Well, Heller and McDonald* are stupid. But it’s pretty hard to see how the 9th could have ruled otherwise given that they are binding.
*I don’t disagree with the holdings, just Scalia’s pages of gibberish about prefatory clauses, which defy logic.
That’s an interesting take on constitutional jurisprudence. What other constitutional rights should be overlooked in the name of a greater public interest, and who gets to decide that?
The public really thinks you’re guilty, so you don’t get a lawyer.
The public really wants to know what you have to say, now you have to incriminate yourself.
The public wants to find out what’s in your house, warrants are an anachronism.
Can you identify why you believe that to be hypocritical? Heller recognized the existence of certain sensitive places which seems appropriate. What those places are will be litigated I’m sure. An NRA convention is a private exercise - outside the scope of public carry or carry in quasi public locations.
This ruling doesn’t affect the prohibition of insane or felons from carrying or possessing. Those groups of people are already prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms of any kind.
I know San Diego has said it will petition for en banc, and there is no reason for them to not do so. They’ve lost already, if they get denied en banc there is no difference in outcome. This case was appealed to the 9th circuit in late 2010. Justice moves very slow.
My concern is if it goes en banc, gets a bad panel, and it gets reversed. Then it would have to go to SCOTUS which if the current makeup doesn’t change, would likely uphold this decision since it was crafted in the same format and using the same rational as Heller. That would probably take 2 years or so, depending on timing.
I’m reading the opinion for the 2nd time now just to absorb some of the details - there is a large amount of it that is favorable to gun rights advocates. I especially appreciate how they directly criticize the other circuits who decided similar cases of “may issue” in Woolard and Kachalsky differently. Illinois gets shall issue before CA, who would have thought? CA has a lot of catching up to do and this is the start.
By the way, this same 3 judge panel also heard the case of Richards vs. Prieto which is a near identical case in Yolo County (northern CA near Sacramento). It would be shocking if that decision is decided differently. I expect that to come out shortly since arguments for that case were heard on the same day.
Which has more to do with the times that such documents were drafted than anything else. Nowadays, the vast majority of us are screwed without a car, but aren’t in any way limited by not bothering to own a gun.
We’ve been yelling about it since Unsafe At Any Speed, if not earlier. You apparently haven’t been listening. Mandatory seat belts, shoulder harnesses, air bags, required age-appropriate car seats/booster seats for kids, crash standards for cars, all this stuff we take for granted now…you don’t think this has all come about due to Adam Smith’s invisible hand, do you?
You can thank liberals for all of the above. Oh, and for pretty much every expansion of mass transit during my lifetime, which is of course a few orders of magnitude safer per passenger mile.
Sure, but considering the NRA-ILA is promoting “carry wherever the fuck you like” legislation, it is extremely hypocritical if they don’t allow carrying at their convention.
Not unless they want to deny others the right to restrict carry at similar private functions.
Please provide a cite to NRA pushing for legislation to force private enterprises to allow people to carry on their property.
IIRC, one of their initiatives is a model bill that prohibits storeowners from barring carrying by patrons. That might be an ALEC thing though.
ETA: I think it’s a variant of this one.
Not necessarily. I’ve never been to an NRA convention, but I assume that there are guns on display and people showing guns to one another. In such an instance, you don’t want some idiot pulling his carry piece to show someone else and accidentally discharging it. Gun shows have the same policy for the same reason.
It’s not hypocrisy in my opinion because the same safety concerns don’t apply in your car or in TGI Friday’s. At non gun related public events, people are not going to be unholstering their guns except in a life threatening situation. The last thing the NRA needs is someone getting accidentally shot at a convention. That would be a PR disaster.
I’ve never been a member of the NRA (too moderate - though I may join after this win) so I looked into this a little more just now since it had never been something I was interested in.
It appears that it is not the NRA prohibiting carry at their conventions, it’s more the venue that the conventions are being held at. The 2011 convention in Pittsburgh allowed carry. The 2012 convention in St. Louis did not. This was due to the city of St. Louis prohibiting the carrying of firearms at the America’s Center Convention Complex, where the convention was held. The same is true for the 2013 convention, where State law prohibits the carrying of firearms in the Charlotte Convention Center and the Time Warner Cable Arena, where the NRA’s annual meeting was held.
The NRA can be criticized for choosing the venue, but it’s not their practice to prohibit carry.
Fair enough. I withdraw my observation.
Another note that I found reading, the 2008 convention in Louisville allowed carry. The 2009 convention in Phoenix allowed carry.
In 2010, the NRA responded to criticism of the prohibition of carry at their events, and their choosing of venues:
Essentially - there’s not that many places that will work for the convention and allow carry. The goal of moving the convention around to accommodate the wide spread membership means they go places sometimes that don’t allow it.
San Diego just got a new Republican mayor
- does he have the power to decide to drop the case now that they lost?
- does he WANT to? He is currently the highest ranking Republican in the State of California.
The initiating or appealing party may generally drop its action at any time. However, San Diego’s ordinances may not entrust such decisions to the mayor.
It’s not the City of San Diego being sued - the mayor is not a party to the lawsuit. Being sued are the Sheriff (Gore) and the County of San Diego. Discretionary issue in CA is determined at the County level, so the new mayor of San Diego does not have the ability to officially influence the case.
I didn’t insult you, I insulted your argument that the amount was miniscule in view of the statistics. It was, in my view, an amazingly stupid and loathsome statement. Easily the weakest argument I have ever seen on SDMB. Perhaps anywhere. 11k plus deaths a year isn’t miniscule. Each of those people won’t do anything ever again, and each of their families will never have them to enjoy again. It is greater every year that all the US war dead in Iraq and Afghanistan. Over a period of decades, it is greater than the US WWII dead. We spend hundreds of billions every year to prevent another WWII.
And I’m not for rounding up all the weapons. The only people I don’t want having them are the criminals and the insane, and I do want to take away the weapons of the criminals and insane and take active steps to do so before they commit murders. That requires identifying them and conducting searches.
I just caught that and was coming back in to admit my mistake - thanks for getting there first.
This time I actually see where we disagree on hypocritical. I cannot enter the courthouse, a public place to exercise constitutional rights of redress, petition and speech, etc. with a weapon. Yet they say that it is a constitutional right to carry in a public place. The courthouse is the ultimate public place, particularly in open court. (Keep that in mind you daring do romantics on this, Valentine’s Day, what a place to get caught gettin it on!) That seems to me to be pretty hypocritical of the judges to say you can carry it in public, but can’t sit in the gallery with Ol Betsey by your side.
As for the NRA convention, it is a private affair. You obey the rules of the host. But it strikes me as odd and hypocritical and cowardly to have the general position that carrying around guns for protection is the best protection, except it isn’t allowed in a room full of gun owning conventioneers. If I go to a model train convention, I damn well expect to bring in my Z gauge stuff, and maybe even demonstrate it live. Now it is inappropriate to demonstrate a gun other than at a range, but when I go to a gun show, I can damn well see the guns and maybe buy one (I don’t recall if I can bring one in). It just strikes me as really weird and hypocritical that the NRA doesn’t have all its members packing. I go to Comic-Con, I dress up weird and maybe bring some paraphernalia. Why, oh why, does the NRA prohibit open or concealed carry at their events? (Assuming they do, which I’ve been told.) I go to an auto show, I expect to see autos. I got to a Democratic Party convention, I expect to see Democrats, hear them, vote on things and change a $20 bill.
The reason the NRA doesn’t allow guns at their conventions is because they are afraid someone will misuse one. Isn’t it?
I was at the conventions in Phoenix and Louisville and carried openly at both. Nobody batted an eye.
Your post is correct about why there was a prohibition on carry at some of the conventions and it has nothing to do with the NRA itself. But the left will continue to tell this lie until it becomes a truth.
Settle down, junior.
You need to go back a few posts and reread them. Almost every NRA convention I’ve been to has allowed firearms be carried. When it’s held in a place where the venue or local law doesn’t allow it it is not a policy of the NRA.
The NRA conventions are huge. In order to hold them all over the country they sometimes need to rent venues that either don’t allow weapons or can’t due to local laws. It’s a tough choice to make but it’s nice that the NRA scatters their conventions around the country rather than just one place.