• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

NRA and open carry

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
I see it. Interestingly the District Court punted the first time as well: “join[ed] other courts in awaiting direction from the Supreme Court with respect to the outer bounds of the Second Amendment,”. Going back to the District Court in light of Peruta would be worthless since the Circuit only resolved the concealed part of his complaint, not the open part. If I were him I'd want his case re-heard by the original 3 judge panel in light of Peruta, if that's even possible.

It is the original three judge panel which will be deciding the preliminary injunction appeal which, in light of the en banc Peruta decision, fails even if Baker had not already abandoned his preliminary injunction appeal.

That is unless 14 active circuit judges vote to grant the petition to hear the denial of his preliminary injunction en banc, the probability of which is somewhere between nil and none.
 

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
It is the original three judge panel which will be deciding the preliminary injunction appeal which, in light of the en banc Peruta decision, fails even if Baker had not already abandoned his preliminary injunction appeal.

That is unless 14 active circuit judges vote to grant the petition to hear the denial of his preliminary injunction en banc, the probability of which is somewhere between nil and none.

Why would it necessarily fail? And if this was abandoned 2 years ago why has the case not been sent back (or anything else happened period)?
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
First of all there is no "Z" by which the court can uphold the bans.
You act is if you're dealing with an honest court. What's your definition of "ban"? "We strike the ban but carry may still be subject to "reasonable regulation". "Public safety" and "good cause" are popular "reasonable regulations" with progressives. It's still functionally a ban even if it's no longer formally such. You lose even if you win.
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Why would it necessarily fail? And if this was abandoned 2 years ago why has the case not been sent back (or anything else happened period)?

Given that I provided a link to the Baker v. Kealoha page on my website which answers your question, I am inclined to believe that you are either 1) lazy or 2) you are being disingenuous.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
You act is if you're dealing with an honest court. What's your definition of "ban"? "We strike the ban but carry may still be subject to "reasonable regulation". "Public safety" and "good cause" are popular "reasonable regulations" with progressives. It's still functionally a ban even if it's no longer formally such. You lose even if you win.

Time to look into that mirror I mentioned earlier.

I never act like I'm dealing with an honest court. Do you think the two judges assigned to my district court case were honest?

And yet look at the corner the court painted itself into in its final judgment.* And forget about the Second Amendment. Find me a case anywhere, in any Federal court or state court, which is still good law in which the court has held that people cannot bring pre-enforcement race based equal protection challenges to a law which entails criminal penalties.

The Furnace case cited by the court may stand for many different things (very few actually) but the one thing it did not do was to prohibit pre-enforcement challenges of racially motivated and/or racially discriminatory laws.

* I supplied the paint and brushes via my Complaints and briefs I wrote and filed in my case. When I finally stood on/by my Complaint forcing the district court to issue a final judgment, the court was forced to either rule in my favor or to issue a judgment which held, in addition to the above, that there is no Second Amendment right: 1) In the home, 2) On my private property, 3) In or on my motor vehicle, 4) In or on my attached camper or trailer regardless of whether or not it is being used as a residence, and 5) In any non-sensitive public place.


Unless you have a specific example of how I might screw up my opening brief not found in the screw-ups made by the so called gun-rights lawyers in their opening brief or I have overlooked something in my district court briefs, could you please leave your pessimism at the door?

And if not, please don't view my posts as an invitation for you to reply with your projections and lamentations.
 

OC Freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
646
Location
ADA County, ID
Watch your back, stay alive, some on the opposite side may not want you to stay healthy and make it to court.

Open Carry is a protected right and these concealed carry fanatics just don't seem to get it. Here you are on a site that is about Open Carry and you are getting attacked for fighting for Open Carry. I and some others here do appreciate your work and wish you the best of luck. Fortunately for us here in Idaho our state supreme court settled this Open Carry argument back in November 16, 1902, Thank GOD. Idaho Supreme Court, In re Brickey, 70 P.609 (Idaho 1902).
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
As I've pointed out before, the "levels of scrutiny" shell game is inapplicable to my case. Read the concurrence in Peruta en banc. <snip>.

I would tend to agree .. but we are dealing with lizzurds ... who have no honor.

Sleestak-640x426.jpg
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Watch your back, stay alive, some on the opposite side may not want you to stay healthy and make it to court.

Open Carry is a protected right and these concealed carry fanatics just don't seem to get it. Here you are on a site that is about Open Carry and you are getting attacked for fighting for Open Carry. I and some others here do appreciate your work and wish you the best of luck. Fortunately for us here in Idaho our state supreme court settled this Open Carry argument back in November 16, 1902, Thank GOD. Idaho Supreme Court, In re Brickey, 70 P.609 (Idaho 1902).

Thank you, and the irony of my being attacked for fighting for Open Carry on an Open Carry website is not lost to me. :D
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Lol. Well, even if you get open carry (0.5% chance) it looks like guns will just be banned eventually anyway.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUCvILMqMqo

We are either free or not. There is no try. Freedom has rarely been given, always has had to have been taken.

Well if they don't take it, carrying arms in Kalifornia will not even be on the radar.

Fact: In 5 years the entire state will look like NYC or DC when it comes to mere possession of revolvers and bolt action rifles in the home. If they reverse Heller (which is very possible since Hillary WILL win) , they may even ban handguns. Even without reversing Heller, they may put a functional ban on handguns, making it so onerous to legally obtain one people will just give up.

If they do this fast ( a couple years), we may have a chance. It will require the blood of dead patriots and "heroes of law enforcement" but liberty may be restored. If they do it slowly, which is what I anticipate (10 years +), the people will lie down. Secret noncompliance will effect ZERO change.
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Another one bites the dust.

:lol: Last week the NRA/CRPA concealed carry case out of Orange County, McKay v. Hutchens, crashed and burned. It was disposed of with a unanimous unpublished memorandum.

Four other 9CA concealed carry appeals were ordered to file supplemental briefs regarding the en banc Peruta decision. Those briefs have been filed. Those appeals should likewise be disposed of with unanimous unpublished memorandum in a month or so.

Members of CalGuns.nuts assure us that this is all part of their secret plan to win by losing. :banana::banana::banana:
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
McKay v. Hutchens Lost - 9th Circuit Concealed Carry Appeal

The "other" NRA concealed carry appeal which argued that states can ban Open Carry in favor of unmanly concealed carry, McKay v. Hutchens, went down in flames last week.

It must truly suck to be one of those :confused: :monkey :monkey :monkey who believes there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
The "other" NRA concealed carry appeal which argued that states can ban Open Carry in favor of unmanly concealed carry, McKay v. Hutchens, went down in flames last week.

It must truly suck to be one of those :confused: :monkey :monkey :monkey who believes there is a Second Amendment right to concealed carry.
Of course there is a natural right to conceal, as well as a Constitutional one. Just because most courts say there isn't is meaningless. When the FL Supreme Kourt where I live says there is no right to openly carry and the licensed privilege to conceal satisfies the right, will that make it so in reality? Maybe I think open carry in the 21st century is for unmanly mall ninjas? Does that negate the right? It's like you're an OC advocate with Asbergers.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Of course there is a natural right to conceal, as well as a Constitutional one. Just because most courts say there isn't is meaningless. When the FL Supreme Kourt where I live says there is no right to openly carry and the licensed privilege to conceal satisfies the right, will that make it so in reality? Maybe I think open carry in the 21st century is for unmanly mall ninjas? Does that negate the right? It's like you're an OC advocate with Asbergers.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

might i have my burger well done please as my extremely high functioning Asperger syndrome has severely restricted my interest to only well cooked meat.

thanks

ipse
 
Top