ryan_j

They haven't contributed since 2009 it seems. He was A rated and then last year suddenly became a big time gun grabber. He was downgraded to D. He used to even support CCW even though he denies it now. What puzzles me is why NSSF is contributing to him. Maybe THAT one could be explained by fuddery. Check this out, he's clearly changed his mind on a few things: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/02/sweeney_proud_of_his_change_of_heart_on_ammo_magazine_limit.html#incart_flyout_politics

Well, typically SCOTUS doesn't overturn its own precedent. I don't think politics has anything to do with it. They also can't hear Peruta unless Sheriff Gore petitions for a writ of certiorari to the supreme court. So the case has to come before the court before they'll consider it. Remember as well that there are a few other cases in the 9th circuit, and any one of these could be appealed. But there are also state cases like our very own Pantano. So if Drake isn't taken up, there are still options.

Peruta actually deals with both open and concealed carry. The opinion basically said that they had to allow some form of carry and it could be open or concealed carry (or both).

They don't have to hear anything but a circuit split is a major factor.

I don't think so, because Sykes got another location and is back in business. There's also another FFL in DC. http://dcgunworks.com/ But it's dangerous because if NJ wanted to ban handgun sales it could just drive FFLs out of business.

No, that's not true at all. Nothing moves up. It's neither good nor bad news for us.

Not our case, but it could have clarified possession outside the home. Our case isn't up for review until April or so.

Certiorari DENIED. So this case is dead. Get used to applying for those PtPs and OGAM.

We should all write the legislature and cite this study from the violence policy center, as to why smart guns aren't effective. Smart Gun 2013.pdf

Nice episode. Tested several gun myths, including gun in a vacuum, bent barrel (cartoon style), gun vs neon sign and others. Anyone watch?

Well I was wrong about this. Only the sheriff was a party, so the AG has no standing. Only ones who can get this case re-heard now are the judges on the 9th circuit.

I love to see antis get their panties in a bunch http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_25202566/mercury-news-editorial-concealed-weapons-permit-decision-could

The AG could get involved. Kamala Harris is a big time gun grabber. But she has until Friday to file an appeal. After that the only avenues left are en banc requested by a judge on the 9th or certiorari.

That forum discusses "off the wall" stuff like LEO controversy and politics that are kept out of the main forums. The main forums are password free.

With the CA case I don't think this matters anymore. They had the same problem and few applied because of fear of denial and the "black mark of shame." You can't condition a right on a need, period. Imagine the outrage if they restricted prayer to homes and churches, and said you had to have a good reason to pray in public and said few people pray outside of those locations so there's no problem. See where I'm coming from?

This is something we need to prepare for as well. If the go open carry I want to see buses to Trenton for open carry rallies, often. I want to see people open carrying everywhere, even in the wawa. Ladies, get a pink gun and OC it. Guys, get a green gun and OC it. Make them WANT to give us concealed carry to hide those evil guns from the children. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79401186/

Pretty much. But court time is precious so they don't take every case. But with a split in the circuits or in state courts of last resort (state supreme courts) it is much more likely they will take it. And now is the time too. With 2016 looming and the justices not getting any younger, we need to get this issue before the court before the Clintons get to pack it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/21/san-diego-sheriff-will-not-seek-9th-circuit-en-banc-in-peruta-right-to-carry-case/ I assume this is your source.

It basically means that Hawaii now has to adjust its statutes to allow anyone to obtain a permit. They can do this by allowing an application to be approved for self defense against ordinary crime, instead of "exceptional crime" (eg. death threats). Or they could simply issue to anyone for any reason because so few people get a permit anyway. The net effect is shall issue. There are a few cases in the pipeline in Hawaii and this decision can now be used as precedent for them so I suspect this will bet resolved shortly.

He said he won't.

Absolutely. They will have to allow some method to obtain a concealed carry permit, or state law will have to change to allow loaded open carry. Orange County is already accepting applications, because they were also sued (I believe by SAF/Gura). Others say they are reviewing the decision. There are three avenues to appeal left - en Banc requested by the sheriff, en Banc requested by a judge on the 9th circuit and a petition for a writ of certiorari (Supreme Court). The sheriff isn't going to appeal, and it is unlikely that he will file for cert. A judge on the 9th may appeal but given the strong, well researched opinion I doubt it. From what I was told they hate en Banc because it is a real time waster. But by March 7, California will be de facto shall issue.

This Supreme Court has never ruled on the right to carry. They have declined to rule on it and hear a case thus far. This may change VERY soon as we all know.

Exactly. They're going to do it occasionally like they did with Pantaleon and it will make press and scare people.

Sorry bud, Doherty is the real deal.