California Victory!

[LaszerBranes]

Great news for California residents today.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/13/nra-wins-big-concealed-carry-gun-case-in-petura-v-/

 

[Bertfish]

Super dupe

 

[thomfantomas]

mehh cut the junior some slack now will-ya......and as for this good for them whats left for "US" nadda

 

[j8064]

How many dupes are a dupe too many?

 

[raff696]

This is great news!

If one of the most restrictive states in the union is told that its citizens have the right to Carry outside the home. Then we should use this momentum to push our case forward!

I should have my Utah permit soon!

 

[mtnwisdom]

At this point, I would like to hear from our MSI executive members as to what they intend on doing now (this week, next month) regarding this decision?

 

[lx1x]

How many dupes are a dupe too many?

Dupe..

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?p=3027185

 

[Tyeraxus]

At this point, I would like to hear from our MSI executive members as to what they intend on doing now (this week, next month) regarding this decision?

I'm not MSI, but I'd expect the answer to be "watch it with cautious hope." This is a ruling out of a federal circuit on the other side of the country, they don't have jurisdiction here. The only way the ruling directly affects MD is if it goes to SCOTUS and SCOTUS formally rules that the 2A protects carry outside the home. But before that happens, it would have to be appealed by San Diego to SCOTUS - but they'll likely ask for CA9 en banc review (asking a larger panel to look at it) first. THEN whomever loses can appeal to SCOTUS. THEN SCOTUS can decide to not even take it, a la Wollard. There are a TON of places where this can go against us, and the antis have the advantage of the status quo.

 

[esqappellate]

At this point, I would like to hear from our MSI executive members as to what they intend on doing now (this week, next month) regarding this decision?

There is literally nothing we can do right now with the decision. It will be brought to the attention of the various courts, including the SCT, in various pending cases by counsel in those cases. It is a 9th Circuit decision, so it is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit, in which Maryland is located. Maryland is governed by the Woollard decision with which the Peruta decision directly contradicts. Peruta is in very good hands, legally. All we can do is hope it survives en banc review at the 9th Circuit. En banc is all but certain there. If it does, the odds for SCT review go up. A lot.

 

[camobob]

Wouldn't it be nice is SCT upheld this...too much to hope for??

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

I can't let myself believe the SCOTUS would rule the way they did in Heller and McDonald, and then allow this individual, fundamental, incorporated right to be utterly destroyed. There is so much strong, unequivocal language in both those decisions that refusing to stand by it in future cases would weaken the court immensely, IMO.

Either the court's rulings mean what they say, or it is an impotent, meaningless appendage. At some point the momentum and scope of the right has got to be such that even the less 2A friendly members on the court must follow the court's own stare decisis, or they look foolish while the whole judicial system just falls apart.

 

[kcbrown]

I can't let myself believe the SCOTUS would rule the way they did in Heller and McDonald, and then allow this individual, fundamental, incorporated right to be utterly destroyed. There is so much strong, unequivocal language in both those decisions that refusing to stand by it in future cases would weaken the court immensely, IMO.

"Weaken" it in what way?

In any case, both Heller and McDonald were won by the skin of our teeth, and those were cases that merely involved "keep" in the home. Now we're talking about people carrying around guns in public. If you think for one moment that such a case isn't on even less solid ground than were the original two cases, I've got this bridge to sell you...

Either the court's rulings mean what they say, or it is an impotent, meaningless appendage. At some point the momentum and scope of the right has got to be such that even the less 2A friendly members on the court must follow the court's own stare decisis, or they look foolish while the whole judicial system just falls apart.

Are you kidding? McDonald was won on a 5-4 vote. That means that 4 of the judges decided that either Heller didn't mean what it said or that the 14th Amendment is somehow impotent with respect to this singular enumerated right, but somehow operative for all the others.

And why should the members of the court care what they look like? They're set for life, and their decisions carry weight as long as those who enforce those decisions heed them. The moment that changes, the entire country will come crashing down. It's not like the court hasn't reversed itself before, or severely limited its own prior decisions. No, those things you seem to think would spell the end of the judiciary are things that have already happened.

Given that the court has already shown itself to be willing to reverse itself, sometimes more than once, on a given issue, it should be obvious that there's no disincentive whatsoever for it to simply continue to withhold its opinion on "controversial" issues such as carry of firearms in public. Hence, not only can I believe that the Supreme Court would stand idly by while the right it initially (barely) ruled in favor of is destroyed, I think it's more likely than not that such is precisely what the Court will do.

 

[Kharn]

kcbrown,
I'm so eagerly awaiting your next "I was wrong!" thread.

 

[kcbrown]

kcbrown,
I'm so eagerly awaiting your next "I was wrong!" thread.

You can tell I'm trying to "game" the system here.

 

[Brooklyn]

"Weaken" it in what way?

In any case, both Heller and McDonald were won by the skin of our teeth, and those were cases that merely involved "keep" in the home. Now we're talking about people carrying around guns in public. If you think for one moment that such a case isn't on even less solid ground than were the original two cases, I've got this bridge to sell you...


Are you kidding? McDonald was won on a 5-4 vote. That means that 4 of the judges decided that either Heller didn't mean what it said or that the 14th Amendment is somehow impotent with respect to this singular enumerated right, but somehow operative for all the others.

And why should the members of the court care what they look like? They're set for life, and their decisions carry weight as long as those who enforce those decisions heed them. The moment that changes, the entire country will come crashing down. It's not like the court hasn't reversed itself before, or severely limited its own prior decisions. No, those things you seem to think would spell the end of the judiciary are things that have already happened.

Given that the court has already shown itself to be willing to reverse itself, sometimes more than once, on a given issue, it should be obvious that there's no disincentive whatsoever for it to simply continue to withhold its opinion on "controversial" issues such as carry of firearms in public. Hence, not only can I believe that the Supreme Court would stand idly by while the right it initially (barely) ruled in favor of is destroyed, I think it's more likely than not that such is precisely what the Court will do.

The court fears chaos. A ConCon would be chaos. Let them have Chaos if they choose unwisely.. All this is mere show --a stall for time to make the radical palatable

And , IIRC , all 9 rejected the idiocy of a collective right-- thats not nothing considering the 50 year + disinformation Campaign in its favor.

We will get IS. The liberals will shit a brick. The moderates will be satisfied and the 2a will still be over regulated in my view but it will not be extinct.

Then we need to keep wining hearts and minds -- a ConCon will still be possible over many other issues.

 

[abean4187]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0balFv3o4E

 

[Dan_Br]

Then we need to keep wining hearts and minds -- a ConCon will still be possible over many other issues.

What is a "ConCon"?

 

[swinokur]

Constitutional Convention.

 

[Dan_Br]

Constitutional Convention.

thanks

 

[Al Norris]

I keep hearing all this crap about Heller and McDonald "squeaking" by with a mere 5/4 win...

Fact is that all 9 Justices were in agreement that the 2A was an individual right. We get the 5/4 split in whether or not the right meant anything.

Kcbrown, do a little research and inform yourself of just how many of those 5/4 decisions have withstood the test of time. Meanwhile, I'm with Kharn. Waiting for the next plate to serve you.