9th Circuit - "Good Cause" Requirement Unconstitutional

Quiet said:
More than 66%, in fact almost 67% of all judges officially asked for their opinion on this case said that they agree with this ruling... and they were all judges at the Appellate Level, too!
Click to expand...
Yes, but they were not judges being asked to vote on the record for an "undesired" public policy. The "desired result" can and often does drive decisions as much as the law does. The common term is "results driven judiciary", but I prefer the term "marsupial court".
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Yes, but they were not judges being asked to vote on the record for an "undesired" public policy. The "desired result" can and often does drive decisions as much as the law does. The common term is "results driven judiciary", but I prefer the term "marsupial court".
Click to expand...
The aren't even "results driven" as it has been amply shown that at best (for their side) an armed populace does not reduce safety. More often, the rise in law abiding citizens arming themselves is correlated with reduced crime.

It is "agenda driven". Their agenda is to keep the populace dumb, disarmed and obedient. To that end, the prior policy was remarkably effective.
 
terraformer said:
... BTW: A little more on procedure. We will find out today if the court takes this or not. If nothing by the end of the day, then Peruta is minted. CA9 needs to give the plaintiff's lawyers a chance to argue for no en banc. That is what would come down today.
Click to expand...

So, what "came down"?
 
Not all sheriff's are waiting to see what happens.


Surge in concealed weapon permits follows California court Second Amendment decision

Gun owners are flooding the sheriff's offices in two California counties with applications for concealed weapon permits following a bombshell ruling two weeks ago by a federal appeals court that citizens need not justify their requests.

Orange and Ventura counties have dropped the "good cause" standard for issuing conceal carry permits after the requirement was struck down Feb. 13 by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. A three-judge panel of the court ruled 2 to 1 that the Second Amendment bars California counties from requiring law-abiding gun owners who want to carry concealed firearms to demonstrate special, individualized needs for protection.
Click to expand...

Of course no 2A article would be complete with cry babying and outright lies from the Brady Bunch,

“The parents of Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin, whose children were killed by licensed concealed-carry holders, could educate the court about the real dangers posed by this legal error,” Jonathan Lowy, of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. “We are hopeful that this mistake will be corrected by the entire court.”
Click to expand...

I have to wonder if the sheriffs in Orange and Ventura know something about what's going to happen and don't think this is either going to be overturned or go to SCOTUS?

There was tremendous pressure on IL not to take Moore v. Madigan to SCOTUS for fear a pro 2A ruling would kill may issue everywhere.

Break out the popcorn and watch the show.
 
“The parents of Jordan Davis and Trayvon Martin, whose children were killed by licensed concealed-carry holders, could educate the court about the real dangers posed by this legal error,” Jonathan Lowy, of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. “We are hopeful that this mistake will be corrected by the entire court.”
Click to expand...

We have to learn to start countering this shit or we are going to lose a few battles.

Here's an attempt:

"Tell that to the parents of (INSERT MEDAL OF HONOR WINNER'S NAME HERE) who had to bury their child after he (INSERT THE HARROWING STORY OF CITIATION HERE) to protect the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms"
 
Coyote33 said:
So, what "came down"?
Click to expand...

Nothing. The court could still take this on their own for some time (jar says another week so lets say that), but now they would not be giving the plaintiffs the opportunity to weigh in. Or they may be waiting on the plaintiffs to file a response to the amicus briefs.
 
terraformer said:
Nothing. The court could still take this on their own for some time (jar says another week so lets say that), but now they would not be giving the plaintiffs the opportunity to weigh in. Or they may be waiting on the plaintiffs to file a response to the amicus briefs.
Click to expand...

The panel put out an order late yesterday: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...xtend-Time-to-File-Petition-for-Rehearing.pdf

Basically, the panel granted the motions to extend time to petition for en banc until the motions to intervene are decided. Submission of the motions to intervene and the mandate are suspended until further orders.

Super short version:
CA9 Panel : We'll figure this crap out on Monday
 
jar said:
The panel put out an order late yesterday: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...xtend-Time-to-File-Petition-for-Rehearing.pdf

Basically, the panel granted the motions to extend time to petition for en banc until the motions to intervene are decided. Submission of the motions to intervene and the mandate are suspended until further orders.

Super short version:
CA9 Panel : We'll figure this crap out on Monday
Click to expand...

OK. I hadn't heard anything. This reinforces my theory that it will be taken up by the full panel on their own volition.
 
Quiet said:
We have to learn to start countering this shit or we are going to lose a few battles.

Here's an attempt:

"Tell that to the parents of (INSERT MEDAL OF HONOR WINNER'S NAME HERE) who had to bury their child after he (INSERT THE HARROWING STORY OF CITIATION HERE) to protect the right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms"
Click to expand...

****ing eh...Well put [thumbsup]
 
Quiet said:
If they are (and they are) going to keep on using the "for the children" based arguments, it's time we "for the children -- of the fallen" and "for the parents of the heroes" arguments right back at those mother****ers.
Click to expand...

Roger that. people need to be reminded that liberty and freedom are not free and good men and women have died fighting for it ! People also need to be reminded that the RIGHTS of the people are not to be stepped on. We are the government. the government works for us NOT us for them. Some how the ****ing idiots today forgot that.
 
jar said:
The panel put out an order late yesterday: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...xtend-Time-to-File-Petition-for-Rehearing.pdf

Basically, the panel granted the motions to extend time to petition for en banc until the motions to intervene are decided. Submission of the motions to intervene and the mandate are suspended until further orders.

Super short version:
CA9 Panel : We'll figure this crap out on Monday
Click to expand...

I read the order last night. They stopped the clock totally. They don't have to rule on the motion until they damned well please.
 
Garys said:
That being said, it doesn't mean that they won't rule fairly quickly. A lot of maneuvering must be going on behind the scenes.
Click to expand...


I wonder if that tranlates to pockets getting lined. I d o not trust them any more.
 
This order presents the ultimate conundrum - it exposes the divergence between desired public policy and where both the 2nd amendment and the concept of equal protection under the law leads. The powers that be are working on what doublespeak will be used to claim that allowing a special class of elites to carry is in fact what the 2nd amendment protects.
 
terraformer said:
Correct on both point. But that maneuvering may also delay things.
Click to expand...

Everything is court delays things! As you know better than me, courts move on their own time lines.
To me at least, the big question is whether or not the court will grant standing to the State and the Brady Campaign. Or for that matter if the Circuit will decided to grant en banc sua sponte.

It's like a soap opera.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
This order presents the ultimate conundrum - it exposes the divergence between desired public policy and where both the 2nd amendment and the concept of equal protection under the law leads. The powers that be are working on what doublespeak will be used to claim that allowing a special class of elites to carry is in fact what the 2nd amendment protects.
Click to expand...
They are trying to claim a "right to be free from the threat of violence by a gun-toting tea-bagger exercising their right to keep and bear arms".

I heard a few of them articulate this strategy over the past year. They want to frame the issue s a "new" civil right to be "free from fear". Of course since fear is a choice, this is absurd. Particularly an irrational fear such as the fear of firearms or fear of those who disagree with your political philosophy.

They are desperately trying to avoid discussing the reality you point out which is that they are not "anti-gun", but rather pro-gun for the ruling class. Hopefully the lawyers can point this out to those judges who aren't among the elite or their sycophants hoping to disarm "the rabble".

Any "rational basis" or "balancing" that looked at the facts would have to consider all the genocides that have followed similar licensing policies as well as the overwhelmling data invalidating their claim that "may issue" makes anyone safer even before the genocide occurs.
 
Last edited:
Garys said:
Everything is court delays things! As you know better than me, courts move on their own time lines.
To me at least, the big question is whether or not the court will grant standing to the State and the Brady Campaign. Or for that matter if the Circuit will decided to grant en banc sua sponte.

It's like a soap opera.
Click to expand...
They are unlikely to grant standing unless they believe they need to in order to take the appeal sua sponte. To recognize the states standing would open a box that doesn't need opening. The easiest way forward will be sua sponte. Now, if the 9th circus already has case law allowing the state AGs office to intervene after passing by repeated opportunities to do so and after a district court ruling had been handed down, then I will retract my statement above and it will be trivial to grant the state intervenor status. Also, if they do grant the state intervening status, the circuit will have truly earned their nickname. Also, if the state is given intervenor status, it's going to pollute the case procedurally and would likely cause SCOTUS to either take drake or deny cert to both peruta and drake. I really don't see an upside to them to grant intervenor status.
 
I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the judges conference room. Assuming they have a conference room. ;) There are no doubt some interesting conversations taking place.



terraformer said:
They are unlikely to grant standing unless they believe they need to in order to take the appeal sua sponte. To recognize the states standing would open a box that doesn't need opening. The easiest way forward will be sua sponte. Now, if the 9th circus already has case law allowing the state AGs office to intervene after passing by repeated opportunities to do so and after a district court ruling had been handed down, then I will retract my statement above and it will be trivial to grant the state intervenor status. Also, if they do grant the state intervening status, the circuit will have truly earned their nickname. Also, if the state is given intervenor status, it's going to pollute the case procedurally and would likely cause SCOTUS to either take drake or deny cert to both peruta and drake. I really don't see an upside to them to grant intervenor status.
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the judges conference room. Assuming they have a conference room. ;) There are no doubt some interesting conversations taking place.
Click to expand...

Most likely, if this is the case, all trying to figure out how to pork the public ("The People"), while protecting the elite (politicians, rich, connected, and police).
 
Brady/Bloomturd/Rosenthal, they are all snakeoil salesmen, greasier than Slick50 in a BBQ pit. I don't trust anyone in the legislative, executive, or judicial branches any more.
 
cekim said:
Any "rational basis" or "balancing" that looked at the facts would have to consider all the genocides that have followed similar licensing policies as well as the overwelmling data invalidating their claim that "may issue" makes anyone safer even before the genocide occurs.
Click to expand...
A key legal issue is that this is not something that should be subject to "rational basis" or "balancing" but rather "strict scrutiny". The key to strict scrutiny is that a right is a right - nobody decides if there is a "rational basis" for restricting what church someone may attend or what speech is acceptable by a "balancing" standard.
A civil right to be "free from fear."
Click to expand...
Makes about as much sense as a civil right to be free from the knowledge that gays may legally pork each other (ie, none).
 

Similar threads

Federal Judge Finds Pennsylvania Law Barring 18-20 Year-Olds from Concealed Carry Unconstitutional
Replies
1
Views
117
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
149
oldguy68
oldguy68
District Judge: Gun Ban For Illegal Immigrant Unconstitutional
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Kurtz
Kurtz
‘Unconstitutional’: DOJ Announces Red Flag Center For Gun-Grab Operation Against Americans
Replies
16
Views
625
Nick Fury
Nick Fury
The cause of poor accuracy was the stock? Maybe……..
Replies
7
Views
324
Taipan01
Taipan01
Back
Top Bottom