TexasCHLforum.com

Photoman wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Someone else's recap wrote:This is a recapitulation of the opinion:

We do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry. That question was left open by the Supreme Court in Heller, and we have no need to answer it here. Because Plaintiffs challenge only policies governing concealed carry, we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public. Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public. The Second Amendment may or may not protect, to some degree, a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms in public. But the existence vel non of such a right, and the scope of such a right, are separate from and independent of the question presented here. We hold only that there is no Second Amendment right for members of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.

Chas.

Are we to conclude that the Court believes the Bill of Rights was codified to protect the rights of the government, not the individual?

ELB wrote:I just learned something new (to me) about the Peruta case by reading the Texas AG's brief against the injunction sought by those three UT professors trying to project their mental insecurities on the rest of the world:

Peruta has asked for an en banc review by the 9th Circuit.

"What?!" you say? "They've already had an en banc review!"

No.

They had a limited en banc review. The 9th Circuit has so many appellate judges (25 I think?) that normally when an en banc review is requested, 11 of them are selected. Peruta lost at the limited enbanc review.

So now Peruta has asked for a full en banc review -- all the appellate judges sitting together.

See page 17 of the AG's brief: https://static.texastribune.org/media/d ... nction.pdf


ETA the petition (I think) for a rehearing http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/g ... t%20EB.pdf

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Wall wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Yes to both questions. Gun owners won before a three-judge panel, but the City asked for and received an en banc hearing. Heller and McDonald are still good law, for now, but neither case dealt with "bearing" arms outside the home. This decision is wrong, but it does not conflict with either SCOTUS case at this point.

Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.

Charles, can I use your part in red as a quote?

Yes. Thanks for asking.

Chas.

gljjt wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

The Wall wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Yes to both questions. Gun owners won before a three-judge panel, but the City asked for and received an en banc hearing. Heller and McDonald are still good law, for now, but neither case dealt with "bearing" arms outside the home. This decision is wrong, but it does not conflict with either SCOTUS case at this point.

Make no mistake, if Hillary wins, the Heller decision will be overturned and the Second Amendment will be rendered meaningless. The never-Trump crowd needs to fully understand this. There are no alternatives, there are no counter-arguments and there is no justification for doing anything that allows Clinton to occupy the White House.

Chas.

Charles, can I use your part in red as a quote?

Yes. Thanks for asking.

Chas.

Chas.,

Is this an open ok to use the quote as is with attribution or a one off permission to the request. I'd like to use the quote. It is relevant, concise, cohesive and complete!

ELB wrote:The 9th refused a full en banc review of the half en banc panel's review.

Peruta has now appealed to the SCOTUS: San Diego concealed weapons case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:The 9th refused a full en banc review of the half en banc panel's review.

Peruta has now appealed to the SCOTUS: San Diego concealed weapons case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Given Trump's promise to appoint 2nd Amendment friendly justices, and given that the democrats were stupid enough to invoke the nuclear option back when they had control, and give that it is still invoked (has never been rolled back), and given a republican majority in Congress, I'd say that it looks good for this case when it gets in front of SCOTUS.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:There's no possibility this could get in front of the court while still tied 4-4? I haven't been paying close attention long enough to really know how long it takes to go from this point, to accepted by the SCOTUS, to argued, to ruled...

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:The 9th refused a full en banc review of the half en banc panel's review.

Peruta has now appealed to the SCOTUS: San Diego concealed weapons case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Given Trump's promise to appoint 2nd Amendment friendly justices, and given that the democrats were stupid enough to invoke the nuclear option back when they had control, and give that it is still invoked (has never been rolled back), and given a republican majority in Congress, I'd say that it looks good for this case when it gets in front of SCOTUS.

OldAg wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:The 9th refused a full en banc review of the half en banc panel's review.

Peruta has now appealed to the SCOTUS: San Diego concealed weapons case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Given Trump's promise to appoint 2nd Amendment friendly justices, and given that the democrats were stupid enough to invoke the nuclear option back when they had control, and give that it is still invoked (has never been rolled back), and given a republican majority in Congress, I'd say that it looks good for this case when it gets in front of SCOTUS.

Does anyone know for sure that the nuclear option is invoked for SCOTUS appointees? My understanding is that it has been invoked for cabinet positions and all of the federal judge appointments except Supreme Court. SCOTUS still requires 60 votes to end debate and then the Senate can vote to confirm.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

OldAg wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ELB wrote:The 9th refused a full en banc review of the half en banc panel's review.

Peruta has now appealed to the SCOTUS: San Diego concealed weapons case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Given Trump's promise to appoint 2nd Amendment friendly justices, and given that the democrats were stupid enough to invoke the nuclear option back when they had control, and give that it is still invoked (has never been rolled back), and given a republican majority in Congress, I'd say that it looks good for this case when it gets in front of SCOTUS.

Does anyone know for sure that the nuclear option is invoked for SCOTUS appointees? My understanding is that it has been invoked for cabinet positions and all of the federal judge appointments except Supreme Court. SCOTUS still requires 60 votes to end debate and then the Senate can vote to confirm.

I believe you are correct.