Reply With Quote
Maybe talk to your fellow cultist?"there's a reason CA AD didn't fight the ruling"
SCOTUS ruling.. who are they going to go to, the uber Supreme Court of Legends?
Why would I need to do it again when EN has already explained it itt. I understood what he was saying, the fact that you two cultists couldn’t isn’t my problem.You called it inconsequential, you explain it.
expecting "I said so" to float here.
Maybe talk to your fellow cultist?"there's a reason CA AD didn't fight the ruling"
SCOTUS ruling.. who are they going to go to, the uber Supreme Court of Legends?
Why would you need to say anything when no one here asked for your opinion? You called it inconsequential then balked when called on to explain. This should show anyone who wonders what your IQ level really is and how invested you are in doing anything here other than chasing me around with your nose up my ass.
It's your claim. You explain it. When the spotlight hits the crumb snatcher, said snatcher retreats into its hole.
Again, how would they fight it?
I just called you out on your pathetic white flag upstream. As mentioned previously EN had you firmly in hand and had clearly explained why the ruling was inconsequential."there's a reason CA AD didn't fight the ruling"
SCOTUS ruling.. who are they going to go to, the uber Supreme Court of Legends?
Sorry if that bothered you.
That would be illegal. There's no point in doing that since, as mentioned, there are still legal ways to achieve the same outcome.
I've read the thread. How is the ruling inconsequential?
Being of good moral character was always a part of obtaining a CCW in California. Removing good cause will result in county sherriffs issuing 10s of thousands of new CCW permits in California. That is not inconsequential.
DMC doesn't understand how open message boards work
DMC remembers things that have nothing to do with the message board topic at hand... i.e. free rent
You're saying their desire is to have the same outcome regardless, and you've done nothing to illustrate that as truth.
You mean like you talking about me, unprompted?
Besides the fact that "good moral character" is a requirement with arbitrary discretion to define from each State, there's nothing precluding States from imposing new arbitrary requirements just as long as they're not "good cause". At least not with this ruling.
The end result is that there are legal means to still preclude country sheriffs from issuing 10s of thousands of new CCW permits in California, New York, etc.
I have no doubt that will lead to a long litigation again, and the SCOTUS will rule again, but I was merely commenting on the weirdness of the SCOTUS not providing a legal standard for these requirement with this rulings, as the legal door left open is pretty ovbious.
Seems you were actually just saying it's a nothingburger, and using the ability of sheriffs' and chiefs' to apply more rigorous filters to moral character requirements for applicants they want to dismiss. You're considering "legal" to be above "cons utional", even though this entire thread illustrates just the opposite.
Sure I have. When it comes to Cons utional questions, the SCOTUS generally provides a legal test to guide lower courts. For some reason, it didn't in this case, specifically when it comes to requirements for the permits.
It actually went a step further and acknowledged that shall-issue type of regulation is permissible. As you well know, shall-issue means:
Shall issue means that as long as an applicant passes the basic requirements set out by state law, the issuing authority (county sheriff, police department, state police, etc.) is compelled to issue a permit.
About what's said here in the threads themselves, yes, very good!
Where did you illustrate California wishes to have the same issue level as they have now?
If you can show that someone was denied a CHL based on double standards, you could probably sue based on equal protection.
You're getting there. It's legal in so far as there's no challenges to it and ruled illegal. This is why generally the SCOTUS issues a legal standard of review in these actions, such that those questions can be readily answered without having to go all the way back up to the SCOTUS.
I found it strange they didn't do that in this case, that's what I was commenting on.
I never made that claim, link? I said if they choose to go that path, there's a perfectly legal avenue to do so, even with this ruling.
Sure. You can also sue for any arbitrary requirements they might come up with if you deem them uncons utional, just like good cause was.
Then go through the lengthy litigation and hopefully get a legal standard from the court that time around, so this doesn't keep on happening.
So then in an effort to abide by SCOTUS ruling in NY, California would prompt groups to sue again by moving the goalpost, voluntarily.
Conversely, you could argue that:
“The government must affirmatively prove that its firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms,”
Amounts to the new legal standard of review... certainly debatable. Generally, standards include legal tests, and here it would be open ended, so we'll see.
It started here. You said SCOTUS said "we know best" is legal, but "we know best" was about showing need, not about moral character. I even said Texas has basically the same moral character requirement only in more defined terms.
You said "that's a feature not a bug". If you didn't mean that's something the AG used with intention to get the same end result regardless of the ruling, then you haven't explained exactly what you meant. If you did mean that (I think you did), then you are saying that's California's intent. Otherwise it's not a feature, it's only a possibility.
If it's a feature then it's built in with that in mind. Else what's the feature?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
