TTORA Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Going John Galt
Joined
·
31,839 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
not holding my breath but this is huge!


http://www.ammoland.com/2013/11/9th-circuit-issues-important-gun-rights-decision/

California --(Ammoland.com)- It took nearly two years but this morning the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision written by ninety year old judge Harry Pregerson which created a framework in the 9th Circuit for deciding Second Amendment cases.

The court of appeals adopted a “Two Step Inquiry” (1) If the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment then (2) courts are directed to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

This is an important decision because when the US Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the cases involved bans. The High Court did not describe a framework for the courts to use to evaluate laws that fell short of outright bans as was the case in Heller and McDonald.

Until today, the cases decided in the 9th Circuit did not articulate a framework because they either involved persons the court said fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment (e.g., convicted felons) or “arms” which the court likewise said fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment (e.g., bombs) or persons using firearms to further their criminal enterprise (e.g, drug dealers), etc. In cases such as this, the court decided that it was not necessary to articulate a framework to use in deciding the cases. In other words, these were “Open and Shut” cases.
What This Portends for the Concealed Carry and Open Carry cases?

There are close to a dozen concealed carry cases either pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or are currently being decided in the lower 9th Circuit District Courts. Unfortunately, the concealed carry cases have several insurmountable mountains to climb. First, the US Supreme Court said that its decision in Heller did not invalidate prohibitions on concealed carry and when the Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in McDonald it also applied the Heller decision to the states. The US Supreme Court in Heller said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

So the concealed carry cases are unlikely to even reach, let alone pass, the first step of the “Two Step Inquiry.” For nearly two hundred years state courts have said that concealed carry is not a right. Two recent Supreme Court decisions say concealed carry is not a right as have every Federal Court of Appeals to decide the question. Since there are only two ways to carry a firearm, openly or concealed, that leaves the two Open Carry cases, Nichols V. Brown and Young v. Hawaii to be decided under the “Two Step Inquiry” framework.

“Step 1″ – Does the challenged law burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment?

The US Supreme Court said that Open Carry perfectly captures the meaning of the Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms and both California and Hawaii ban Open Carry. So both Open Carry cases pass “Step 1.”

“Step 2″ – Having passed “Step 1,” courts are directed to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

There are three levels of scrutiny; rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. “Rational Basis” basically means the government wins except in rare circumstances such as the law being “irrational” or “arbitrary.” The Supreme Court in Heller took rational basis off the table so that leaves intermediate and strict scrutiny.
Intermediate Scrutiny – Sliding Scale

Intermediate Scrutiny is a sliding scale that courts apply to “regulations” of fundamental rights that fall short of a ban. For example, if you as an individual want to walk up and down the sidewalk wearing a t-shirt with some political or religious message then you are free to do so. If there were a local law requiring a permit for you to do so then it would likely be overturned even under the low end of “intermediate scrutiny.” However, If you and a hundred friends want to walk up and down the same sidewalk then you might have to comply with a law requiring you to get a permit and that law would normally be subject to the sliding scale of “intermediate scrutiny.” The greater the restrictions placed on getting a permit, the greater the burden on the government in justifying the law.

However, once a law passes a certain threshold then “strict scrutiny” applies and the restrictions on your fundamental rights have to be narrowly tailored and the government needs a very good reason to justify that restriction.

Under both intermediate and strict scrutiny the burden of proof is on the government to justify those restrictions.

There is an exception however, when the government bans a protected right, as does California and Hawaii which both ban the bearing arms for the purpose of self-defense, then it is unnecessary for the court to decide what level of scrutiny to apply. Bans on fundamental rights are always unconstitutional regardless of the level of scrutiny.

The case decided today was US v. Chovan (11-50107). Mr. Chovan had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence which results in a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms under Federal law unless the conviction is expunged, pardoned or otherwise set-aside. In California, once the period of probation has expired, a person has the right to have his misdemeanor conviction expunged. Mr. Chovan did not have his conviction expunged and was therefore charged with possession of a firearm in violation of Federal law.
 

·
Going John Galt
Joined
·
31,839 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,478 Posts
now, to find an accurate carry weapon :D
I am not thrilled with the trigger, but the LC9 is an accurate pistol.;)

To say this is a big ruling is the understatement of the week. It's so big..... it was not carried by national news media. Go. Figure.

I bathed last night in the tears of liberals. A warm, soothing bath. I washed my rifles in the bath water once I was done, then tucked them away in their beds, clean and warm.:D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,929 Posts
A quick correction. Those types of people are in no way liberal as liberal has to do with liberty a concept clearly foreign to them. Don't let them get away with it.
However terms such as, Tyrant, tyranny, tyrannical etc. do accurately describe their way of thinking. Correct them as often as you can when they do try to describe themselves as liberal. Simply ask them how the term liberal could possibly apply to them when they wish to deny and constrain the rights, freedoms and liberty of others.

Perhaps if more of them had done anything to earn their freedom, they'd cherish it more. One reason I am all for having universal mandatory conscription commencing immediately upon graduation from high school. After you've fulfilled your commitment and earned your freedom only then you can vote and shoot your mouth off about freedom and liberty. Freedom isn't free.

I am not thrilled with the trigger, but the LC9 is an accurate pistol.;)

To say this is a big ruling is the understatement of the week. It's so big..... it was not carried by national news media. Go. Figure.

I bathed last night in the tears of liberals. A warm, soothing bath. I washed my rifles in the bath water once I was done, then tucked them away in their beds, clean and warm.:D
 

·
Going John Galt
Joined
·
31,839 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
It made it into the Contra Costa Times today...on 2 pgs. But...it has a long way to go and still has to get past the full court on appeal. crossing fingers...
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,259 Posts
It made it into the Contra Costa Times today...on 2 pgs. But...it has a long way to go and still has to get past the full court on appeal. crossing fingers...
Actually it doesn't have to since the ruling was a reversed and remanded which requires the lower court to repeal their earlier ruling. However it is safe to assume this case will get petitioned for an en banc rehearing.
 

·
Going John Galt
Joined
·
31,839 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Actually it doesn't have to since the ruling was a reversed and remanded which requires the lower court to repeal their earlier ruling. However it is safe to assume this case will get petitioned for an en banc rehearing.
just paraphrasing what was in the Times article. and we all know this will end up at SCOTUS.


Court tosses California's concealed-weapons rules
By PAUL ELIAS Associated Press
Posted: 02/13/2014 12:02:26 PM PST | Updated: a day ago

SAN FRANCISCO—A divided federal appeals court on Thursday struck down California concealed-weapons rules, saying they violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The 2-1 ruling of a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said California counties were wrong to require law-abiding applicants to show "good cause" beyond self-defense to receive a concealed-weapons permit.

California prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without a concealed-weapons permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course. It's generally up to the state's sheriffs and police chiefs to issue the permits, and the vast majority require an applicant to demonstrate a real danger or other reasons beyond simple self-defense to receive a permit. The 9th Circuit on Thursday said that requirement violates the 2nd Amendment.

The San Francisco-based appeals court said those requirements were too strict and ran afoul of a 5-4 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban and said law-abiding citizens are allowed to have handguns in their home for self-defense.

"The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense," Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote for the majority.

Chuck Michel, an attorney who represented several San Diego County residents who were denied a permit and who filed a lawsuit in 2009, praised the 9th Circuit Court's ruling.

"This decision is a very dramatic confirmation of the Supreme Court ruling," Michel said.

O'Scannlain wrote that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department's requirement that applicants must provide documentation such as a restraining order to show a "special need" for a permit "impermissibly infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."

The ruling reversed a lower-court decision tossing out the lawsuit and ordered the judge to rule in favor of the applicants.

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore could let the ruling stand and change his policy; ask that a special panel of 11 judges of the 9th Circuit rehear the case; or he could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take it.

The San Diego County Sheriff's Department said it was consulting with lawyers and declined comment.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun-control advocacy group in Washington D.C., said it hopes the decision will be overturned. It filed a "friend of the court" brief in the case urging the court to keep the current permitting policy in place.

"Neither history or precedent supports this aberrant, split decision that concocts a dangerous right of people to carry hidden handguns in public places to people whom law enforcement has determined that they have no good cause or qualifications to do so," center spokesman Jonathan Lowy said.

Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, writing that the good-cause requirement limited the number of people carrying concealed handguns in public to those legitimately in need.

"It limits the risk to public safety by reducing the number of guns in public circulation, but allows those who will most likely need to defend themselves in public to carry a handgun," Thomas wrote.

The ruling on Thursday also disagreed with three other federal appeals courts that have upheld permit rules similar to the one in California.

The U.S. Supreme Court often takes cases when federal appeals courts issue conflicting rulings.

Several other lawsuits have been filed across the nation, and Michel and others believe the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue because of the conflicting rulings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
I'd like to welcome you fuckers back into the Union, it's a good start, but they will drag their feet for two years before they allow any joe smoe citizens to practice any of their civil rights.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top