California....Shall issue soon?

[Johannes_Paulsen]

No its not April yet....

But don't get too happy about this one just yet. As my fading memory recalls on the 9th Circuit there is the appeal panel and the full 7-9 judge panel. The group that heard this more than likely the appellate panel.

The state can appeal this to the full court, and if they then agree with the appellate panel then it goes to SCOTUS.

So don't break out the party favors just yet folks.

It ain't over til the fat socialist croaks

Even if it doesn't go to the full panel (en banc), this is almost certainly going to the Supreme Court soon. We already have a split - 7th Circuit says one thing, 3d Circuit says another....

[ungawa]

No its not April yet....

But don't get too happy about this one just yet. As my fading memory recalls on the 9th Circuit there is the appeal panel and the full 7-9 judge panel. The group that heard this more than likely the appellate panel.

The state can appeal this to the full court, and if they then agree with the appellate panel then it goes to SCOTUS.

So don't break out the party favors just yet folks.

It ain't over til the fat socialist croaks

Yeah, but it sounds like they gave it a long, thorough, and blistering treatment. I know courts don't care about things like laws, facts, The Constitution, truth, etc. but if they want to even halfway put up a show for appearances it would seem they are going to have to break out The Great Progressive Thesaurus of Logical Fallacies.

[knight0334]

Hawaii....also 9th Circuit.

And other Pacific places like Guam. (Does anyone go to Guam who isn't in the .mil? Whatever, it's still a little bit of America.)

Guam legally is "may issue", but in practice is shall issue. There isn't a "carry license", but the registration and/or possession permit thing they have suffices for a carry permit.

You're better off in Guam than HI, NYC, NJ, MD, and parts of CA.

[ChamberedRound]

9th Circuit? Is this a joke? It's not April Fools Day yet.

In a weird way it makes sense. Liberals have always worn their badges proudly as the fierce defenders of civil rights; maybe they're recognizing that the 2A is a civil right that deserves the same (if not more) respect. In fact, statements to that effect were made in the court's ruling (if I can find the link, I'll post it).

[ungawa]

In a weird way it makes sense. Liberals have always worn their badges proudly as the fierce defenders of civil rights; maybe they're recognizing that the 2A is a civil right that deserves the same (if not more) respect. In fact, statements to that effect were made in the court's ruling (if I can find the link, I'll post it).

Handouts, hiring quotas, and government regulation are the civil rights liberals champion.

[Mitch10mm]

I'm not sure what I think of court decisions anymore. It's not a matter of unfavorable decisions but the logic used to get their. I can't say I trust those that are looking at law and the constitution. Some opinions take a lot of twisting, turning,bending and gymnastics to arrive where they do.

[tl_3237]

I'm not sure what I think of court decisions anymore. It's not a matter of unfavorable decisions but the logic used to get their. I can't say I trust those that are looking at law and the constitution. Some opinions take a lot of twisting, turning,bending and gymnastics to arrive where they do.

I tend to agree with you.

It has become obvious to me that, having read many decisions and plodding through copiously tortured logic, that few cases are decided based on a thoughtful and impartial review of law. Rather, each case is heard by judges with preconceived biases and notions which significantly influence their interpretation or creation of ambiguities in the statute as well as reviews of decisions of previous tribunals.

In support of my supposition consider the disparity not only between appellate courts in different sections of the country but also in the divided vote of individual courts. Rarely do we see unanimous decisions from SCOTUS.

Even looking more recently at the subject of the instant thread we say a diametrically opposed opinion between the Second and Third Circuits versus the Ninth Circuit. Ostensibly these decisions were based on a review of the same Federal statutes and the same Federal case law with very similar underlying case circumstances ("justifiable reason" for issuance of a CCW). If the judicial process was unbiased and analytical, as it should be, these disparities should not occur.

That is why I have cautioned those who try to interpret laws as absolutes that, even in the rare case where a statute is unambiguous, logic and reason are not paramount attributes within Alice's "rabbit hole" commonly referred to as the justice (?) system.

[Sgt.K]

Here is the filed opinion

I have read many an opinion over the last year. I just read the entirety of the majority opinion - it seems simple, as in "well, duh" simple. If - I say *IF* - SCOTUS takes this case, and agrees, then CA, NJ, and NY can just ... suck it.

[Bang]

I'm betting SCOTUS in this case will not affect state's rights to limit the type and capacity of the firearm. Good luck being armed on the street with a single-shot pistol having a barrel of no less than 20 inches or some such "public safety" spec.

[MikeB0]

Wonder if the judges on this panel live in San Diego and were denied permits.