that and make it out that it's just me and a couple of other posters that think this while everybody else in the whole world agrees with you. Whatever floats your boat.

If you support it, you own it as an idea.

Unless you are saying your support ends at the authority of the justices . . .

In which case you are admitting your support is founding on fallacy?

 

[Giz]

Personal preference is fine as long as there is true choice, but denigrating people who may choose (or are forced) to open carry is going a bit too far. Other than that, I fully agree with what WildCat says in these threads and he often says things much better than I.

Open carry because you have no other reasonable choice is one thing. Open carry because you think that you will make all the soccer moms come round to the idea that seeing guns in public is normal is (metaphorically) shooting themselves in the foot. It's far more likely to backfire and make those who were previously apathetic start to campaign for more restrictions (e.g. anyone who took their AR into Starbucks - way to go guys).