There is an injunction in place against parts of the "sensitive places" language brought in with SB2, but the injunction does not cover places serving alcohol for consumption on site. The 9th is reconsidering their "sensitive places" finding now that the US Supreme Court has ruled on Wolford; defining the process of using historical precedents and directing the 9th to 'try again'.
CCW shooting in Cerritos at Restuarant
- Thread starter 2abrane
- Start date
ArtVandelay001
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 4
Hey, do you have any sources regarding the 9th circuit reconsidering the sensitive places finding? I’m not able to find anything on that, but I’d love to read up on it. Thanks!
- Messages
- 1,472
- Classified ads
- 4
Good point
- Messages
- 1
Well you won’t ever have to worry about being confused with anyone’s hero.
As I understand it, the 9th had combined the "Sensitive Places" statutes from Hawaii and California in its ruling on a preliminary injunction; striking down the CA private property no CCW default; but allowing Hawaii's slightly different version to stand. That Hawaii default of no CCW on private property ruling was the specific piece of law that went to the Supreme Court but the result laid out the process for using historical precedence when adjudicating 2A cases and then the entire 9th Circuit injunction ruling was vacated and remanded which requires the 9th to reconsider its original ruling in light of the new guidance from the Supreme Court.
Of course, all of this is only based on an injunction issued by the 9th, not a final ruling. Now that the Wolford case is decided, the main cases (Wolford and May) can proceed.
Or at least that's how I understand it.
As for reading, CRPA has the Wolford decision posted. DVRJON's posts here are much more lawyerly than my understandings and well worth a read.
[No wonder these 2A cases take 10 years...]
Of course, all of this is only based on an injunction issued by the 9th, not a final ruling. Now that the Wolford case is decided, the main cases (Wolford and May) can proceed.
Or at least that's how I understand it.
As for reading, CRPA has the Wolford decision posted. DVRJON's posts here are much more lawyerly than my understandings and well worth a read.
[No wonder these 2A cases take 10 years...]
- Messages
- 1,228
- Classified ads
- 1
An expensive option, but true nonetheless
- Messages
- 26
- Classified ads
- 2
I frequent that Lucille's in Cerittos from time to time.
luanh1987
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 23
- Classified ads
- 1
I am not familiar with the LA district attorney and how hungry they are to promote their career. My guess is they have to throw something at the wall and see if any sticks scenario. I hope he has a very good lawyer if they decide to go to court route.
My best guess is no murder charge but revoke CCW permit due to carrying it in an establishment that sell alcohols (and I hope he didn’t have any alcohol that time). My reasons:
1. That knife welding guy’s system must be full of drug and lot of blood loss before entering the restaurant.
2. Witness statement on the news indicated that CCW guy did give warning but the other guy came at him anyway.
3. Hopefully public opinion can pressure the DA to drop the case. However, to save face and guns are evils idea, take away CCW permit.
My best guess is no murder charge but revoke CCW permit due to carrying it in an establishment that sell alcohols (and I hope he didn’t have any alcohol that time). My reasons:
1. That knife welding guy’s system must be full of drug and lot of blood loss before entering the restaurant.
2. Witness statement on the news indicated that CCW guy did give warning but the other guy came at him anyway.
3. Hopefully public opinion can pressure the DA to drop the case. However, to save face and guns are evils idea, take away CCW permit.
- Messages
- 5,955
- Classified ads
- 1
The guy is a hero and the DA is a former Republican (ran as independent)... and the LASD stated he was carrying lawfully and no arrest was made. The chance of charges filed at this point are probably very low.
On Dec. 3, 2024, Nathan J. Hochman was sworn in as the 44th District Attorney of Los Angeles County, vowing to improve public safety by pursuing appropriate sentences for violent and serious offenders, while offering counseling and rehabilitation to those whose crimes were motivated by addiction or mental illness.
A lifelong Angeleno, DA Hochman served as Assistant U.S. Attorney General for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice in 2008. Prior to that, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California from 1990 to 1997, serving in the Criminal Division. He also had an extensive career in the private sector, as a partner of several nationwide law firms and as a leading expert in tax law, criminal defense and environmental law. DA Hochman previously served as President of the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission. He graduated magna cum laude from Brown University and earned his law degree from Stanford Law School.
ALWAYSARMEDOC
⚠️ New Member | No Deposits ☢️
- Messages
- 21
With how much media attention this is getting, and he obviously did the right thing if they did charge him under SB2 it would create talk in the media of exactly why SB2 doesn’t make sense and the ridiculousness of some of these places. Honestly it would be a good thing for showing the hypocrisy of the law with this much media attention, but bad for him obviously and I do not want him charged. They should be thanking him honestly.
Now I actually spoke with Steve Lieberman a lawyer of those USCCA videos regarding a different sensitive place under SB2 (church/ childcare places, like when is the church a
childcare center and when is it a church basically if it’s open seven days a week) and carrying and having to use your firearm with a CCW in that situation. He explained to me that there’s a law that supersedes like basically you have a right to defend yourself and that kind of supersede like that type of charge, and I forget exactly how he explained it to me exactly. Basically, he said you have a right to defend yourself.
- Messages
- 5,955
- Classified ads
- 1
Wasn't that a minor though that got jumped by a rival gang member that was robbing him or something? That was really local, sounds familiar. Those guys get special treatment lol
- Messages
- 282
As far as you’re allowed to know, sure.Well you won’t ever have to worry about being confused with anyone’s hero.
Respectfully I couldn’t care less about a faceless stranger criticizing my reluctance to kill someone over Sunday BBQ, in a situation that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
Kind of a weird take honestly.
Go ahead and take the shot. Hope you don’t miss and kill someone’s kid trying to play Superman.
Last edited:
Hit Factor
Well-known member
- Messages
- 973
That’s a line from a movie, right? Didn’t Corporal Upham say that on the staircase during the Battle of Ramelle in “Saving Private Ryan”?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 5,955
- Classified ads
- 1
lol that meme is perfectly accurate.
- Messages
- 5,955
- Classified ads
- 1
No. I used mine and still have it.
Tell us more …
- Messages
- 282
No charges for officer who killed 'hero' who stopped mass shooting, authorities say
The officer had “objectively reasonable grounds” to believe he and others faced imminent danger when he fatally shot bystander John Hurley.
www.nbcnews.com