SCOTUS w/ Gorsuch on 4/13: Peruta v CA "good cause"

[VietnamEraVet]

The LA Times is reporting that this coming Thursday's conference, SCOTUS, with Justice Gorsuch will be hearing the case of Peruta vs. California, and their denial of everyone's right to conceal carry unless they can meet the threshold of having "good cause" in order to be granted a CCW permit,- the very same BS that we face here in NY, and the other anti gun owner MAY ISSUE states like NJ, HI, etc.

This could very well be HUGE!!!

Since SCOTUS has been dodging these kinds of cases (Drake v NJ for example), it will be one to watch what they do. Gorsuch should give them 5 to 4, but if they refuse to take the appeal, we will still be screwed.

Gorsuch's impact on divided Supreme Court will begin immediately

Cross your fingers...!

 

[Podmonkey]

Man we so desperately need to get more picks in there!

 

[capitalcrew]

Won't make a difference until RBG is gone

 

[masterswimmer]

Gorsuch just replaced Scalia. The balance hasn't changed. If they haven't heard these cases in the past why would they suddenly change course because of Gorsuch?

Sorry, no hope here until RBG and/or Kennedy vacate the premises.

 

[prambo]

From the article:

"Gorsuch’s votes in those matters may give an early sign of whether the court’s conservatives — with their 5-4 majority restored by his confirmation — will pursue an activist agenda."

Dear LA Tampon - your leftist anti-constructionist bias is showing. So now SCOTUS applying strict scrutiny to the BOR is "activist"?

I hope they take it and shove it up Crazyfornia's backside sideways.

 

[John Stark]

If Heller is upheld, which states in very clear and precise language that open carry is the Right protected by the Second Amendment, and that there is no Right to concealed carry in the "original" or "textual" meaning of the Second Amendment, Peruta will likely go down in flames.

Furthermore, SCOTUS has essentially ruled in Heller that the States do, in fact, have the power to regulate concealed carry, and has upheld gun permits and licensing, fees, and the other hoops to jump through in order to obtain a permit to carry concealed.

States have the power and authority to set the terms of concealed carry permits, and its very unlikely that Peruta is going to be granted Cert., let alone be ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

As a supposed "originalist" or "textualist" in the "mold of Scalia," no one should be surprised when Gorsuch joins with the other "conservatives" on the Court to uphold Heller and either deny Peruta Cert., or rule against it if its allowed to come before the Court.

That of course does not mean that gun owners won't be surprised and outraged when Peruta is denied Cert. or the lower court ruling is (mostly) upheld, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, since most of them have not bothered to actually read and grok the actually rulings made in Heller, nor the reasons why those rulings were made, nor the full weight and significance of those rulings.

The NRA and the other so-called "gun Rights" groups will lead the 2 minute hate against the Supremes as they frantically send out emails begging for millions more in funds, so that those groups can once again tilt at wind mills in vain attempts to tell the Court that Heller did not actually say what it says, or mean what it says.

As well, there will be further insistence that we must have National Concealed Reciprocity to stop this "tyranny," and of course millions more so that these groups can "represent" us in their lobbying efforts to get Congress to tilt at wind mills as well. See my brief analysis of how National Reciprocity will play out here:

The Great National Reciprocity Farce

Pony up suckers!

 

[Bob]

They won't actually be "hearing" the case.

On march 8, the case was distributed for the March 24 conference. The court took no action at that conference. On March 27, it was distributed for the March 31 conference. Again, they took no action. It appears as if the next distribution date for that list is April 17 for the April 21 conference.

At those conferences, they don't decide cases. The merely decide which cases they will hear. The fact that it has been relisted twice seems to indicate that there is at least one, but not yet four Justices that want to hear the case. There is no guarantee that Gorsuch will be the fourth vote to hear the case.

 

[nortatoga]

If Heller is upheld, which states in very clear and precise language that open carry is the Right protected by the Second Amendment, and that there is no Right to concealed carry in the "original" or "textual" meaning of the Second Amendment, Peruta will likely go down in flames.

Furthermore, SCOTUS has essentially ruled in Heller that the States do, in fact, have the power to regulate concealed carry, and has upheld gun permits and licensing, fees, and the other hoops to jump through in order to obtain a permit to carry concealed.

States have the power and authority to set the terms of concealed carry permits, and its very unlikely that Peruta is going to be granted Cert., let alone be ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

As a supposed "originalist" or "textualist" in the "mold of Scalia," no one should be surprised when Gorsuch joins with the other "conservatives" on the Court to uphold Heller and either deny Peruta Cert., or rule against it if its allowed to come before the Court.

That of course does not mean that gun owners won't be surprised and outraged when Peruta is denied Cert. or the lower court ruling is (mostly) upheld, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, since most of them have not bothered to actually read and grok the actually rulings made in Heller, nor the reasons why those rulings were made, nor the full weight and significance of those rulings.

The NRA and the other so-called "gun Rights" groups will lead the 2 minute hate against the Supremes as they frantically send out emails begging for millions more in funds, so that those groups can once again tilt at wind mills in vain attempts to tell the Court that Heller did not actually say what it says, or mean what it says.

As well, there will be further insistence that we must have National Concealed Reciprocity to stop this "tyranny," and of course millions more so that these groups can "represent" us in their lobbying efforts to get Congress to tilt at wind mills as well. See my brief analysis of how National Reciprocity will play out here:

The Great National Reciprocity Farce

Pony up suckers!

Well said @John Stark !! I need to check out the rest of that site, Thanks for posting!

 

[Deplorable Me]

Man we so desperately need to get more picks in there!

And get the other pricks out of there.

 

[Different Drummer]

For reasons stated by John Stark as well as information in the links he provides I remain with one unanswered question I have had for quite sometime.
Why do so many people dump on that guy from CA that fights for open carry? I forget his name and have not seen any posts by him in a while.
Now, I realize that most of us would prefer concealed carry. However, that is a preference.
Considering what is actually stated in our Constitution and 2A I cannot help but give his approach to the matter some serious thought.
The NRA and others keep chasing concealed carry like it is a Constitutional inalienable right. In doing so are they not guilty of trying to make the Constitution fit their interpretation? Similar to those who would have our Constitution be a "Living" constitution that evolves over time and interpretation?

 

[VietnamEraVet]

If Heller is upheld, which states in very clear and precise language that open carry is the Right protected by the Second Amendment, and that there is no Right to concealed carry in the "original" or "textual" meaning of the Second Amendment, Peruta will likely go down in flames.

Furthermore, SCOTUS has essentially ruled in Heller that the States do, in fact, have the power to regulate concealed carry, and has upheld gun permits and licensing, fees, and the other hoops to jump through in order to obtain a permit to carry concealed.

States have the power and authority to set the terms of concealed carry permits, and its very unlikely that Peruta is going to be granted Cert., let alone be ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

As a supposed "originalist" or "textualist" in the "mold of Scalia," no one should be surprised when Gorsuch joins with the other "conservatives" on the Court to uphold Heller and either deny Peruta Cert., or rule against it if its allowed to come before the Court.

That of course does not mean that gun owners won't be surprised and outraged when Peruta is denied Cert. or the lower court ruling is (mostly) upheld, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, since most of them have not bothered to actually read and grok the actually rulings made in Heller, nor the reasons why those rulings were made, nor the full weight and significance of those rulings.

The NRA and the other so-called "gun Rights" groups will lead the 2 minute hate against the Supremes as they frantically send out emails begging for millions more in funds, so that those groups can once again tilt at wind mills in vain attempts to tell the Court that Heller did not actually say what it says, or mean what it says.

As well, there will be further insistence that we must have National Concealed Reciprocity to stop this "tyranny," and of course millions more so that these groups can "represent" us in their lobbying efforts to get Congress to tilt at wind mills as well. See my brief analysis of how National Reciprocity will play out here:

The Great National Reciprocity Farce

Pony up suckers!

John,

From my read of Heller v CA, I take it that they are arguing that CA has outlawed open carry, and, in much of the state, rendered concealed carry worthless by regulations such as may issue, and only being able to carry in unincorporated areas of CA. They are arguing against disparate treatment depending on where you live also. I see major similarities between that issue in CA, and our situation here in NY, with may issue, and restricting the right of NY CCW holders against carrying in NYC.

As I understand it, a state can restrict open carry, or concealed carry, - but not both. A problem with Heller, is that it did not define gun rights outside one's home.

I'm very interested to see what SCOTUS will do here, obviously. First, will they even grant cert to hear the case from reviewing it in a conference with Gorsuch on board? And if they do, then what? You are arguing that the 2nd doesn't does not allow for concealed carry. Who knows, I know I'm not a lawyer, and even if I were, ultimately the decision rests with others.

If they rule that the 2nd allows open carry, well then, OK. I guess we'll all be toting our guns openly. And then someone will sue over how ridiculous it is to have to carry openly with your firearm outside your winter coat, and back to court we shall go...

All I know is, that I am trying to remain as optimistic as I can, until I see a ruling against our rights.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

For reasons stated by John Stark as well as information in the links he provides I remain with one unanswered question I have had for quite sometime.
Why do so many people dump on that guy from CA that fights for open carry? I forget his name and have not seen any posts by him in a while.
Now, I realize that most of us would prefer concealed carry. However, that is a preference.
Considering what is actually stated in our Constitution and 2A I cannot help but give his approach to the matter some serious thought.
The NRA and others keep chasing concealed carry like it is a Constitutional inalienable right. In doing so are they not guilty of trying to make the Constitution fit their interpretation? Similar to those who would have our Constitution be a "Living" constitution that evolves over time and interpretation?

His name is Charles Nichols, and he has a pro se suit against CA. I think his website is under Californiarighttocarry, or something similar.

 

[John Stark]

John,

From my read of Heller v CA, I take it that they are arguing that CA has outlawed open carry, and, in much of the state, rendered concealed carry worthless by regulations such as may issue, and only being able to carry in unincorporated areas of CA. They are arguing against disparate treatment depending on where you live also. I see major similarities between that issue in CA, and our situation here in NY, with may issue, and restricting the right of NY CCW holders against carrying in NYC.

My apologies, but this is, quite frankly, a muddled mess with regards to "Heller vs. California." You would need to clarify your terms far better before I could respond to this part.

As I understand it, a state can restrict open carry, or concealed carry, - but not both. A problem with Heller, is that it did not define gun rights outside one's home.

This is probably the worst, corrupt "interpretation" of Heller floating around out there with regards to the 2A in the "light" of Heller.

Heller clearly stated "open carry... is the right protected."

It then went on to rule that the plaintiff, Dick Heller, must be allowed to apply for and attain a concealed carry permit in Washington DC to "satisfy" his case before the court. However, Heller mostly affirmed the power and authority of DC to set the terms of the permit and licensing process. In other words, Heller had to be offered the opportunity to meet the terms and standards given by DC for a CCW. By winning his case, Dick Heller essentially got the privilege to seek a CCW under whatever licensing scheme was in place, with certain caveats about the need for a consistent permitting process available to all US citizens (due process concerns).

No Right to carry concealed was upheld in Heller. None. The Right to ask for a permit to do so, where those permits are offered, was upheld. This is very clear in the decision.

The States do NOT have the authority to "allow only open carry" OR "only CCW." Open carry is the Right protected, it must be allowed. The States can also allow concealed carry under their own rules and guidelines, and this authority to regulate concealed carry goes back to the Founding.

The States MUST allow open carry. They may allow concealed carry, at the discretion of their law makers. If the States allow concealed carry, the hoops must be open to all who want to jump through them.

That is what Heller undeniably says.

You are arguing that the 2nd doesn't does not allow for concealed carry.

I'll assume what you are actually saying here is that my argument is that "the 2A does not allow for concealed carry." That is not the case at all.

Concealed carry falls within the purview of the 2A, but for many reasons that I do not have the time to go into right now, it has always been lawful for the States to regulate concealed carry as they see fit: this is not something that is new, it was held to be the correct interpretation by State courts & the Supremes in decisions going back to the early 1800's.

Heller reached back into all of this past precedent (at both the State and Fed level), as well as the history behind those precedents (from the Colonial era, English Common Law, the Revolutionary period, the era of the Articles of Confederation, to the ratification of the US Constitution, and thereafter). Heller really did nothing more than affirm the traditional, "conservative," "textualist," "originalist," view of the Second Amendment when it stated that concealed carry is not the Right protected. The States have discretion on it.

And before someone says that I am against concealed carry, let me state clearly that I AM NOT.

 

[John Stark]

A problem with Heller, is that it did not define gun rights outside one's home.

I'll tackle this one as well while I have some time.

Lets clear up another misconception about "carry outside of the home" with regards to the "Heller" decision.

How in God's green creation did anyone come up with that idea?

If Heller affirmed that "open carry... is the Right protected," it stands to the simplest rubric of reason to understand what "open carry" means here vis-a-vis "concealed carry."

The entire case was about being able to carry a weapon for the purpose of self-defense in DC. That is the entire point of getting a permit to... "carry concealed."

The Court stated clearly that concealed carry was not the Right, but affirmed that where CCW is offered, all must be allowed to apply for it.

Heller was not, strictly speaking, about being able to Keep Arms in the home. Keeping a hand gun in the home was part of it, because the only means of obtaining a hand gun in the home was through the CCW permit scheme, and almost no one was able to get the license in the first place.

The Court merely ruled that IF DC offers permits, then it must be a (Due) process open to all, with (mostly) the same hoops to jump through for everyone.

Heller clearly upheld the "Right" to carry concealed outside of the home, as long as one was able to meet the requirements to get the permit. However, this is not a Right protected strictly speaking in terms of the 2A, but more along Due Process claims. If its allowed, then it must be allowed to all under Due Process.

The Right to carry is "open carry." That is so clear in the ruling that is, frankly, amazing that people have had the temerity to insist that Heller said "nothing about carry outside of the home."

If concealed carry can be "allowed" outside of the home according to Heller, even though it is not the "Right protected," then it follows as sure as day and night that the "Right protected" to carry openly is allowed both in and out of the home as well.

"Open CARRY... is the Right protected." No qualifiers were added concerning "in the home" versus "outside the home" other than "certain restrictions" concerning "time, place, and manner" such as in schools or other governmental buildings or sensitive areas.

Fie!

 

[GuyMontag]

Going to take more than Gorsuch to get things right, minimum of 1 more Justice to give us a real chance.

Let's not forget how Scalia and friends had NUMEROUS opportunities to reinforce Heller and ELECTED not to adjudicate.

If these so-called "conservative" justices actually existed, the issue of 2nd Amendment rights would be decided.

Scalia was not the 2nd Amendment defender that most make him out to be.

 

[Calculon]

Going to take more than Gorsuch to get things right, minimum of 1 more Justice to give us a real chance.

Let's not forget how Scalia and friends had NUMEROUS opportunities to reinforce Heller and ELECTED not to adjudicate.

If these so-called "conservative" justices actually existed, the issue of 2nd Amendment rights would be decided.

Scalia was not the 2nd Amendment defender that most make him out to be.

Perhaps. Or maybe he understood that he was not guaranteed of the ruling he thought to be correct and was unwilling to take the chance that a unfavorable ruling would be made? Unfortunately the answer died with him.

 

[spat]

John,

From my read of Heller v CA, I take it that they are arguing that CA has outlawed open carry, and, in much of the state, rendered concealed carry worthless by regulations such as may issue, and only being able to carry in unincorporated areas of CA. They are arguing against disparate treatment depending on where you live also. I see major similarities between that issue in CA, and our situation here in NY, with may issue, and restricting the right of NY CCW holders against carrying in NYC.

As I understand it, a state can restrict open carry, or concealed carry, - but not both. A problem with Heller, is that it did not define gun rights outside one's home.

I'm very interested to see what SCOTUS will do here, obviously. First, will they even grant cert to hear the case from reviewing it in a conference with Gorsuch on board? And if they do, then what? You are arguing that the 2nd doesn't does not allow for concealed carry. Who knows, I know I'm not a lawyer, and even if I were, ultimately the decision rests with others.

If they rule that the 2nd allows open carry, well then, OK. I guess we'll all be toting our guns openly. And then someone will sue over how ridiculous it is to have to carry openly with your firearm outside your winter coat, and back to court we shall go...

All I know is, that I am trying to remain as optimistic as I can, until I see a ruling against our rights.

If they rule that they must allow open carry, then concealed will quickly become shall issue everywhere, and the gun grabbers will beg you to carry concealed instead of openly.

As much as the gun grabbers dont want you carrying, they want people to get used to people carrying even less.

While on an individual tactical basis concealed carry makes far more sense, on a strategic level open carry is a billboard announcing that carrying guns is normal.

 

[stuck in ny]

I could care less about pistols. I want to tear the stupid spur off my ar and buy normal mags. Trump was at the rally in Albany; lets see him actually do something.

 

[GuyMontag]

Perhaps. Or maybe he understood that he was not guaranteed of the ruling he thought to be correct and was unwilling to take the chance that a unfavorable ruling would be made? Unfortunately the answer died with him.

Calculon, the actual facts speak to an UNWILLINGNESS of so-called "conservatives" to simply reinforce precedent. If this very court hadn't produced TWO seminal decisions in the past 10 years that relate to 2nd Amendment protections, you might have a point, but the truth is these "conservative" justices wanted NO PART of defending Heller. I used to believe the bullchit about Scalia, the truth is he's hardly the 2nd Amendment defender most believed him to be.

 

[C3D]

The decision in Heller was a close one and there's no guarantee that Kennedy (the swing vote) would be in favor of any expansion.

 

[speedkills27]

If they rule that they must allow open carry, then concealed will quickly become shall issue everywhere, and the gun grabbers will beg you to carry concealed instead of openly.

As much as the gun grabbers dont want you carrying, they want people to get used to people carrying even less.

While on an individual tactical basis concealed carry makes far more sense, on a strategic level open carry is a billboard announcing that carrying guns is normal.

This might make sense to you, but not to a tyarant. Tyrants want CONTROL! no matter what. Nothing would change except the gun grabbers using State police and other agencies to crack down on open carry. Its the law you say? Fine, spend your hard earned money and prove it in a never ending court battle. Most common folks dont have the time and money for a battle like that. We're all to busy busting our asses so that we can pay for free college

 

[Defilade]

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.

Sorry! I don't see the words "Home" or "Concealed" or "Open carry" anywhere. All these rulings did was make things to complex for one to determine it's meaning, Basically an infringement.

 

[spat]

This might make sense to you, but not to a tyarant. Tyrants want CONTROL! no matter what. Nothing would change except the gun grabbers using State police and other agencies to crack down on open carry. Its the law you say? Fine, spend your hard earned money and prove it in a never ending court battle. Most common folks dont have the time and money for a battle like that. We're all to busy busting our asses so that we can pay for free college

They will fight it for sure, but if they are eventually forced to allow open carry, concealed will quickly become their preferred alternative.

I have no doubt that if open carry were ruled properly as the law of the land everywhere, NY and their like would make every exception they could think of. You would be forbidden within 1000' of any business that sold alcohol (including every convienence store for instance), but that would all eventually fall too.

I am talking about after that, once they have no choice but to let people go about their business with a .45 on their hip, they will beg you to "just cover that thing up"

 

[JosERW]

I could care less about pistols. I want to tear the stupid spur off my ar and buy normal mags. Trump was at the rally in Albany; lets see him actually do something.

I agree. I want them to take Kolbe. If there's any case that should be easy to win it's Kolbe. They basically ignored all of Heller except for three words and they took those words out of context. Kolbe is the last and best chance we have at ever getting our rights back.

The decision in Heller was a close one and there's no guarantee that Kennedy (the swing vote) would be in favor of any expansion.

Maybe but Kennedy is apparently a huge fan of Trump and a family friend. Gorsuch also clerked for him. Maybe now is the time.

 

[FrankenCub]

I have no problem going by Heller's text, open carry for all. Just get it done to tell the states to piss off.

 

[Marine Cpl]

They will fight it for sure, but if they are eventually forced to allow open carry, concealed will quickly become their preferred alternative.

I have no doubt that if open carry were ruled properly as the law of the land everywhere, NY and their like would make every exception they could think of. You would be forbidden within 1000' of any business that sold alcohol (including every convienence store for instance), but that would all eventually fall too.

I am talking about after that, once they have no choice but to let people go about their business with a .45 on their hip, they will beg you to "just cover that thing up"

You guys are way off base. They won't issue concealed carry licenses except to law enforcement and business will not allow open carry of firearms in their stores. Sure, you can carry but not here, here, or here. Disarm before Home Depot. Disarm before Stop and Shop. Disarm before going into McDonald's. Disarm before going to the doctor or vet. Disarm before walking into Mobil to pay for your gas and get a soda or cup of coffee Ect. Ect.

You'd be only able to open carry on public streets and that's it. That's what you guys want?

 

[Marine Cpl]

I could care less about pistols. I want to tear the stupid spur off my ar and buy normal mags. Trump was at the rally in Albany; lets see him actually do something.

I could care less about AR's. All I need is my duck gun.

You my friend are a Fudd.

 

[holdover]

Remember friend as you walk by
As you are now so once was I
As I am now ,so you will be,
Prepare thyself to follow me.




Tiiiiiiiiiimmmmme is on my side, yes it is

 

[Marine Cpl]

Why do so many people dump on that guy from CA that fights for open carry? I forget his name and have not seen any posts by him in a while.

His name is Charles Nichols. They dump on him because he's an asshole. He got kicked out of a couple of CA forums so he posts in NY ones because we are the only ones who listen to him.

He loathes and detests concealed carriers. He calls us cowards and criminals for doing so. You can search his posts on the other site where he does so. That's why he's banned from every CA forum.

Fuck him.

 

[GOPerfect]

Does anyone actually understand how The Supreme Court works?

So many are making it seem like this is a done deal because one Justice has been added to the lineup...

The Court does not work as simple as so many want or wish.

If you go to the SCOTUS web site, you will find out how things work. Much more complicated than one Justice.