Another court embarrassment for state AG Kamala Harris

Another court embarrassment for state AG Kamala Harris

cacoverFresh off her odd handling of the bullet train’s legal issues, Attorney General Kamala Harris is at it again. Per the coverage of the San Francisco Chronicle, incompetence followed by posturing is what this looks like:

“Attorney General Kamala Harris moved Thursday to preserve California’s restrictions on concealed-weapons permits, seeking a rehearing of a federal appeals court ruling that would allow law-abiding citizens throughout the state to carry handguns in public.

“Harris, on behalf of the state, asked the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to intervene in the case, involving a lawsuit against the San Diego County sheriff over gun permit restrictions … .

“San Diego’s sheriff, Bill Gore, the sole defendant in the case, announced last Friday that he would not ask the court for a rehearing, raising the possibility that the ruling would become final without further appeals. Thursday was the court’s deadline for an intervention request by Harris, who ordinarily defends state laws in court but was not named as a party to the case. …

“C.D. Michel, lawyer for the California Rifle and Pistol Foundation, and individuals who challenged the San Diego County system, said the appeals court should refuse to let Harris enter the case.

“‘The state of California has been in this case from day one by virtue of the fact that Sheriff Gore was in there as a state actor,’ Michel said. He said Harris had turned down invitations from both sides to enter the case at the outset, and is seeking to intervene now only because she disagrees with the ruling.”

Chortling over rebuke to CA gun haters

148320538JS008_GOVERNOR_BROThere’s quite a bit of chortling in gun-rights circles over these developments. California likes to think it’s the national leader in scorning guns and gun owners, and now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, of all courts, has gotten in the way.

That chortling should extend specifically to the incompetence of Harris and her staff. It evidently never occurred to them that the Second Amendment of the Constitution might apply in California. Now it’s time to play catch-up with some Indignant Posturing.

This follows on her amazing two-step in the bullet-train case. In August, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that the state’s plan to build the first segment of the project broke state law because of its incomplete environmental reviews and shaky financing. In a subsequent “remedies” hearing, Harris’ office didn’t take issue with Kenny’s finding that the state’s plan broke state law. Instead, it held that work could continue using federal funds. In November, Kenny issued two follow-up rulings basically blocking use of state funds in construction of the project.

Two months later, Harris’ office put out a new opinion that held Kenny’s original ruling was wrong. Huh?

Epic klutziness. But if you don’t like the bullet train and/or fear Harris will be governor some day, it’s been fun to watch.


Write a comment
  1. Donkey
    Donkey 28 February, 2014, 12:38

    Stupidity and incompetence, the main ingredients for running any and all bureaucracies in California, Harris is well qualified!! 🙂

    Reply this comment
  2. Ted Steele, CEO
    Ted Steele, CEO 28 February, 2014, 15:13

    Ouch Chris— what with all of your bias and all of her fine blandishments– you’re going to hate it when Kammie is the Governator!

    Reply this comment
  3. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 28 February, 2014, 17:19

    Yep….we got a deep bench like Kammie and The Noose or maybe we trot out an oldie but goodie like Waxman or Panetta.

    Reply this comment
    • ricky65
      ricky65 2 March, 2014, 08:56

      Naw, why even fool around with petty corrupt pols like Waxman or Harris.
      Let’s just go with full blown total corruption right out in the open. Let the typical Dem voter see what they get by continuing to rubber stamp vote for Dema-Rat politicians.
      Bring on the Calderon brothers! You can vote for them as as co-equal governors- a triumvirate or troika if you will. Three times the corruption for one low price!

      Reply this comment
  4. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 28 February, 2014, 20:07

    The 9th Circuit panel issuing the ruling rendered a 2 to 1 split decision, with the 2 in majority being Republican appointees to the Court. It makes perfect legal and public policy sense to request an en banc review of the decision, particularly since it may lead to legislation that would resolve the conflict cited by the Court over the prohibition of both open carry in California – a statues signed into law by Gov. Ronald Reagan after the Black Panthers held their own “open carry rally” outside the California state capital in the 1960’s.

    There are certainly other alternatives to issuing a ccw permit to anyone who might want one. One already under discussion involves the repeal of the Reagan Era law against open carry, with the modification that such open carry would require an “open carry permit” with the same qualification requirements now used for concealed weapons permits. That would comply with the requirements of both the Heller and the McDonald decisions on the 2nd Amendment right to bear a handgun in your home, while retaining the ability of law enforcement officials to continue to limit concealed weapons in open circulation on our streets.

    Reply this comment
    • Donkey
      Donkey 28 February, 2014, 20:50

      Citizens are allowed under the 2nd Amendment to “keep and bear arms” as much as any LE RAGWUS feeder. There is no provision in the Constitution stating a citizen needs a permit to carry any “Arms,” and the term, “law enforcement officials” is not even in our documents. A US citizen is more likely, by a ratio of 8,000 to one to be murdered by a LE officer than a terrorist, all Americans should be armed at all times. 🙂

      Reply this comment
      • Ted Steele, CEO
        Ted Steele, CEO 1 March, 2014, 08:33


        With your interp of the 2nd A., then there could be be no reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. This of course is untrue as our Supreme Court has upheld many reasonable restrictions. Or maybe you don’t think the founders ™ where correct in an Article 3 sense?

        What other parts of our beloved Constitution do you wish to ignore as you consume large sugary drinks and stare slack jawed at your TV?

        The Ted.


        Reply this comment
        • Ted Steele, CEO
          Ted Steele, CEO 1 March, 2014, 08:35

          From the Ted System ™ corrections and worker bureau ™– “were”.

          Reply this comment
        • RTR TRUTH MEDIA - Tom III% (@tomlacovara)
          RTR TRUTH MEDIA - Tom III% (@tomlacovara) 8 September, 2020, 06:50

          Name calling? It is not the gentleman above who is defying the Constitution. The SCOTUS – stocked with many Judicial activists over the years. Only a lawyer could read SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, and think of a clever way to do so. I say we try them for treason.

          Reply this comment
      • Donkey
        Donkey 1 March, 2014, 16:51

        TCS, learn to read my dimwitted pal. There were supposed to be no restrictions on the Bill of Rights, it is statist RAGWUS feeders like you that seek restrictions of the Rights of citizens, but none on the government!! 🙂

        Reply this comment
        • Rex the Wonder Dog!
          Rex the Wonder Dog! 1 March, 2014, 20:01

          TCS, learn to read my dimwitted pal.
          Stop picking on Teddy Steals Donk 😉

          Reply this comment
        • Ted Steele, CEO
          Ted Steele, CEO 1 March, 2014, 20:18

          Yeah, you’re probably right “Duncey”.

          I guess Article three does not give the Supreme Court the power to interpret the 2nd A.

          You’re so brainy.

          Reply this comment
          • Donkey
            Donkey 2 March, 2014, 17:39

            TCS, corrupt judges have perverted the words of the Constitution to the joy of statist commies like you.

            The 2nd Amendment is clear, only the RAGWUS LE feeder bureaucracy seeks to disarm the private citizen so they can continue to kill and abuse citizens with little fear of immediate reprisal. 🙂

  5. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 28 February, 2014, 20:08

    “Statute” above ^

    Reply this comment
  6. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 1 March, 2014, 20:00

    LOL..there is NO WAY the 9th will review it en banc and the SCOTUS won’t touch it w/ a 10 foot pole. Harris can petition al she wants, aint going to happen.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

CA's richest company sees smartphone future more clearly than critics

I am not an Apple cultist. I like the Silicon Valley icon, California's richest company, a great deal and agree

Falling down

John Seiler: What if the whole thing falls down? The economy, I mean: pensions suffer even bigger deficits, causing municipal

Your Taxes Already Up $700

John Seiler: Jerry Brown’s $12 billion tax increase, which he wants on a June ballot, comes to about $1,000 a