- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,760
Sgt Knaub et al popping the champagne..
En banc Decision in Peruta -- a loss
- Thread starter esqappellate
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Sgt Knaub et al popping the champagne..
At least Maryland doesn't specify open or concealed. Well unless it's a rifle, then it has to be open.
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
So, we need someone in MD to apply for an "open carry only" request permit on their "restrictions."
When that is denied, then they have standing.
When that is denied, then they have standing.
Attachments
In strategy terms, they didn't quash open carry now because they want us to waste even more time and money getting an open carry case up to them. There's zero possibility they'll uphold a right to open carry or significantly impact California's open carry ban.
The Charles Nichols California OC case is qued up.
Last edited:
That would not help. The current permits have no wording regarding manner of carry.
Somewhere Kamala Harris is sitting around pleasuring herself.
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
Somewhere Kamala Harris is sitting around pleasuring herself.
Forgot ALL about that twist.
There...thank you CA9 for allowing that fiasco to happen. Refresh my memory, did our side appeal that decision to SCOTUS or did we let it ride?
Mike OTDP
Ultimate Member
- Feb 12, 2008
- 3,324
There comes a point where judicial rulings no longer mean much. Legislation does far more. With 40+ states having CCW or no-permit required carry, there's a strong case for treating the holdouts exactly the way that the sates pushing segregation in the 1960s were treated. Legislation similar to the Voting Rights Act - any legislation from those states is presumed illegal until proven otherwise, and the burden of proof is on the state.
We need to go on offense.
We need to go on offense.
Agreed, I'm a big fan of adopting the prohibition label.
- Nov 14, 2010
- 20,274
Irony, thy name is California ... Hypocrisy too
CA of which the 9th Circuit in SanFran has jurisdiction ...
Since Peruta is CA-originated and the CA legislature has now deemed themselves 'exempt', as a lay person I would think that it would be ripe to overturn on appeal to SCOTUS ... as in the Equal Protection Clause part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws" ... and I would assume, equal enforcement.
Caveat: wait until Trump appoints Scalia's replacement before filing an appeal.
EDITORIAL: One law for us, another for you
California’s legislative hypocrisy a failure of democracy
CA of which the 9th Circuit in SanFran has jurisdiction ...
Since Peruta is CA-originated and the CA legislature has now deemed themselves 'exempt', as a lay person I would think that it would be ripe to overturn on appeal to SCOTUS ... as in the Equal Protection Clause part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws" ... and I would assume, equal enforcement.
Caveat: wait until Trump appoints Scalia's replacement before filing an appeal.
EDITORIAL: One law for us, another for you
California’s legislative hypocrisy a failure of democracy
Klunatic
Ultimate Member
DC is different because you don't have the option of Open Carry so they can't fall back on that loophole. They make the excuse you can OC so you don't need to be able to CC.
As someone mentioned in another thread (maybe 'Norman v. FL'?), a method of carry needs to be provided for - either OC or CC. A state may restrict/declare CC a privilege, but then must provide for OC (or vice versa). I just don't see how they can get away with restricting both.
Elliotte
Ultimate Member
89 pages of majority opinion, concurrence, and 3 dissents. The rest was stuff cited in the opinion.
CA of which the 9th Circuit in SanFran has jurisdiction ...
Since Peruta is CA-originated and the CA legislature has now deemed themselves 'exempt', as a lay person I would think that it would be ripe to overturn on appeal to SCOTUS ... as in the Equal Protection Clause part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws" ... and I would assume, equal enforcement.
Caveat: wait until Trump appoints Scalia's replacement before filing an appeal.
EDITORIAL: One law for us, another for you
California’s legislative hypocrisy a failure of democracy
I can't fact-check this right now, but if what's written in that WT editorial is true, rebellion in CA is appropriate.
CrueChief
Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
Yeah but too bad the vast population of CA actually must think this sort of law is ok, otherwise they wouldn't have passed it.
Only in the Golden State.
the land of fruits and nuts
I doubt MD legislators have any real objection to this sort of thing. They certainly think like CA legislators when it comes to citizen self-defense.Yeah but too bad the vast population of CA actually must think this sort of law is ok, otherwise they wouldn't have passed it.
shacklefordbanks
Active Member
- Mar 27, 2013
- 252
I'm afraid the En Banc Peruta decision is much worse than expected. (At least expected by us who thought the 9th Circuit would find some way out of granting permits.)
The panel ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public and specifically do not answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public, the panel made a point of saying that they "would entirely agree with the answer the concurrence" of Judge Graber.
Judge Garber "write separately only to state that, even if we assume that the Second Amendment applied to the carrying of concealed weapons in public, the provisions at issue would be constitutional."
So the vast majority of Ninth Circuit believes that even if open carry was protected by the Second Amendment that restrictions like the "good and substantial" requirement to get an open carry permit in the interest of "public safety" are constitutional.
You still do not get to carry your gun.
They have set a trap. If you only argue that open carry is constitutional the court will take years to say "yeah, but so what, as a matter of public safety we can limit the number of guns on the street." Then you are right back where you started. This is a perfect blueprint for other states to get around the 2nd Amendment completely. Every restriction will be ok as a matter of public safety.
I am truly not happy about this. Bad news for us all.
The panel ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public and specifically do not answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public, the panel made a point of saying that they "would entirely agree with the answer the concurrence" of Judge Graber.
Judge Garber "write
So the vast majority of Ninth Circuit believes that even if open carry was protected by the Second Amendment that restrictions like the "good and substantial" requirement to get an open carry permit in the interest of "public safety" are constitutional.
You still do not get to carry your gun.
They have set a trap. If you only argue that open carry is constitutional the court will take years to say "yeah, but so what, as a matter of public safety we can limit the number of guns on the street." Then you are right back where you started. This is a perfect blueprint for other states to get around the 2nd Amendment completely. Every restriction will be ok as a matter of public safety.
I am truly not happy about this. Bad news for us all.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
-
-
Montgomery County Gun Buyback: Interfaith GVP Network Aims to Hit $30,000 Goal by April 20 (5 Viewers)
- Latest: Wjmarshall84
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom” (13 Viewers)- Latest: Boondock Saint
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom” (13 Viewers)- Started by Harrys
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
The Economic Impact of the Firearm and Ammunition Industry- Started by Target Sports USA
- Replies: 0
-
-
