Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attorney general [Calif] to challenge ruling on concealed weapons (Gungrabbing)
LA Times ^ | February 27, 2014 | Maura Dolan

Posted on 02/28/2014 9:36:01 AM PST by neverdem

SAN FRANCISCO —Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris said Thursday that she would challenge a federal appeals court ruling that would require counties to give law-abiding residents permits to carry concealed guns.

Harris’ announcement followed a decision last week by San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore, the named defendant in the case that triggered the ruling, not to appeal.

Unless overturned, the 2-1 ruling by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would end a stringent restriction on carrying handguns in the state’s most populous counties. Most rural countries already allow permits if minimal requirements are met.

“Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon," Harris said. "I will do everything possible to restore law enforcement's authority to protect public safety, and so today am calling on the court to review and reverse its decision."

Chuck Michel, a lawyer for the gun owners who challenged the restrictions, said he would oppose the state's intervention. Michel said San Diego County had repeatedly asked Harris to intervene earlier, and she had refused. He said Harris, who faces reelection, would face the wrath of gun owners...

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: banglist

1 posted on 02/28/2014 9:36:01 AM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3127979/posts

Like I said. If the full panel takes the appeal, they will overturn the previous ruling.


2 posted on 02/28/2014 9:39:41 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme),unemployment will necessarily skyrocket! Despite the % dropping. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

You mean the government is willing to use your money to fight to keep your rights from you? No way.


3 posted on 02/28/2014 9:39:58 AM PST by thorvaldr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

So you are quoting yourself?


4 posted on 02/28/2014 9:41:16 AM PST by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rktman

My response, “So you are quoting yourself?” was intended for you, not where it was placed.


5 posted on 02/28/2014 9:44:09 AM PST by Buffalo Head (Illigitimi non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

In California? Good luck with that.


6 posted on 02/28/2014 9:44:25 AM PST by Mich Patriot (PITCH BLACK is the new "transparent")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Steve Van Doorn; Syncro; ProtectOurFreedom; vrwc1; Citizen James; abigail2; ...
BANG!
7 posted on 02/28/2014 9:44:52 AM PST by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I always wonder about names. Kamala reminds me of the word Impala, think that maybe she was conceived in the back seat of an Impala? To what tribe does she belong, as if I need to ask?


8 posted on 02/28/2014 9:45:31 AM PST by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

How does she have any standing to appeal on behalf of San Diego County?


9 posted on 02/28/2014 9:45:54 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It is about fitting into the Obama shadow government profile and hoping for a job offer.


10 posted on 02/28/2014 9:46:46 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buffalo Head

Maybe. LOL! Just reiterating possibly. I must need more coffee.


11 posted on 02/28/2014 9:47:17 AM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme),unemployment will necessarily skyrocket! Despite the % dropping. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat

Because the 9th Circuit applied the ban to CA law so it applies Statewide, not just SD. The Sheriffs in CA are, pursuant to CA, given the authority to make the permit decisions. If this were just a local ordinance, or something the Sheriff just “did”, then she wouldn’t. But all the Sheriff’s actions are derived from State statute.

Hope that helps.


12 posted on 02/28/2014 9:48:29 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thorvaldr

And yet they also WON’T spend your money to protect your rights. I am shocked. /s


13 posted on 02/28/2014 9:49:13 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

But she refused to participate in the case earlier:

“Chuck Michel...said he would oppose the state’s intervention. Michel said San Diego County had repeatedly asked Harris to intervene earlier, and she had refused.”

Looks like she made a calculated mistake.


14 posted on 02/28/2014 9:51:55 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Counties are agencies of the state, how can a county have a power that the state didn’t give it?

Federal courts need to stop making law.


15 posted on 02/28/2014 9:52:11 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Ohhhh so now the Alleged American Kamala decides it’s time for her to appeal something?

Isn’t it amazing that she said she didn’t have to do that with a duly passed Amendment to the California Constitution like Prop 8?

Amazing that the “Republican” party in California can’t make an issue of that....


16 posted on 02/28/2014 9:54:58 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon," Harris said. "“Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can exercise their Constitutional rights" Harris meant. TC
17 posted on 02/28/2014 9:57:06 AM PST by Pentagon Leatherneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReepers

Click The Pic

Donate!

18 posted on 02/28/2014 10:00:49 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Foundahardheadedwoman

Kamala was also the WWF “Ugandan Giant”.


19 posted on 02/28/2014 10:05:23 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad and lived with his parents .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Spot on. Selective enforcement destroys her credibility.


20 posted on 02/28/2014 10:06:35 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

21 posted on 02/28/2014 10:16:30 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Perry v. Hollingsworth:

“Sponsors of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court and the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”


22 posted on 02/28/2014 10:20:41 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

I learn so much from FR, thanks for the info.


23 posted on 02/28/2014 10:28:59 AM PST by Foundahardheadedwoman (God don't have a statute of limitations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Geeze,sweetie...when the 9th Circus rules against your Marxist positions it's time to call it quits.
24 posted on 02/28/2014 10:30:57 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Stalin Blamed The Kulaks,Obama Blames The Tea Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat

So tell me...do you think the people who brought Prop 8 before the voters didn’t have “standing” after the AG malfeasantly abdicated her SWORN duty?


25 posted on 02/28/2014 10:47:18 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat
"How does she have any standing to appeal on behalf of San Diego County?"

Maybe.

It's a state law that allows each County capricious discretion. It's also a state law that precludes open carry, part of the basis of the ruling.

But, it's important to note this is a freeway to the USSC ass the USSC is exclusively chartered to arbitrate disputes between the States and the Feds.

26 posted on 02/28/2014 10:52:12 AM PST by Mariner (tHE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Election fraud has consequences and she is one of them.


27 posted on 02/28/2014 11:23:42 AM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon," Harris said."

And that is what touched off this lawsuit. Local law enforcement had no consistent standards for issuing permits. Some agencies wouldn't issue any permits, some would issue a few, some would grant them to cronies, financial donors, and celebrities. This amounted to an ABUSE of discretion, and Harris knows it.

But since a permit by one agency is good throughout the State, couldn't any local agency issue a permit regardless of whether someone lives within its political boundaries? When did the people's right to carry depend upon the local police boss? I mean, the issuance of driver's license doesn't depend upon which City or County you live in, so why does the issuance of a concealed carry permit depend upon where you live?

28 posted on 02/28/2014 11:35:01 AM PST by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Foundahardheadedwoman
I always wonder about names. Kamala reminds me of the word Impala, think that maybe she was conceived in the back seat of an Impala? To what tribe does she belong, as if I need to ask?

Her mother immigrated from India. Her father was American of Jamaican ancestry.

29 posted on 02/28/2014 11:41:34 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Yes, I do.

But if the 9th Circus is going to be consistent, they should rule that Kamala Harris lacks standing here.


30 posted on 02/28/2014 11:44:38 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat

Oh I agree. Should have been in from the get-go. And I practiced long enough that I was rarely “stunned” but I would be STUNNED if the 9th didn’t permit this as it was State Law that was affected and not a local ordinance. And intervention is an easy thing. At a minimum, she gets an amicus brief. Being added as a party on this one is pretty meaningless anyway as it will go before the full panel which is Liberal. (the 3 Judge panel was not).

But, again, good cal on your part. She should have been in from the get go.


31 posted on 02/28/2014 11:55:38 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

>>So tell me...do you think the people who brought Prop 8 before the voters didn’t have “standing” after the AG malfeasantly abdicated her SWORN duty?<<

My 2 cents:

I believe that the people who brought Prop 8 had standing when they “stepped into the shoes” of the AG after she abdicated her sworn duty. There are laws that allow for private parties to do this. Attorney general statutes.

Here, the AG is trying to insert herself AFTER she refused to participate in the underlying action. She should be judicially estopped from interjecting herself now.


32 posted on 02/28/2014 11:58:05 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat

Then we agree!

Vehemently!


33 posted on 02/28/2014 12:01:16 PM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Onward!


34 posted on 02/28/2014 12:05:19 PM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
“Local law enforcement must be able to use their discretion to determine who can carry a concealed weapon," Harris said. "I will do everything possible to restore law enforcement's authority to protect public safety, and so today am calling on the court to review and reverse its decision."

I think armed citizens do more for public safety than law enforcement. I mean, when was the last time the cops prevented a crime. They are always there after the fact.

35 posted on 02/28/2014 1:20:31 PM PST by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Maybe if he’s elected he’ll do something to fix the carry laws in TX, which frankly stink.


36 posted on 02/28/2014 4:01:33 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (Liberty in our Lifetime - WWW.FreeStateProject.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: thorvaldr
You mean the government is willing to use your money to fight to keep your rights from you?

Unfortunately, the government has been using our money to take away our rights for a very long time. They have no intention of stopping. On this forum, I can not say what I really think, but perhaps you can read my mind.

37 posted on 02/28/2014 4:49:33 PM PST by Mark17 (Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup champions 2010, 2013. Vietnam Vet 70-71 Msgt US Air Force, retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

She must be as bright as the old wrestler Kamala..Kaleefornia is run by fruitcakes..


38 posted on 02/28/2014 4:58:03 PM PST by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I see. The AG of California can ignore public mandates that defend the institution of marriage against the onslaught of the homosexual agenda, yet demonstrates genuine zeal in trampling the right of the people to bear arms as enshrined in the Constitution. What a scumbag.
39 posted on 02/28/2014 11:20:31 PM PST by semaj (Nothing will change until lying becomes an extremely dangerous & expensive habit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rktman

True but how does the state even have standing? They are not even a party to the suit. Any lawyers on her able to explain this?


40 posted on 03/01/2014 11:23:55 AM PST by absalom01 (You should do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, and you should never wish to do less.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson