Skip to comments.Attorney general [Calif] to challenge ruling on concealed weapons (Gungrabbing)
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 states 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 ...
Like I said. If the full panel takes the appeal, they will overturn the previous ruling.
You mean the government is willing to use your money to fight to keep your rights from you? No way.
So you are quoting yourself?
My response, “So you are quoting yourself?” was intended for you, not where it was placed.
In California? Good luck with that.
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?
How does she have any standing to appeal on behalf of San Diego County?
It is about fitting into the Obama shadow government profile and hoping for a job offer.
Maybe. LOL! Just reiterating possibly. I must need more coffee.
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.
And yet they also WON’T spend your money to protect your rights. I am shocked. /s
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.
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.
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....
Kamala was also the WWF “Ugandan Giant”.
Spot on. Selective enforcement destroys her credibility.
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.”
I learn so much from FR, thanks for the info.
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?
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.
Election fraud has consequences and she is one of them.
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?
Her mother immigrated from India. Her father was American of Jamaican ancestry.
Yes, I do.
But if the 9th Circus is going to be consistent, they should rule that Kamala Harris lacks standing here.
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.
>>So tell me...do you think the people who brought Prop 8 before the voters didnt 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.
Then we agree!
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.
Maybe if he’s elected he’ll do something to fix the carry laws in TX, which frankly stink.
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.
She must be as bright as the old wrestler Kamala..Kaleefornia is run by fruitcakes..
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?