9th Circut Court of Appeals kills "may issue" in California.

[JustMelissa]

Wow out of the 9th Circus! Amazed!

 

[1337BaldEagle]

This made my week.

 

[Hawaiian]

This is really great news. Not only for our CA friends but hopefully it will spread over to my home state of Hawaii. No one get a CHL there unless you are the governor's brother.

The CA anti's must be having a hissy fit.

 

[fd15k]

9th Circuit - Peruta - Calguns.net

 

[Scott F]

The SCOUS will now look at this probably fast tracked for this year. The ninth made an interesting decision. Either loaded open carry for every legal citizen or shall issue for concealed carry. There is no way they will enter the legal mess of open carry as there are already concealed carry licenses issued in CA.

SCOTUS has let it be known they are looking for the right case to settle this issue once and for all. This will not only settle the bear definition but could go a lot further. It also fits nicely with the case in NJ.

 

[8ball]

I don't think you got that right. Please check the press release from Calguns Foundation.

<broken link removed>

Wow. Calguns are trying to take some credit for an NRA lawsuit? The attorney from Michel posted in the forum that Calguns actively tried to stop this lawsuit!

Months after the Sykes case was filed, a lawsuit that replicated the CGF/SAF lawsuit was filed in San Diego County by Mr. Edward Peruta. Thankfully, the National Rifle Association intervened in the Peruta matter, adding new plaintiffs and significant resources to the case's legal team including noted civil rights law firm Michel & Associates as well as former Solicitor General Paul Clement. The Peruta case result today is due in large part to the strength of the arguments mirrored from the Sykes lawsuit as well as the excellent legal work by Michel & Associates and Mr. Clement.

I guess either way we get SCOTUS review. I just hope the best attorneys are on it. Calguns doesn't have a stellar track record at this point in winning cases.

 

[fd15k]

Wow. Calguns are trying to take some credit for an NRA lawsuit? The attorney from Michel posted in the forum that Calguns actively tried to stop this lawsuit!



I guess either way we get SCOTUS review. I just hope the best attorneys are on it. Calguns doesn't have a stellar track record at this point in winning cases.

If I remember correctly, Peruta filed the original lawsuit without support of any major gun rights organization. Such lawsuits can create very bad case law and interfere with the strategic play. Also note that CGF doesn't litigate federally by itself, but instead relies on SAF. There is quite some background to that stuff. You can even find Peruta's own posts on calguns.net.

As for their track record, I think it is quite excellent considering limited resources and a different mission statement. They do deserve credit.

 

[LogicBomb]

here is a question ive been thinking about....on my Harley the bars keep my hands above the shoulders (illegal in Cali)...my pipes emits too much smog (also illegal) and 110 db of sound (yet again illegal)...BUT im allowed to ride the bike in Cali BECAUSE ITS REGGED IN OREGON. MY DRIVERS LICENCE THAT WAS ISSUED IN OREGON IS VALID IN CALI ....so WHY THE HELL IS MY OREGON CCW PERMIT IS NO FREEKIN GOOD IN CALI??

 

[fd15k]

here is a question ive been thinking about....on my Harley the bars keep my hands above the shoulders (illegal in Cali)...my pipes emits too much smog (also illegal) and 110 db of sound (yet again illegal)...BUT im allowed to ride the bike in Cali BECAUSE ITS REGGED IN OREGON. MY DRIVERS LICENCE THAT WAS ISSUED IN OREGON IS VALID IN CALI ....so WHY THE HELL IS MY OREGON CCW PERMIT IS NO FREEKIN GOOD IN CALI??

Full Faith and Credit hasn't been applied to carry permits. Cali permit (or any other permit) isn't valid in Oregon either. And Oregon, just like Cali, has a discriminating policy
against non-residents.

 

[duane black]

And Oregon, just like Cali, has a discriminating policy
against non-residents.

Sorry for the thread jack but you Oregonians need to do something about that. We have NO issues giving you guys permits... I do have a OR CHL but getting it was more of a challenge than it should have been.

 

[fd15k]

Sorry for the thread jack but you Oregonians need to so something about that. We have NO issues giving you guys permits... I do have a OR CHL but getting it was more of a challenge than it should have been.

I was more talking in the lines of Oregon not issuing to the residents of 40+ non-bordering states. But this decision from the 9th may have an impact on this, as well as on the non-issuance
to WA residents by some some stubborn OR Sheriffs. That's again a reminder that fight in CA matters, and how that fight should be fought.

 

[duane black]

I was more talking in the lines of Oregon not issuing to the residents of 40+ non-bordering states. But this decision from the 9th may have an impact on this, as well as on the non-issuance
to WA residents by some some stubborn OR Sheriffs. That's again a reminder that fight in CA matters, and how that fight should be fought.

Understood and agreed...

 

[GunnerB]

Wow. Calguns are trying to take some credit for an NRA lawsuit? The attorney from Michel posted in the forum that Calguns actively tried to stop this lawsuit!



I guess either way we get SCOTUS review. I just hope the best attorneys are on it. Calguns doesn't have a stellar track record at this point in winning cases.

They tried to slow roll that case because they had another case with a better plaintiff and cleaner litigation chances that was already winding it's way through the courts. Either way, it's water under the bridge at this point with the 9th's decision.

 

[Dave Workman]

Gottlieb: Concealed carry should not be subject to bureaucratic whim

A 28-minute video posted today on The Gun Wire features Bellevue gun rights advocate Alan Gottlieb telling Hawaii Reporter editor Malia Zimmerman that this year's mid-term elections "are going to be very important for gun rights and gun owners in this country."

<broken link removed>

 

[CounterOfBeans]

I want to put it out there that there's a big picture getting missed here. Here we are, lovers of rights and freedoms, yet we are celebrating a "victory" for the "licensing" of our natural right to throw off tyrants and defend ourselves. A "right" that can be licensed is not a right, it's a "privilege". Literally, under the modern CHL institution, we have to fill out an "application" in order to access something that both State and federal Constitutions say we have a right to do... without qualifications.

To "apply" (i.e. CHL application) for something is to ask for something you don't already have. So it logically follows that the act of "applying" is your "voluntary", "fully-informed" act of declaring that you don't have a free-born prerogative to throw off tyrants or to self-defense.

In turn, this says to the ones you're "applying" TO that they DO possess legitimate control over whether or not you get to possess firearms and how/when you can carry them. And we sign our names to this under penalty of perjury. And to punch ourselves in the face even more, we pay these "public servants" with our tax dollars to do this to our rights... "public servants" who have sworn an oath to uphold/ defend the Constitutions to boot. Remember this at the next 4th of July fireworks celebration.

The funny thing is that "license" isn't what most of us have been lead to believe it is. The core word "license" is actually defined by the Oregon Legislature in Oregon's Administrative Procedures Act (APA) at ORS 183.310(5). Here's that definition:

"ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT
(General Provisions)
183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
(5) "License" includes the whole or part of any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration or similar form of permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession."

The words "As used in this chapter" above could cause some to think that there might be a different definition for "license" in other chapters. You can look, but you won't find it in the gun laws, criminal code laws or any other laws. This is because the function of the APA, (as one chapter of law) is to govern how executive branch bodies (i.e. agencies) "administer" or enforce the law.

Under the direction of the Oregon Constitution (Article 4, Section 21), the laws are required to be plainly worded and the claims I make in this post are based on the face value of the provisions I cite above and below. I want any lawyer types on this site to call me out on this and set me straight if I'm wrong.

So..."license" = "permission required by law to pursue any commercial activity,..." huh. The only adjective "inserted" by Oregon's Legislature to frame the context of what "license" applies to in this law is...."commercial".... period. Which makes sense, because the Oregon Constitution at Article 4, Section 20 requires all laws to pertain to ONE subject and matters that are "properly connected" to that one subject. See below:

"Section 20. Subject and title of Act. Every Act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title. But if any subject shall..."

Also notice in 183.310(5) how the Legislature defines "license" as being synonymous with "agency permit, certificate, approval, registration...". So by lawful definition, these words are "properly connected" with "commercial" permission.

On top of that, a judge is not authorized to insinuate the addition or omission of anything else in his/her reading of this law. See ORS 174.010:

"174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."

And if someone insists on trying to conjure some ridiculous interpretation of this or any other law with the aim of denying or disparaging a right, then there is ORS 174.030:

"174.030 Construction favoring natural right to prevail. Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to prevail."

The words "is to prevail" cannot be any more deliberate or conclusive. OUR rights ARE... TO... PREVAIL..., be damned what constitutionally illiterate CHL cheerleaders and pundits want us to believe. The plain words of these mere "laws" are unambiguous and forceful in their effect of giving us another set of goggles through which to measure the truthfulness of CHL "policy" assertions. And these laws "shall never be suspended" by any executive or judicial decree, see Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 22:

"Section 22. Suspension of operation of laws. The operation of the laws shall never be suspended, except by the Authority of the Legislative Assembly."

If you ever find yourself on a jury in Oregon that sits on a gun rights case (or any case for that matter), do not let the judge tell you that you do not have the power to determine what the law is. The rights of the defendant will likely depend on your conviction to insist on YOUR power as a juror TO determine the law itself, as plainly directed by Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 16:

"Section 16. Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.&#8212;In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases."

This 9th Circuit decision is not a moment of victory. It's an event that shores up our own cranial bondage to a lesser existence. By tolerating discussions of our gun rights to be framed in terms of the political shell game of CHL limitations, we will always be jesters in a carnival of self-mockery and there will never be an end to infringement. By embracing and celebrating the CHL myth, we sear a notion into our minds that it is OK to equate government-controlled, pay-per-view privileges as being reasonable facsimilies of our rights. The founders would have vomited at this and if we really want to honor our heritage, our military dead or thank the vets that fought to preserve our rights and freedoms, getting a CHL is one of THE worst ways to do it because it makes us accomplices to our own subjugation.

For anyone or everyone who is wondering why this post is the first time they've been exposed to the laws and constitutional provisions that have been cited, thank your public schools. Knowledge is power and Oregon's public schools are supposed to be providing "courses of instruction" with "special emphasis" on the federal Constitution for a minimum of 5 years (8th grade - 12th), as well as on the Oregon Constitution and "obedience to law". See ORS 336.057 & 336.067:

"336.057 Courses in Constitution and history of United States. In all public schools courses of instruction shall be given in the Constitution of the United States and in the history of the United States. These courses shall:
(1) Begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in grades 9 through 12.
(2) Be required in all public universities listed in ORS 352.002, except the Oregon Health and Science University, and in all state and local institutions that provide education for patients or inmates to an extent to be determined by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. [Formerly 336.230; 1977 c.226 §1; 1999 c.1023 §1; 2011 c.637 §114]"

"336.067 Topics given special emphasis in instruction. (1) In public schools special emphasis shall be given to instruction in:
(a) Honesty, morality, courtesy, obedience to law, respect for the national flag, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oregon, respect for parents and the home, the dignity and necessity of honest labor and other lessons that tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry. ...(inter alia)...
(2) The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall prepare an outline with suggestions that will best accomplish the purpose of this section, and shall incorporate the outline in the courses of study for all public schools. [Formerly 336.240; 1975 c.531 §1; 1979 c.744 §13; 1993 c.45 §75; 2005 c.209 §22]"

But we all know that hasn't happened for a long time (if ever)... right? Remember, "operation of the laws shall never be suspended"... Just sayin'.

 

[PiratePast40]

Any loosening of a choke hold gives a chance to breath. One step at a time grasshopper, one step at a time.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Any loosening of a choke hold gives a chance to breath. One step at a time grasshopper, one step at a time.

Constitutional illiteracy turns a nation that is based on the rule of law into a legal minefield. So I just want to offer a different view of the ground being stepped on before we get too giddy about dancing through the daisies.

 

[fd15k]

Constitutional illiteracy turns a nation that is based on the rule of law into a legal minefield. So I just want to offer a different view of the ground being stepped on before we get too giddy about dancing through the daisies.

This is actually an interesting question. How do you define Constitutional literacy, and what does one use as a reference to measure it ?

 

[Stomper]

This is actually an interesting question. How do you define Constitutional literacy, and what does one use as a reference to measure it ?

That's easy, just read "Rules For Radicals" and "Animal Farm"!

 

[CounterOfBeans]

This is actually an interesting question. How do you define Constitutional literacy, and what does one use as a reference to measure it ?

Re: defining Constitutional literacy (power vs. powerlessness)
and
Re: a reference to measure it

The Constitution(s) (State and federal) establish where the balance of power lies in our relationship with government. As we all know, knowledge is power. So it naturally follows that a vacuum of popular knowledge of the Constitutions is inherently a vacuum of political power in the people, and that vacuum will faithfully be filled by people who recognize, and are tempted by, the personal advantage or gain to be had in public office.

So to me, it seems that constitutional literacy is a condition where a critical mass of We The People are competent enough in our understandings of Constitutional/legal principles and articles that we individually and collectively know what powers and restrictions the Constitutions place on government and in turn, can very quickly and confidently, rise to the occasion to recognize usurpation and prevent abuse of power before it has time to get a foothold in daily life.

In ORS 336.067, the Oregon Legislature uses the words "to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry". They didn't say "to promote and develop a good work force". Being a "citizen" is much more than going to work every day and paying bills. It means having the knowledge and skills needed to be competent, informed civic decision-makers in order to operate and preserve our Constitutional Republic. To that end, the Legislature determined that 5 years of "special emphasis" on US Constitution studies was the minimum standard. But they also said "special emphasis" was required for "obedience to law" and the Oregon Constitution. And how else can you "learn" how to obey the law, other than by actually being taught how to read and understand its actual legislative intent, as opposed to what others tell you. How else can we legitimately be held accountable to the expression: "ignorance of the law is no excuse"?

As another reference to measure what constitutes a quality Constitution education, ask yourself this question: If you were a Citizen accused of a crime, based on a law that you know is itself unconstitutional (see recent Connecticut gun laws), would you want a jury whose members had 5 minutes of Constitution class time in high school or a jury whose members had 5 years of Constitution class time? Which jury would better recall, grasp and apply underlying liberty and balance-of-power principles in their deliberation of your case? Who would be better equipped to sniff out a malicious prosecution and render an acquittal decision? Which jury would be better at detecting improprieties from the judge who might be compromised by personal biases or other influences?

With a minimum of 5 years of Constitution class time, impressionable, budding young citizens would have time to study, analyze and assimilate all articles of the Constitution... not just the fashionable provisions of the bill of rights. For example, most people don't know that Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 1 has the following language:

"No State shall.....make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"

An amendment is the only authority that can silence this provision and no such amendment exists. But now, with so much water under the bridge, real metal money is so foreign to us that we choke on it's clash with modern debt-based views of how the economy works. And because our grandparents didn't know how, or that they should have, stopped Roosevelt from taking our metal money in the 1930's, now we have a debt-based society, where many States are quaking at the edge of total bankruptcy.

If public schools in Oregon actually provided the 5 years of "Constitution class" that they're mandated to, kids would eventually get around to studying the federalist/ anti-federalist papers and other founding documents. They would undoubtedly get into studying case law too. Statist-minded teachers would eventually end up having to do some 'splainin' to defend the revisionist theories they promote. For that matter, teachers' exposure to these materials may even reveal to them how much they were deceived by their own high school experience.