• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

9th Circuit - "Good Cause" Requirement Unconstitutional

Rob Boudrie said:
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.

Makes about as much sense as a civil right to be free from the knowledge that gays may legally pork each other (ie, none).
Click to expand...
Here-f'ing-here on all of the above. It may come as no surprise, but I think all this "rational" and "balancing" nonsense is an excuse to usurp power not granted in the Constitution.

The burden is on the state. Always.

Even where you can, correctly, say that we can imprison or punish someone once found guilty after due process which infringes on their "life, liberty and property", the key there is that the burden is on the state and the infringement on an individual AFTER due process.

Anything else is unconstitutional in my book and should be in everyone's.

It is not the our job to make government more "efficient", in fact, the cornerstone of our liberty is in hamstringing government from using power at all so as to limit its abuse.

- - - Updated - - -

SpaceCritter said:
Fear is an emotion. It may or may not have a rational basis.

Or...

If someone is afraid of, say, black people (or redheads or Jews or pick your favorite category)...
Click to expand...
I think it goes without saying that this is a lunatic concept, but the cup-cake society has embraced all sorts of lunacy and we've long entertained their delusions and allowed them to live in a dream world supported by our taxes and loss of liberty.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that even strict scrutiny is a balancing test. I think the right answer is a categorical approach, and in fact, that was the approach taken in Heller, whose majority explicitly rejected judicial interest balancing. “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.” Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2821 (2008).

Interesting article from Eugene Volokh in the 1A context that I need to read and digest later: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/scrutiny.htm
 
jar said:
I'd argue that even strict scrutiny is a balancing test. I think the right answer is a categorical approach, and in fact, that was the approach taken in Heller, whose majority explicitly rejected judicial interest balancing. “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.” Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2821 (2008).

Interesting article from Eugene Volokh in the 1A context that I need to read and digest later: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/scrutiny.htm
Click to expand...
Indeed, all claims to the contrary conflate abridgement of fundamental right AFTER due process with blanket restrictions on 2A that are legion...

That you can be sanctioned for libelous speech does not mean that the state can prohibit you from expressing yourself. Your sanction comes after-the-fact and via due process.

"Prior restraint" (the more extreme version) also requires due process and an individualized finding.

They are playing on people's superficial understanding of what it means to have a due-process barrier to state abridgement of liberties.
 
Richards, the other case challenging a CA sherriff's interpretation of good cause, came down today. In an 2 page unpublished memorandum, the court held:
"In light of our disposition of the same issue in Peruta v. County of San
Diego, No. 10-56971, — F.3d — (Feb. 13, 2014), we conclude that the district
court in this case erred in denying Richard’s motion for summary judgment
because the Yolo County policy impermissibly infringes on the Second
Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
REVERSED and REMANDED."

This suggests to me that the panel is going to deny CA and the Brady's motions to intervene in Peruta. If they were going to let Peruta continue, why issue this order only to rescind it soon after?
 
jar said:
Richards, the other case challenging a CA sherriff's interpretation of good cause, came down today. In an 2 page unpublished memorandum, the court held:
"In light of our disposition of the same issue in Peruta v. County of San
Diego, No. 10-56971, — F.3d — (Feb. 13, 2014), we conclude that the district
court in this case erred in denying Richard’s motion for summary judgment
because the Yolo County policy impermissibly infringes on the Second
Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense.
REVERSED and REMANDED."

This suggests to me that the panel is going to deny CA and the Brady's motions to intervene in Peruta. If they were going to let Peruta continue, why issue this order only to rescind it soon after?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I noticed that the same judges who ruled in Richard's also ruled in Peruta. Will Baker be the same judges? If it is, then I think we would get another win.
 
Garden12 said:
Agreed. I noticed that the same judges who ruled in Richard's also ruled in Peruta. Will Baker be the same judges? If it is, then I think we would get another win.
Click to expand...

Yes. Baker, Richards, and Peruta were all heard by the same panel on the same day. Given that Baker is in a different state, with a different regulatory scheme, I expect that ruling will be slightly longer and therefore take more time to write.
 
Richards is a victory:

BELLEVUE, WA, and ROSEVILLE, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation and The Calguns Foundation earned a significant victory today when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case of Richards v. Prieto, challenging the handgun carry license issuing policy of Yolo County, California, Sheriff Ed Prieto.

“Today’s ruling reinforces the Second Amendment’s application to state and local governments, and will help clear the way for more California citizens to exercise their right to bear arms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “California officials have been put on notice that they can no longer treat the Second Amendment as a heavily-regulated government privilege.”

The case was originally filed in 2009 as Sykes v. McGinness, and challenged not only Yolo County’s policies, but Sacramento County’s then-restrictive practices as well. SAF, Calguns and two private citizens, Adam Richards and Brett Stewart, continued pursuing the case against Yolo County after Sacramento County agreed to relax its policy. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Alan Gura and Don Kilmer.

“We are confident that the win today will stand the test of time,” said Calguns Foundation Chairman Gene Hoffman.

The Richards case was argued at the same time, and to the same panel, that earlier decided Peruta v. County of San Diego, a similar case challenging overly-restrictive carry license policies. Yolo County and Sheriff Prieto argued that their policies were distinguishable from those struck down in Peruta, but apparently, the three-judge panel unanimously disagreed.
Click to expand...

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/03/saf-cgf-score-ninth-circuit-victory-richards-carry-case/
 
soloman02 said:
Richards is a victory:



http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/2014/03/saf-cgf-score-ninth-circuit-victory-richards-carry-case/
Click to expand...

Makes sense. The Opinion doesn't seem to have been published yet, but is on line here. [STRIKE=Not so much.]It should be an interesting read.[/STRIKE]

In light of our disposition of the same issue in Peruta v. County of San Diego , No. 10-56971, — F.3d — (Feb. 13, 2014), we conclude that the district court in this case erred in denying Richard’s motion for summary judgment because the Yolo County policy impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jar said:
This suggests to me that the panel is going to deny CA and the Brady's motions to intervene in Peruta. If they were going to let Peruta continue, why issue this order only to rescind it soon after?
Click to expand...

I was just having this conversation with someone and the above is very similar to where we landed on the topic. It's over and they will deny the motions.
 
jar said:
This suggests to me that the panel is going to deny CA and the Brady's motions to intervene in Peruta. If they were going to let Peruta continue, why issue this order only to rescind it soon after?
Click to expand...

The Court has directed both parties to file responses to Motions to Intervene by the State and Brady Campaigns and the Petition for En Banc Rehearing by the CA Police Chiefs and Peace Officers Associations. Response to be no more than 6,000 words and due within 21 days of March 5.

Looks like they are at least giving it serious consideration.

Order here.
 
I thought they had until today to decide if they were going to allow an appeal by the full court. Has this changed?
 
Coyote33 said:
So, what "came down"?
Click to expand...

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...

terraformer said:
I was just having this conversation with someone and the above is very similar to where we landed on the topic. It's over and they will deny the motions.
Click to expand...

Cero said:
I thought they had until today to decide if they were going to allow an appeal by the full court. Has this changed?
Click to expand...

Knuckle Dragger said:
They did, but the court can change it's mind.
Click to expand...


Any updates? Is this over? Is something still left open or hanging? Where do things stand? I am confused now. How long before things go into effect?
 
Responses to the motions to intervene are due on 3/26. At some point after that, we'll hear whether the court will allow CA to join the case or not. If they do, there will probably a round of briefing on whether to take the case en banc.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
 
I like the implication on Blek. His son was killed by criminals 20 years ago and he has devoted the time since then to denying law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves.

Also, the 'immediate need' standard seems odd to me. So you only issue an LTC to someone who is highly likely to shoot someone in the very near term? What?!? So your ex is stalking you, you are granted a permit. Your ex attacks you, you shoot him/her, and then you lose your permit because you no longer need it or because, you know, you shot someone(it's CA, right?). Do LTC's come with a loaner gun?
 
Rider said:
Also, the 'immediate need' standard seems odd to me. So you only issue an LTC to someone who is highly likely to shoot someone in the very near term? What?!? So your ex is stalking you, you are granted a permit. Your ex attacks you, you shoot him/her, and then you lose your permit because you no longer need it or because, you know, you shot someone(it's CA, right?). Do LTC's come with a loaner gun?
Click to expand...

I am stealing this for use in the future. This is a brilliant deconstruction of the "need" standard.
 
Rider said:
I like the implication on Blek. His son was killed by criminals 20 years ago and he has devoted the time since then to denying law-abiding citizens the right to protect themselves.

Also, the 'immediate need' standard seems odd to me. So you only issue an LTC to someone who is highly likely to shoot someone in the very near term? What?!? So your ex is stalking you, you are granted a permit. Your ex attacks you, you shoot him/her, and then you lose your permit because you no longer need it or because, you know, you shot someone(it's CA, right?). Do LTC's come with a loaner gun?
Click to expand...

This 10000000000000000 times
 
Seems to me if there are only 1000 people who need permits in all of NJ in such imminent danger that they are in need of a pistol permit, they should each be assigned police escort on the job, or wherever/whenever they are in that particular need. It would be for the public good to do that rather than give them a killy gun without hollow points.

In a state with 6 million people, 1,000 detail officers seems reasonable for the public good.
 
As with Peruta & Richards, it would come down to whether the standard had the effect of denying people their Second Amendment rights or whether it's a de facto prohibition on average citizens carrying for self defense.

Logically, and we know that the law has little to nothing to do with logic, you'd think that this would be an easy case to decide.



Quiet said:
Seems to me if there are only 1000 people who need permits in all of NJ in such imminent danger that they are in need of a pistol permit, they should each be assigned police escort on the job, or wherever/whenever they are in that particular need. It would be for the public good to do that rather than give them a killy gun without hollow points.

In a state with 6 million people, 1,000 detail officers seems reasonable for the public good.
Click to expand...
 
Garys said:
As with Peruta & Richards, it would come down to whether the standard had the effect of denying people their Second Amendment rights or whether it's a de facto prohibition on average citizens carrying for self defense.

Logically, and we know that the law has little to nothing to do with logic, you'd think that this would be an easy case to decide.
Click to expand...
Yup. Logic has nothing to do with the law. Or was that common sense. One of them. Or both.

I was just redeconstructing after rider's deconstruction.
 

Similar threads

3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
142
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
615
Nick Fury
Nick Fury
The cause of poor accuracy was the stock? Maybe……..
Replies
7
Views
305
Taipan01
Taipan01
Biden Nominee to 7th Circuit Supported Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ But Cannot Define Them
Replies
23
Views
470
HARRYM
H
Back
Top Bottom