California State Attorney General Kamala Harris
Guns dot com
The California attorney general, along with a national gun control group, will push for a federal court to further review the state’s landmark concealed carry case.
Kamala Harris, coupled with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, moved for a full en bancrehearing by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the recent decision by a 2 to 1 panel that neither had grounds to intervene in the Perutacase.
“The Second Amendment allows people to enact reasonable regulations to protect families from guns in restaurants, parks, streets, and other public places,” said Brady attorney Jonathan Lowy in a statement.
“The people of California have rejected the gun lobby’s ‘guns everywhere’ vision and sensibly decided to keep their communities safer by keeping dangerous people like the killers of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis from carrying guns virtually anywhere,” Lowy said. “California’s gun laws are strong, sensible, and effective at reducing crime, and Brady will continue to fight to defend their constitutionality.”
"Kamala Harris, coupled with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, moved for a full en bancrehearing by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the recent decision by a 2 to 1 panel that neither had grounds to intervene in the Peruta case."
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be the crux of the matter. So perhaps some of our legal scholars can speak to this. Is an appeal like this commonly successful? My first impression is that they would be loath to override the three member panel because it would encourage such an appeal to happen more often.
Some counties are de facto shall issue because that's the philosophy of the Sheriff who signs off on the permits. And some counties are de facto no carry, unless you're a buddy or political crony of the Sheriff. I'm personally a big fan of a person's rights being the same no matter where you live.
What about some counties that are extremely rural as opposed to Los Angeles county?
DeleteThat's my point Mike. Whether you get a permit or not is, in large part based on where you live, of the political philosophy of the Sheriff. Once you get a permit, you can carry anywhere in the state.
DeleteI even recall you taking me to task once for routinely carrying where I live in a small town. You even suggested that the only time I'd be justified in carrying was in a large metro area with gang issues. This sound like LA County to you?
That is one of the reasons that shall issue permits have been passed in a majority of the states. That being the rules apply equally to all, and not being dependent on the whims of the political leadership.
I'm not following your logic. Wouldn't may issue be a better option to address the disparity between rural and urban counties? I know you're hung up on the possibility of whimsical abuse of that system, but that can be corrected with proper oversight.
Delete. . . but that can be corrected with proper oversight.
DeleteFrom whom would this "proper oversight" come, and what assurances would there be that the "proper overseers" do not themselves abuse their power with arbitrary and capricious denials? And besides, since current law makes no provision for this revolutionary new, impervious-to-abuse "proper oversight," shouldn't the law be scrapped until that mechanism is (first invented, and then) put in place?
"Wouldn't may issue be a better option to address the disparity between rural and urban counties?"
DeleteCalifornia is a may issue state Mike. And that is exactly what Peruta is addressing. The unequal treatment of those wishing to decide on how best to defend themselves. California is a perfect example of what happens when politicians get to decide who gets to carry.
Mike,
DeleteMay issue is what they have--it is what Causes the disparity as different sheriffs are all using, by definition, different standards. Any oversight that leveled the field, either by making rural sheriffs apply stricter standards or making urban ones loosen up would merely be moving the state closer to a default "shall issue" system.
Why is this so difficult to understand? If you want a fair system without local disparities, but that requires more training and higher qualifications, the best option is to have a "shall issue" system with tougher qualifications, not something like the current "may issue" with lower qualifications and an opportunity for discretion to be applied so as to raise qualifications in some areas and not others.
MikeB: ". . . but that can be corrected with proper oversight."
DeleteLike oversight from the courts? Like the Peruta case? Why then do you complain about the decision? It seem you want oversight so long as that oversight never rules in favor of rights.
"the best option is to have a "shall issue" system with tougher qualifications,"
DeleteAgreed, as long as I get to determine what "tougher qualifications" means.
Agreed, as long as I get to determine what "tougher qualifications" means.
DeleteYeah, because you, of course, are the authority here, because . . . I don't know--your having chosen to live out of the country for decades?
Interesting....so mike just agreed that Harris and the Brady campaign should lose this lawsuit or drop it and instead make a case for the new standard they want to apply to permits. Interesting.
Delete"We want to keep people from carrying guns everywhere."
ReplyDeleteAnd so your solution is to fight any carry rather than placing restrictions on it similar to "time, place, and manner" restrictions? Again, the antis use emotionally pleasing rhetoric that doesn't match their proposed solutions.
We don't want people drinking and carrying guns, so we'll just ban carry rather than pushing tailored measures against carry under the influence or carry in bars. This is either an example of being too stupid to come up with a tailored solution or being dishonest about guns being a problem in places x, y, and z when the real problem is the allowance of carry period. Idiots or liars, take your pick.
Idiots or liars, take your pick.
DeleteNo need to pick just one, Anon--I'm thinking "all of the above."
Anonymous, your comment doesn't even make sense, but that didn't stop Kurt from offering another inane bit of snark in support. "We want to keep people from carrying guns everywhere," expresses exactly what you said about "places x, y, and z."
DeleteTheir position is better described with an actual quote rather than that bumbling attempt you made to discredit them.
"“The people of California have rejected the gun lobby’s ‘guns everywhere’ vision and sensibly decided to keep their communities safer by keeping dangerous people like the killers of Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis from carrying guns virtually anywhere,” Lowy said."
Are you incapable of comprehending plainly written English, Mike, or do you just prefer to misread my comments and respond to them as if they said something other than what they say?
Delete"'We want to keep people from carrying guns everywhere,' expresses exactly what you said about 'places x, y, and z.'" No kidding! I was using those as equivalents--they claim that their problem is "guns everywhere" and usually point to specific places they want to be out of bounds--churches, bars, etc.--rather than claiming to want to ban all carry.
Hence my comment that they were either being dishonest because banning carry was their goal, or they were pushing an idiotically overbroad solution to a smaller, discrete problem.
As for your comment suggesting I use an actual quote, that was the quote I looked at and tried to distill down to its kernel. Let's have a look at it: "The people of California have rejected the gun lobby’s ‘guns everywhere’ vision..." Sounds like they're saying "We don't want guns everywhere." Then, "... keeping dangerous people ... from carrying guns virtually anywhere." Here it's phrased a little differently, but they're complaining that the court's decision would allow dangerous people to carry guns "virtually anywhere" or, again, guns everywhere.
And so my distillation of their argument was an accurate summary of that longer quote.
Sorry that both of your criticisms of my post fell flat. Care to try again?
Sorry, but you're a double-talking bullshit artist. Carry on, by all means.
DeleteAnd where exactly is the double talk? Or is this just another of your nonsense words that means nothing other than "I dismiss your statements and therefore don't have to think about them."
DeleteIt's my understanding that it would be kinda surprising for the court to agree to an en banc hearing over the decision to not hold an en banc hearing, which is what I think Harris and the Brady Bunch are asking for. What's vastly more likely is an en banc hearing on Baker v. Kealoha, in Hawaii, and/or Richards v. Prieto, in Yolo County, California. Either of those would serve the mandated defenselessness lobby's agenda equally well.
ReplyDeleteKurt, I just ran across an interesting article regarding Peruta and the apparent departures from the norm being done in what appears to be trading close to the line of impartiality.
Delete"The extraordinary procedural turns in this case suggest that the lone judge (or judges) who asked for rehearing was acting opportunistically, hoping to give the California AG a second bite at the apple. We can’t know for sure since those decisions are rarely explained, but that’s sure what it looks like. The parties have now finished their briefing and the court is presumably considering the issue. At this point, the appearance of favoritism is very strong, even according to our already-low expectations for the Ninth Circuit.
For an adversarial system of justice to work at all, judges have to maintain some real detachment from the parties in the case, and not act as a second set of attorneys for their preferred litigants. The Ninth Circuit would do well to remember Learned Hand’s observation that “you may not carry a sword beneath a scholar’s gown, or lead flaming causes from a cloister.” The rule of law depends on it."
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/395623/four-years-late-ca-attorney-general-tries-intervene-second-amendment-litigation
It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Anyone have knowledge of the time frame we're looking at for a decision on this?
Yeah--saw that.
DeleteAnd no--I have no idea on what kind of timetable to expect.
That "interesting article" was written by an unbiased and disinterested person, do you think?
Delete"That "interesting article" was written by an unbiased and disinterested person, do you think?"
DeleteIt raises some interesting points that I hadn't considered previously. I'm not real cognizant of court procedures and wanted to bring it into the discussion. The arguments sound logical and wanted to see if anyone here could either agree or give an example of how often the normal procedure is departed from.
That "interesting article" was written by an unbiased and disinterested person, do you think?
DeleteFew would argue that the National Review writers are that, any more than one would argue that some of your favored sources, like Mother Jones, Media Matters, Huffington Post, etc. are, and yeah, there's a bit of editorializing going on in the National Review article, but are you claiming any factual inaccuracies in the article?