What is the Status of Peruta

Status
Not open for further replies.
Absent TWO solid, 2A SCOTUS confirmations it is an uncertain path. But as the brief concludes:

". . . Only this Court’s review can bring clarity to the law.

Absent that review, millions of individuals will be forced to continue to live under legal regimes in which they are denied any outlet to exercise what courts have repeatedly purported to assume is a fundamental constitutional right, while who knows how many other jurisdictions will be emboldened to adopt the same rights-denying approach. If it is indeed to be the law of the nation that ordinary, law- abiding individuals may be flatly deprived of the ability to carry handguns outside the home for self- defense, then at least this Court should be the one to say so."
 
Using the documents of the time during which our nation was founded, the papers from which support was provided and the arguments for and against the enumerations of our rights in the constitution it is very easy to show a preponderance of evidence that no government has any power to restrict our rights unless an individual has abused his rights to interfere with the rights of others. It is also clear that such power was never given to the federal government within the constitution and that courts, including the supreme court, can only support the rights of the people and expand those rights but never restrict them.

We have allowed intervention of our rights since the early 20th century and allowed it to progress to the point it is today. It is up to each of us to stand up for our rights and the rights of others in order to remove the controls placed on our rights by an over-reaching government before we lose them entirely.
 
Better that the law be in limbo until we are sure we would prevail. No point in cutting our own throats to support our principals.....
 
After an extensive research paper on Miller, Heller and McDonald (Only 3 SCOTUS 2A cases) last semester in college...

Even as a pro-gunner, you can make the case that the previous rulings do allow for continued restrictions on the Second Amendment and just set precedent that is not in our favor, but you guys know that. Certainly anything can be overturned, but that still doesn't change the fact of the matter about what the decisions could look like.

Perhaps it's almost a good thing SCOTUS isn't looking into gun rights for the time being. Despite living in NY myself with the whole (un)SAFE Act fiasco, I'd rather most states keep their rights, than have the whole country turn into New York... Just my .02.
 
motorhead0922 said:
...Peruta is now going before the SC.
Click to expand...
Don't count your chickens yet. ;) Despite the misleading headline in the NRA-ILA link ("Peruta Case is Supreme Court Bound..."), all that has happened is that the NRA/CRPA legal team filed a writ of certiorari on January 12th.

There's no guarantee that the SCOTUS will grant cert and review the case. They're on an extended streak of refusing to hear 2A cases.
 
carguychris, wasn't Caetano a Second Amendment case? I think the key is firearms...SCOTUS hasn't wanted to hear cases involving actual firearms.
 
There’s a reason Mr. Clement and his clients are not simply claiming a free-standing right to carry a concealed weapon As Judge Fletcher pointed out, Justice Scalia’s opinion in Heller foreclosed that argument. In the Heller opinion, Justice Scalia wrote that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” adding that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”
Click to expand...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/the-supreme-courts-next-gun-battle.html

This is a NY Times take on Peruta. I quote an interesting section that seems to indicate that, once again, Scalia is haunting us. It brings us back to the question of whether this is the right time for this case.
 
I've never liked the argument that heller said the right is not unlimited . I get that may be true how ever its been limited for quite some time . People/anti's seem to read that to mean they can keep piling on . I and they should have read it to mean they ruled the right is an individual one and when saying it's not unlimited they were making sure all previous laws ( NFA etc ) were not undone by the ruling .

I think it's time to stop asking what other laws can be inacted and start asking when do they stop .
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
I quote an interesting section that seems to indicate that, once again, Scalia is haunting us.
Click to expand...

Glenn, your comment is interesting because of the discussion about the vacant seat on SCOTUS. I'm new to this stuff, and have mostly read posts to the effect that "even with Scalia on the Court, Second Amendment decisions were a dicey thing", which seem to be suggesting that Scalia was the Second Amendment's greatest champion on the Court (perhaps because of his hunting hobby?).

So either he was firearms' greatest friend or he's once again haunting us. Maybe it can be both? I wanted to ask you (collective 'you' knowledgeable people in this forum)....is it possible Scalia was the 'moderate' when it comes to firearms, and Roberts & Kennedy were pro-Second Amendment champions?
 
No he was very pro . It goes to what i was just saying . They had to put wording in the ruling to not undo all gun laws on the books at the time . Again our arguments now should be snd show all the laws on the books now and use that to show the right is not unlimited. Then argue it's time to stop adding more , there's enogh on the books now ( to many really ) and the restrictions are not unlimited either . It's ok to say no to a gun law .
 
While he was seen as pro, that doesn't mean his opponents could not use his words against him. Pragmatically, his reasoning is the core of the state restrictions being declared constitutional by the default of SCOTUS dealing with the state restriction cases.

So is Heller a net win - theoretically yes, practically - the jury is out on whether it advanced gun rights in many locales. Is DC practically better on gun ownership - I'm not tuned in the population there to know. Maybe someone does.

Gun rights are a tricky thing. A small but similar case is that of OC in TX. It passed after an acrimonious debate in the gun world as it might have negative practical consequences. I saw someone on another forum all excited recently about how it has been a success! WOW!

Practically, it is very, very rare. So it's utility is not being seen in the gun carrying behavior of the vast majority of Texas LTC holders.

What is has done is knock a big hole in the no-carry signs. Originally, TX businesses could ban carry with trivial signs like a Ghostbusters sign. Then clever gun folks got the legislature to modify the sign requirements for the 30.06 sign which was truly large and obnoxious. It had to be exact to be enforceable. Many businesses chose not to post them as they were obnoxious.

Then came OC and the shenanigans of some of the OC folks marching around with ARs or AKs and the infamous Chipolte twins - less than attractive icons for the gun world. The idea of exposed carry guns was such that many businesses including major stores, buildings and restaurants started to post 30.07 signs that banned open carry. So it made practical OC quite a diminished utility. I can't (even if I wanted to OC in the biggest supermarket chain and many other places I frequent). Thus, I would have leave the gun in the car and prance around with an idiotic empty holster?

But even worse, as stores started to post the 30.07 signs quite a few added the 30.06 sign. If you have one antigun sign - might go for the whole nine yards.

Thus, the so-called expansion of a right hardly used caused a major loss of carry locales and the PR negative of kids and folks seeing signs saying gun carry is bad.

Now someone will post - Well, I don't go to businesses that ban, blah, blah. Good for you - it is not practical if you leave a normal life and are not bloviating. We lost practically but won theoretically.

There have been no effective boycotts or businesses folding over the issue. A long restaurant - only with a 30.07 - told me that they had two old coots having a hissy but that was it. Most folks were happy not to see the average OC type at dinner. The restaurant had no problem with concealment.

So to end this line of thought - was Heller a theoretic win but lead to practical and negative unintended consequences.

Perhaps, Trump could get enough Justices to take a case that would negative the state restrictions and overturn them. They might weaken Scalia's meanderings (supposedly well researched but not in the true theoretic mode of what I think the RKBA meant). But I don't trust even conservative justices. Plenty of conservatives go down the Zumbo, Metcalf road. I suspect the conservative moneyed classes might be skeptical of the lower classes with military style arms.

It might lead to the guillotine for CEOs who make $300,000,000 by raising the price of needed medicines to outrageous levels from previous reasonable prices.

We will see if Trump is true to his RKBA promises. Heller's meanderings might be undone with legislation. As civil rights legislation got rid of noxious state discriminatory laws, perhaps a similar approach to gun rights would lead to Gov. Brown and Gov. Cuomo standing in the doors of the gun shop and being removed by Federal Forces after they tried to get the state militias to forbid the free exercise of the RKBA. Wouldn't that make a great picture?
 
The problem that I have with Heller/McDonald is that the decisions did not lay down a single rule for evaluating the Second Amendment, suggesting that strict scrutiny does NOT apply outside the home, an implication that has allowed any number of courts in anti-gun jurisdictions to run with the ball and apply something they CALL intermediate scrutiny but which in practice amounts to no more than "rational basis" review. One example was the Highland Park AR ban case, in which the Seventh Circuit held that even in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that banning ARs would reduce crime, an "important public interest" was served simply because it made people "feel safer." [And this from a circuit which overturned the Illinois (Chicago) gun carry ban and just today ruled that Chicago's virtual ban of gun ranges through restrictive zoning was unconstitutional.] The Maryland circuit concluded that the carry law passed intermediate scrutiny despite the fact that the standard requires the State to establish a factual basis for the law--and the Maryland State Legislature had done no such thing.
 
carguychris said:
[The SCOTUS is] on an extended streak of refusing to hear 2A cases.
Click to expand...
vicGT said:
carguychris, wasn't Caetano a Second Amendment case? I think the key is firearms...SCOTUS hasn't wanted to hear cases involving actual firearms.
Click to expand...
Yes, Caetano did concern the 2A, and that's what I meant about firearms. I should have been more concise.
 
The difference with Peruta is that it seeks to present to straight up question, unresolved in Heller, as to whether there is a right to bear arms outside the home. Although the Ninth en banc panel ruled on the narrow grounds that there is no right to carry a concealed firearm, thus upholding the "may issue" system, it implied but expressly declined to rule whether that means that there is a right, protected by the Second Amendment, to carry firearms openly outside the home. This narrow ruling was very political: Plaintiffs contended and the State agreed that there is a right to carry firearms, and the issue that Plaintiffs sought to be decided was whether there was a right to carry in some manner. Critical to the case is the fact that California essentially bans the open carrying of firearms, loaded or unloaded, in all incorporated cities and towns, i.e., the very places where the need to carry is most critical. Plaintiffs argues that the State could chose either open carry or concealed carry )or both), but if the latter was chosen, it had to allow for "shall issue" in order to preclude the State/Counties from limiting the exercise of that right to a special few.
 
All petitions, oppositions, amici and replies have been filed, and the case distributed for conference 3/24. With the pending nomination of Gorsuch, and with the clear split in authority, from cases denying the existence of a right outside the home to others confirming it, and with no other cases in the pipeline, making the issue ripe for determination I suspect (hope) this case will be held over until a new justice is seated.
 
62coltnavy said:
All petitions, oppositions, amici and replies have been filed, and the case distributed for conference 3/24. With the pending nomination of Gorsuch, and with the clear split in authority, from cases denying the existence of a right outside the home to others confirming it, and with no other cases in the pipeline, making the issue ripe for determination I suspect (hope) this case will be held over until a new justice is seated.
Click to expand...

OK, the new Justice is seated.

Any idea when we will know whether the SC decides to here the case or not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top