Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Comparison of death tolls in shooting rampages | Main | Astonishing ruling! »

Oral arguments in three 9th Circuit cases

Posted by David Hardy · 9 December 2012 11:21 AM

I haven't listened to the third one yet, but the first two are challenges to California sheriffs refusing to issue permits to carry (now required for all handgun carry), under California's "may issue" regime.


Peruta v. San Diego, backed by NRA and California Rifle and Pistol. Paul Clement argues. Audio here

Richards v. Prieto, backed by SAF and Calguns. Alan Gura argues. Audio here.

Baker v. Kealoha, backed by the Hawaii Defense Foundation. Audio here.

The panel sounded skeptical at the sheriffs' cases, which suggests a favorable outcome.

The sheriffs had a novel defense: the infringement of the right to arms is a product of the State legislation. The sheriffs merely have the power to lift that, so their only role is either to let the State infringement continue, or to provide relief from it. Therefore, they should not be liable.

I don't think that's a good argument. Suppose California enacted a law forbidding political speech unless authorized by a sheriff. One sheriff says "OK, in my county everyone may speak freely." He shouldn't be a defendant. Another sheriff says "in my county, only my friends may speak on politics." I think he's a valid defendant.

3 Comments | Leave a comment

5thovNov | December 9, 2012 11:52 AM | Reply

You will love the third one. Listen to what the attorneys says to the judge when she said he "shot himself in the foot".

Also, it was stated, not sure by who, perhaps Gura, that the Sheriff is the State Defendant in these matters, per the California Sup Ct....don't remember the case cited.

I think all three cases were handed as best as could be, as this is the 9th we are talking about. Again, the best one to listen to is the 3rd case...lol.

Carl from Chicago | December 9, 2012 9:17 PM | Reply

Very articulate arguments from Paul Clement in Peruta. WELL worth the listen to anyone interested in this issue (right to bear arms).

Jeff | December 10, 2012 7:01 AM | Reply

Hawaii's case seems weakest, at least procedurally. It's understandable that they seem to want to be in line behind the others.

Interestingly, everyone seemed to be in a pretty good mood. Is this characteristic of this court?

Leave a comment