Search found 8 matches

by RoyGBiv
Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:28 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"
Replies: 57
Views: 7125

Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"

I'll post this here because it's directly related to SCOTUS and "May Issue", although Drake is a 3rd Circuit (NJ) case.

Drake v. Jerejian is being considered for certiorari today.

Is This the Supreme Court's Next Big Gun Case?
Today the justices are meeting in private conference to consider the latest batch of petitions seeking review. Among that batch is a Second Amendment case that is eminently worthy of the Court’s attention. In fact, it presents the next logical step in the development of a coherent Second Amendment jurisprudence. If the Supreme Court was truly serious in Heller and McDonald about securing the right to keep and bear arms against overreaching government action, this case offers the chance to prove it.

The case is Drake v. Jerejian, a challenge to New Jersey’s Handgun Permit Law. According to the state, anyone wishing to carry a handgun in public for self-defense purposes must first demonstrate a “justifiable need," which the law defines as showing evidence of "specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun."
by RoyGBiv
Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:37 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"
Replies: 57
Views: 7125

Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"

A-R wrote:Same court again rules a California "may issue" statute unConstitutional, this time unanimous 3-0 decision in a separate case.

http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=812 ... 13008abab4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
More Awesome Sauce!

Image
by RoyGBiv
Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:56 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"
Replies: 57
Views: 7125

Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"

The Annoyed Man wrote:Bazinga. That there was so full of awesome as to be better than butter-fried bacon.
Worth noting.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski#Biography" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kozinski was born in Bucharest, Romania, in July 1950. In 1962, when he was 12, his parents, both Holocaust survivors, brought him to the United States. The family settled in the Los Feliz neighborhood of Los Angeles, California, where his father, Moses, ran a small grocery store. Kozinski, who had grown up as a committed communist in Bucharest, became what he described as "an instant capitalist" when he took his first trip outside of the Iron Curtain, to Vienna, Austria, where he partook of such luxuries as chewing gum and bananas.[2]
by RoyGBiv
Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:53 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"
Replies: 57
Views: 7125

Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
K.Mooneyham wrote:Considering this was the Ninth Circuit Court, I was as shocked as the rest of y'all with this decision. In fact, when I read it, I took a peak out the window to see if any hogs had taken wing. :mrgreen:
Lets not get our undies in a tizzy. This was just one portion of the full appellate court. The state is already asking for the full appellate court to review. I'd proffer their herb smoking nanny state ways shine through with greater intensity at that point.
Here is a quote from the current Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit..... Quite the opposite of Nannyism...
Remember, the 9th includes not just CA, but also WA, OR, HI, ID, AK, MT, AZ.. A list that includes some of the most pro-2A States.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history—Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion—the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text—refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it—and is just as likely to succeed.

Alex Kozinski, current Chief Judge of the 9th.
http://keepandbeararms.com/silveira/EnBancOrder.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; page 5
by RoyGBiv
Thu Feb 13, 2014 8:54 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"
Replies: 57
Views: 7125

Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"

WildBill wrote:I am looking for a fainting icon.
Image Image Image
by RoyGBiv
Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:21 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"
Replies: 57
Views: 7125

Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"

No time wasted ...

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/C ... 232386.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
James Chapin, the San Diego deputy county counsel who defended the permit system, said the county will ask the full appeals court for a rehearing before an 11-judge panel. The ruling will be on hold while that request is pending.
by RoyGBiv
Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:38 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"
Replies: 57
Views: 7125

Re: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"

This is a HUGE deal. I'm certain there will be appeals, likely to include a request for the case to be re-heard by the full circuit instead of just this panel of 3 judges... But it seems the Circuits are clearly split (7th concurring with the 9th) and recent SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald give some reason for hopefulness.

Reading some chatter elsewhere that the majority opinion here goes to great length to trash (eviscerate) the conflicting decisions made by the other Circuit Courts (2nd, 3rd & 4th). I'm still slugging my way through the 127 page read between phone calls.
by RoyGBiv
Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:39 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"
Replies: 57
Views: 7125

Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"

Ninth Circuit strikes California’s restrictive rule against licensed carry of handguns
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Peruta v. San Diego, released minutes ago, affirms the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection in public.
..................
The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
:hurry: :hurry:

Return to “Ninth Circuit strikes California’s "May Issue"”