Another Second Amendment win in California

[WildCat]

What's keeping the counties from just appealing this to an 11 judge panel, which is probably mostly liberals, rather than appealing to the Supreme Court that has an even split?

They are, but they have to come up with reasons why the decision was wrong that are good enough for an en banc review. It's doubtful they can, the decision was pretty rock solid. The time for one of the other judges to request en banc review (any 9th circuit justice can do so) has come and gone so they probably think the decision was pretty solid.

 

[Hercules56]

Good. Let this go to the Supremes so the issue of the right to carry a firearm outside of the home is settled for at least a generation.

 

[Cylinder]

How often does that happen?

Neither common nor rare. Generally, some of the reasons for en banc review are the perception that the panel opinion deviates from precedent outside the willingness of the court as a whole, having justices who want to provide a more substantive dissent (or, I suppose, majority opinion) than the one provided for cases perceived to be likely to gain cert at the US Supreme Court or having justices that want to associate themselves with the particular issue for political reasons.

 

[ben m]

The last clause of the 2nd if read on it's own is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That works fine is isolation. "of the press" does not.

I don't want to belabor it, it's just an analogy, and I'm not a textualist anyway but generally trying to rebut textualism. But still---I see that as a potential misreading. Conjunctions like "and" or "nor" don't require the joined things to be related. You can splice together unrelated collections of instructions, in exactly the format ("freedom of speech, or of animal husbandry, or of canal passage, or of ... ") you reject. It's history and common sense, rather than grammar, that tells us that "press" means "printing press". Just like it's history and common sense, not grammar, that tells me (and Anthony Kennedy) that the 2nd Amendment's 2nd clause is a means of implementing its 1st clause.

Sorry for the sidetrack, but it was the best actual-bill-of-rights text-based reductio-ad-absurdium I could come up with in five minutes. It's not perfect and obviously I don't claim to have discovered a fundamental right for unregulated cider presses in the text or otherwise. I imagine that the handpicked and generously-funded legal scholars of the National Cider Association could do a better job than I did.

 

[The Norseman]

Good. Let this go to the Supremes so the issue of the right to carry a firearm outside of the home is settled for at least a generation.

It has been. It's referred to as the Heller decision. Did you not read the thread?

 

[newyorkguy]

Write me an example of a 1790 Federal law ordering the disarmament of "the New Hampshire militia."

Congress passed such a bill in 1792.

No they didn't. The militia acts of 1792 dictated how the state militias could be mustered under Federal command; they disarmed nobody.

Cylinder would you care to revisit this? Did "Congress pass such a bill in 1792" or didn't they?

By what authority did Pres. Washington - relying on his (and his advisor's) contemporary knowledge of the new Constitution - disarm and disband the various militias that rebelled against the newly-asserted federal authority?

Is this the answer? By what authority did Pres. Washington disarm and disband various militias? I don't know. I thought I was asking you. What authority did Washington cite to disarm militias?

 

[Hercules56]

It has been. It's referred to as the Heller decision. Did you not read the thread?

Heller never decided on the right to bear arms outside of the home to protect oneself on public property.

 

[The Norseman]

Heller never decided on the right to bear arms outside of the home to protect oneself on public property.

In this I stand corrected. However the court did say " In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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[\hilite], or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."" The implication is clear that carrying outside the home is lawful.

 

[newyorkguy]

...or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.""

The implication is clear that carrying outside the home is lawful.

Carrying outside the home is already legal.

 

[WildCat]

Heller never decided on the right to bear arms outside of the home to protect oneself on public property.

Why would the people need an enumerated right to bear arms inside the home? Was there ever any doubt that one could bear arms inside one's own home?

 

[newyorkguy]

Don't some gun laws restrict the right to even possess a gun? That would certainly seem to impact someone's right to "bear arms inside the home."

Five of the six co-plaintiffs in Heller specifically wanted a handgun for defense within their home. Washington D.C. would not permit them to possess a handgun in their home or anywhere else.

Shelly Parker wants to know why she cannot keep a handgun in her house. Link

 

[WildCat]

Don't some gun laws restrict the right to even possess a gun? That would certainly seem to impact someone's right to "bear arms inside the home."

Five of the six co-plaintiffs in Heller specifically wanted a handgun for defense within their home. Washington D.C. would not permit them to possess a handgun in their home or anywhere else.

In the home is the "keep" part of "keep and bear arms".

eta: From the Moore v. Madigan 7th Circuit decision:

The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “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” (emphasis added). The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one's home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

 

[Hercules56]

Don't some gun laws restrict the right to even possess a gun? That would certainly seem to impact someone's right to "bear arms inside the home."

Five of the six co-plaintiffs in Heller specifically wanted a handgun for defense within their home. Washington D.C. would not permit them to possess a handgun in their home or anywhere else.

There is no city or state in the USA where its impossible or even very difficult to possess a firearm in one's home.

 

[newyorkguy]

There is no city or state in the USA where its impossible or even very difficult to possess a firearm in one's home.

That's probably true of rifles for hunting or sport. I was talking about handguns for self-defense. Ownership has been banned or tightly restricted in a number of places.

My point was, there is no absolute right to own a gun if localities can ban or restrict ownership of certain kinds of guns. It's a limited right.

 

[WildCat]

That's probably true of rifles for hunting or sport. I was talking about handguns for self-defense. Ownership has been banned or tightly restricted in a number of places.

My point was, there is no absolute right to own a gun if localities can ban or restrict ownership of certain kinds of guns. It's a limited right.

We're working on those localities. Drake v. Filko, for example, is working its way up the chain challenging New Jersey's handgun carry laws.

 

[newyorkguy]

We're working on those localities.

Who's we?

 

[WildCat]

Who's we?

Gun owners and other supporters of the US Constitution.

 

[Ranb]

Who's we?

I'm one of those "we" who is working on gun control laws in Washington State. It is a very slow process and success has been limited. It took there years to get silencer use back for the police, military and civilians. Another three years to ease restrictions on short barreled rifles for police and civilians (if the bill is not vetoed this month) also.

I was working to get a good back ground check bill passed, but the people running the show decided to go with the same flawed piece of crap that failed the previous session. They want a bill with bkgd checks, registration and the potential to ban private sales; all the while they are promoting it as a mere bkgd check bill that protects the second amendment. It seems they really think WA voters are that stupid. The initiative (I-594) failed in the legislature last month and it is scheduled to flop in the next election.

Of course it will be the NRA's fault or something like that. Just like the mass media had excuses for the failure of any significant gun control legislation after Sandy Hook other than that the proposed legislation sucked, WAGR will blame anyone other than themselves for their own failures.

Ranb

 

[ben m]

Why are "private sales" so important? Can you explain that?

In a world without private sales, instead of saying "Here bro, here's that handgun you wanted, I take cash or Bitcoin", you have to say "Here bro, let's walk over to Sports Palace so they can run the middleman paperwork. They charge like $15 for the background check."

Yes, it's an imposition on you. (Wait, no, it was a bill with the potential to lead to a future imposition, which if it happened you'd be able to address at the ballot box later, right?) You know what else is an imposition? Actually being dead. When we're looking at that cost-benefit analysis, in which "gun owners are inconvenienced by a paperwork burden on private sales" are the downside and "numerous low-hanging-fruit murders are prevented because a potential assailant had met roadblocks in obtaining a gun" ...

We live in a world in which there are different people with conflicting needs---hunters to whom rifles are important AND ALSO urban youth to whom not having deadly weapons present in every street encounter is important; there are frightened people to whom handgun-based peace of mind is important, and also domestic-violence victims to whom any chance that their drunk spouse is unarmed is important. The people you call "gun grabbers" are defending the very real rights of a very real constituency.

You talk about this like it's "gun grabbers were too stupid to offer complete appeasement to gun owners." Most policy debates are "the real needs of X vs. the real needs of Y, and here's why X gets what they want". Gun policy debates sound like "the needs of X vs. ... well, X get what we want." I indeed blame the NRA for that attitude. It sounds like you're blaming Y for voicing what it wants at all; you sound like you expect Y to just roll over and ask politely for minor background checks, if it's no trouble, please.

 

[The Norseman]

Why are "private sales" so important? Can you explain that?

In a world without private sales, instead of saying "Here bro, here's that handgun you wanted, I take cash or Bitcoin", you have to say "Here bro, let's walk over to Sports Palace so they can run the middleman paperwork. They charge like $15 for the background check."

Yes, it's an imposition on you. (Wait, no, it was a bill with the potential to lead to a future imposition, which if it happened you'd be able to address at the ballot box later, right?) You know what else is an imposition? Actually being dead. When we're looking at that cost-benefit analysis, in which "gun owners are inconvenienced by a paperwork burden on private sales" are the downside and "numerous low-hanging-fruit murders are prevented because a potential assailant had met roadblocks in obtaining a gun" ...

You certainly are not burdening anyone with evidence, that's for sure.

We live in a world in which there are different people with conflicting needs---hunters to whom rifles are important AND ALSO urban youth to whom not having deadly weapons present in every street encounter is important; there are frightened people to whom handgun-based peace of mind is important, and also domestic-violence victims to whom any chance that their drunk spouse is unarmed is important. The people you call "gun grabbers" are defending the very real rights of a very real constituency.

You talk about this like it's "gun grabbers were too stupid to offer complete appeasement to gun owners." Most policy debates are "the real needs of X vs. the real needs of Y, and here's why X gets what they want". Gun policy debates sound like "the needs of X vs. ... well, X get what we want." I indeed blame the NRA for that attitude. It sounds like you're blaming Y for voicing what it wants at all; you sound like you expect Y to just roll over and ask politely for minor background checks, if it's no trouble, please.

How many murders will instituting mandatory 100% background checks solve?