PDA

View Full Version : I feel the need


Mulay El Raisuli
11-20-2008, 8:27 AM
For speed.

Taking a look at all that's going on lately, I am a bit distressed that there are people quite happy with waiting years to have the 2A fully re-implemented. While a perfect plan that wins is great, there's a military adage that goes something like this:
A pretty good plan violently executed right now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.

Well, I'm not, of course, advocating anything violent, but the time has come for us to take the offensive regarding the 2A. Thanks to HELLER, we have The Basic Question (militia or individual?) answered. That being the case, a little audacity is called for. I read elsewhere that a guy named Dorr has filed a suit in Iowa against his local sheriff over the way the sheriff issues CCWs. There is much distress over him doing this. There are complaints about it badly worded, about Mr. Dorr, just about everything in fact.

Well, I'm not unhappy about Dorr. He is at least doing something. Also, Rayra has reminded us (elsewhere here) about the way the NRA went after Gura when he filed PARKER. Using basically the same arguments I see used against Dorr. Well, Gura was right & all the "experts" were wrong. I don't know that isn't the case in re Mr. Dorr as well.

The biggest wrong, as I see it, is the call to wait until a 'pure' plaintiff can be found & a 'perfect' suit can be crafted. This isn't a classroom were points are added/deducted for style. This is real life. This is where no one & nothing waits until you are ready. 'Stuff' happens NOW, whether you're ready or not. In addition to what Obama is going to be bringing to the Federal courts, I read in the papers lately that there a couple of suits against the Cal. Prison system about overcrowding & the health care inmates receive. My crystal ball works about as well as anybody's I guess, but I see the release of thousands of inmates as early as next year. ESP given the awful state of the budget. The streets are going to get a lot more dangerous very soon. Also, in a general sense, the lack of gun control saves lives. This is a fact (see, Miami). Being a fact, every day that we don't get rid of the stupidity foisted on us means people die.

Now, there is a way to quickly advance the cause; criminal defense. Now, I'm not saying that criminals have gun rights. Also, I've never said anything like that. Anyone who thinks I have simply isn't paying attention. But, its a fact that criminal matters have priority in the courts. While a civil suit can take years just to get to the trial court level (see, PARKER/HELLER), a criminal matter gets heard in only months. If speed is desired (and it certainly should be) then it is in the criminal courts that our efforts should be focused.

Against this, no one likes defending criminals. But, what's a criminal? If an honest man feels the need to have heat under his coat, & meets that need, he'll be charged with a crime. But is he a criminal? Should the NRA (and all the other experts) refuse to defend such a guy just because he's charged with a crime? Should the opportunity to quickly make LOC & CCW legal again be passed up just because it means defending a "criminal?"

Further, should it matter? Say the cops nab the gang bangiest gang banger you ever saw for carrying w/o a permit. If a successful criminal defense leads to the end of "may issue" & restrictions on LOC, would it a bad thing because we used a criminal to achieve this completely worthy goal? I say it shouldn't matter.

Let me give an example. Cops can't beat 'confessions' out of people anymore. Why? Miranda vs. Arizona is why. Is this less of a good thing because a complete sleezeball (for that was what Ernesto Miranda was) was the tool used to get cops to stop beating suspects? I don't think so. I'm quite happy that cops have this restraint on them & I don't much care how the restraint got there. Protecting that sleezeball increased the protections for us ALL.

Elsewhere on CalGuns comment was made that the gun grabbers are winning because we stand with an 'all or nothing' attitude while they are happy with little victories. The gun grabbers have realized that a lot of little victories equals a big victory in the end. I'm not advocating that we get as fully in the mud as they do. But, they are dedicated to what they see as important, WINNING. No surprise then, they've spent the last few decades doing just that. We (or at least the "experts") OTOH, seem to care more about keeping our hands clean. Picking only 'pure' plaintiffs/defendants & being happy to wait years for a good result. Given what's coming next year (the release of all those felons), that approach will get us something good about 4 years after we need it. Presuming that the 'court packing' that Obama will start (also next year) doesn't preclude that.

Basically, we don't have years to wait. Given that reality, the logical course of action is to find someone charged with illegal LOC or CCW (the 'purest' defendant we can stomach) & defend whomever that is. More, we should seek out such a person who's already been convicted & so has his case already in the appellate system. Its at the appellate level that real change is made, so the sooner we can get there, the better. In a state of almost 30 million people, there's got to be someone that fits the bill. We should introduce ourselves to him & be his friend.

Five years from now, when we have the Right fully protected (safe even from whomever Obama can put on the bench), when you can leave your house into neighborhoods safer than what we have now, when we are again "secure" in a "free" state, you won't even care that it was a complete sleezeball used as the tool to make it so. Just as no one cares that Ernesto Miranda was such, you'll just thank God that it is so.

The Raisuli

aileron
11-20-2008, 8:30 AM
There is a lot going on. But your not in the inner circle to know what offensive legal plans are being cooked up. But all will be revealed in time.

If you want to know what most know around here. Check out Nordyke vs. King (http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/53-court-filings/575-the-nra-crpa-and-professors-of-law-submit-amicus-briefs-in-support-of-appellants-in-nordyke-case-format-.html) for 14th amendment incorporation. Decision happening very soon.

When they need your help they will ask on this board.

I just donated to the CalGuns Foundation. If you want to support the efforts that are on going this very minute it would be a good idea to donate as well.

Others will chime in with much better info then me.

yellowfin
11-20-2008, 9:57 AM
The reason for the apparent hesitation is the valid concern for giving the opposition a win due to our miscues and blunders. The lead ban, the "safe" list, and numerous other absurdities passed due not only to the other side's efforts, but by mistakes made by our own. If we lose it costs us more than it does if they do. We can't afford to let them win anything.

Now, that said, I too share your sense of urgency to push harder and stop begging for scraps. I too find it pathetic that we must appear to grovel before anyone, pitifully pleading for tiny snippets of our rights back. There's an outlet for applying maximum unapologetic firepower: recruiting and refuting. Get more people on our side, get them fired up, and go after the anti gun organizations. The Bradyites have done a disgusting amount of damage to society so it needs removing. You can ask deep probing questions to expose the conditioning and the fallacies of both friends and those of public voice. Put every single aspect of hoplophobia on trial. You'll get a few middle fingers at first but at least you asked the questions that don't get asked. Plant the seed of doubt. The legal battle recurs over and over again UNTIL we win the battle of the public mind. Heck, we haven't even begun to fight! You want to catch up for lost time? Start there.

Actually, how would you like to make a strong public statement that actually saves you money? I'd venture to say most people reading this board graduated from college or are in one right now. Know what colleges do with their graduates? Hit them up for money. ALL THE FREAKING TIME. My wife gets calls at least every other month. Ever contributed? I bet at least once you've felt a little pride in your alma mater and a little empathy for the student telemarketer/fundraiser on the other side of the phone and shelled out some money to up their average. Or you wanted your name on a brick, or if you've got Gene's budget, a statue in front of a building and/or the building itself. I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't know that colleges have long been a major nexus of the left and not so coincidentally the anti gun movement. Wanna change that? Next time that phone rings or that letter comes in the mail, tell them if they want a dime from you then they need to drop their anti gun policy, adopt campus carry, and kick out any presence of anti 2A organizations. They may be up in their ivory tower, but the sound of empty change jars sounds like a jet engine up against their ear. No guns = not a cent from us. No amount of brainwashing is so strong they can ignore that.

Call it the Not a Dime Campaign.

I know, I know, court rulings make it more iron clad now, but we need to make it permanent by dismantling the mechanism of the people either approving of anti 2A crap or more often just letting it slide. You saw the OC Board of Supervisors meeting, yes? Rather than a court ruling that an election, appointment, or simply a different case can reverse, or a law that can simply be amended or rescinded by the simple flip of the next election, what was done at the OC BoS was a change of the people's relationship with the elected government. The people said "No no no, you work for US, not THEM, and this **** ain't gonna fly!" The antis lost on the only two fronts they ever have that lets them win when they do: public disinterest/neglect and the squeaky wheel. The so called silent majority came out as a majority and acted like one and were about as far from silent as you could get.

Make city council meetings, county board of supervisors, and state government hearings be like that on a regular basis and not only will we beat back the opposition, we won't hear from them ever again. You want a revolution? So do I. Make one that way.

383green
11-20-2008, 10:10 AM
As I see it, we are on the offensive. Things seem a bit slow at the moment, but we're forming up our troops while we wait for our ammo shipment (Nordyke) to arrive. Once that convoy of trucks rolls into the base, I expect things to get a lot more exciting.

Meplat
11-20-2008, 4:57 PM
:clap::clap:

For speed.

Taking a look at all that's going on lately, I am a bit distressed that there are people quite happy with waiting years to have the 2A fully re-implemented. While a perfect plan that wins is great, there's a military adage that goes something like this:
A pretty good plan violently executed right now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.

Well, I'm not, of course, advocating anything violent, but the time has come for us to take the offensive regarding the 2A. Thanks to HELLER, we have The Basic Question (militia or individual?) answered. That being the case, a little audacity is called for. I read elsewhere that a guy named Dorr has filed a suit in Iowa against his local sheriff over the way the sheriff issues CCWs. There is much distress over him doing this. There are complaints about it badly worded, about Mr. Dorr, just about everything in fact.

Well, I'm not unhappy about Dorr. He is at least doing something. Also, Rayra has reminded us (elsewhere here) about the way the NRA went after Gura when he filed PARKER. Using basically the same arguments I see used against Dorr. Well, Gura was right & all the "experts" were wrong. I don't know that isn't the case in re Mr. Dorr as well.

The biggest wrong, as I see it, is the call to wait until a 'pure' plaintiff can be found & a 'perfect' suit can be crafted. This isn't a classroom were points are added/deducted for style. This is real life. This is where no one & nothing waits until you are ready. 'Stuff' happens NOW, whether you're ready or not. In addition to what Obama is going to be bringing to the Federal courts, I read in the papers lately that there a couple of suits against the Cal. Prison system about overcrowding & the health care inmates receive. My crystal ball works about as well as anybody's I guess, but I see the release of thousands of inmates as early as next year. ESP given the awful state of the budget. The streets are going to get a lot more dangerous very soon. Also, in a general sense, the lack of gun control saves lives. This is a fact (see, Miami). Being a fact, every day that we don't get rid of the stupidity foisted on us means people die.

Now, there is a way to quickly advance the cause; criminal defense. Now, I'm not saying that criminals have gun rights. Also, I've never said anything like that. Anyone who thinks I have simply isn't paying attention. But, its a fact that criminal matters have priority in the courts. While a civil suit can take years just to get to the trial court level (see, PARKER/HELLER), a criminal matter gets heard in only months. If speed is desired (and it certainly should be) then it is in the criminal courts that our efforts should be focused.

Against this, no one likes defending criminals. But, what's a criminal? If an honest man feels the need to have heat under his coat, & meets that need, he'll be charged with a crime. But is he a criminal? Should the NRA (and all the other experts) refuse to defend such a guy just because he's charged with a crime? Should the opportunity to quickly make LOC & CCW legal again be passed up just because it means defending a "criminal?"

Further, should it matter? Say the cops nab the gang bangiest gang banger you ever saw for carrying w/o a permit. If a successful criminal defense leads to the end of "may issue" & restrictions on LOC, would it a bad thing because we used a criminal to achieve this completely worthy goal? I say it shouldn't matter.

Let me give an example. Cops can't beat 'confessions' out of people anymore. Why? Miranda vs. Arizona is why. Is this less of a good thing because a complete sleezeball (for that was what Ernesto Miranda was) was the tool used to get cops to stop beating suspects? I don't think so. I'm quite happy that cops have this restraint on them & I don't much care how the restraint got there. Protecting that sleezeball increased the protections for us ALL.

Elsewhere on CalGuns comment was made that the gun grabbers are winning because we stand with an 'all or nothing' attitude while they are happy with little victories. The gun grabbers have realized that a lot of little victories equals a big victory in the end. I'm not advocating that we get as fully in the mud as they do. But, they are dedicated to what they see as important, WINNING. No surprise then, they've spent the last few decades doing just that. We (or at least the "experts") OTOH, seem to care more about keeping our hands clean. Picking only 'pure' plaintiffs/defendants & being happy to wait years for a good result. Given what's coming next year (the release of all those felons), that approach will get us something good about 4 years after we need it. Presuming that the 'court packing' that Obama will start (also next year) doesn't preclude that.

Basically, we don't have years to wait. Given that reality, the logical course of action is to find someone charged with illegal LOC or CCW (the 'purest' defendant we can stomach) & defend whomever that is. More, we should seek out such a person who's already been convicted & so has his case already in the appellate system. Its at the appellate level that real change is made, so the sooner we can get there, the better. In a state of almost 30 million people, there's got to be someone that fits the bill. We should introduce ourselves to him & be his friend.

Five years from now, when we have the Right fully protected (safe even from whomever Obama can put on the bench), when you can leave your house into neighborhoods safer than what we have now, when we are again "secure" in a "free" state, you won't even care that it was a complete sleezeball used as the tool to make it so. Just as no one cares that Ernesto Miranda was such, you'll just thank God that it is so.

The Raisuli

Fjold
11-20-2008, 6:35 PM
IMHO, the anti's win a lot because they file multiple cases in many different jurisdictions. They just have to win one and then use that precedent to effect decisions in other cases/jurisdictions. They don't care if they get 100 negative results because those doesn't alter the status quo, only the one or two cases that they win do that.

They're trying to overturn the existing law/custom so they aren't losing any ground if they lose the case, they just attack it again from a different angle.

We can't lose cases like they do because our losses do effect the status quo.

bwiese
11-20-2008, 6:58 PM
Fjold's got it.

Also remember that judges are political animals. An otherwise 'pure gun case' on technical merits that could go one way can easily flip the other way when an unsatisfactory defendant had the gun.

Look how much damage Miller caused us (bank robber + moonshiner with an SBS). If Miller had been a farmer in a traffic stop where the only issue was a technical gun *tax* violation at that time, the results may well have been much different.

About the NRA-bashing re: Heller.... yes, we've all read the articles. Gura's a great lawyer and did a fantastic job (esp because he ignored all the idiots chanting for introducing irrelevant NFA issues in the case) and we're gonna see more great work by Alan.

But we won Heller by ONE friggin' vote. When Hellerstarted as Parker, the Supremes had a different composition (pre-Alito/Roberts). The NRA rightfully was worried: they have very smart folks in Fairfax. If we failed, we could've failed BIG. But once things were more favorable, the NRA went full bore - and I believe the treasure trove of supportive briefs from the Vice President as well as DAs and AGs from around the country really buttressed Gura's lawyering and added to the political support side.

Our danger in fact is in BAD cases (like Iowa) getting traction

hoffmang
11-20-2008, 8:43 PM
Black people would have loved for Jim Crow laws to die in 1963. However, they knew they had to keep winning and winning in court to get their rights. It took them on into the 1980's to get the worst laws and practices ended.

The good news for us is that we'll get the next major step in restoring the 2A done in the next 12 months.

As much as you're complaining, the Second Amendment didn't exist in California five months ago. It's not even long enough to have a baby. Change in the real world takes some time. Luckily those times are now measured in months instead of decades as they had been as recently as 6 months ago...

-Gene

M. D. Van Norman
11-20-2008, 10:32 PM
Mulay, I know how you feel, but listen to Bill and Gene. Things are happening. There is momentum.

I watched the revolution begin in Orange County on Nov. 18th. Letís not bungle this one.

hoffmang
11-20-2008, 11:20 PM
I watched the revolution begin in Orange County on Nov. 18th. Letís not bungle this one.

OC is very instructive. The threat of Incorporation helped backstop the ability to get the Board of Supervisors to put pressure on the Sheriff to stop revoking and in fact start issuing CCWs more widely. And if that doesn't work out, Nordyke will give gun owners recourse to go force Orange County to issue carry permits to all residents.

-Gene

M. D. Van Norman
11-20-2008, 11:25 PM
Thatís the sad thing about all this. The opposition doesnít have to fight. CCW licensing could be quietly reformed without the anguish and expense.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-21-2008, 6:39 AM
There is a lot going on. But your not in the inner circle to know what offensive legal plans are being cooked up. But all will be revealed in time.


I'm sure.


If you want to know what most know around here. Check out Nordyke vs. King (http://www.calgunlaws.com/index.php/current-litigation/53-court-filings/575-the-nra-crpa-and-professors-of-law-submit-amicus-briefs-in-support-of-appellants-in-nordyke-case-format-.html) for 14th amendment incorporation. Decision happening very soon.


I have already read the Nordyke stuff. That's what inspired my post.


When they need your help they will ask on this board.


You tagline says "The Militia is open source." That would include me, wouldn't it?


I just donated to the CalGuns Foundation. If you want to support the efforts that are on going this very minute it would be a good idea to donate as well.


Sadly, I am short of money, otherwise I would be donating. So, I donate my thoughts instead.


Others will chime in with much better info then me.


That will be good to see when it happens.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
11-21-2008, 6:44 AM
As I see it, we are on the offensive. Things seem a bit slow at the moment, but we're forming up our troops while we wait for our ammo shipment (Nordyke) to arrive. Once that convoy of trucks rolls into the base, I expect things to get a lot more exciting.


I know NORDYKE will get things moving. But, as important as having 'ammo,' knowing where to 'shoot' matters also. My post went to where & when we do that. Gene says that we could have results in 12 months. My point was that we could get results quicker than that if we adopt the additional strategy of criminal defense.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
11-21-2008, 7:25 AM
Fjold's got it.

Also remember that judges are political animals. An otherwise 'pure gun case' on technical merits that could go one way can easily flip the other way when an unsatisfactory defendant had the gun.

Look how much damage Miller caused us (bank robber + moonshiner with an SBS). If Miller had been a farmer in a traffic stop where the only issue was a technical gun *tax* violation at that time, the results may well have been much different.


Given that the court decided to rule even though Miller didn't appear, didn't have a lawyer appear for him even, I'm thinking the court was ready to rule regardless. Even so, half the govts case was tossed. Which leads me to think that a proper defense would have turned the tide. MILLER then is a good example of what happens we sit on the sidelines & let others fight. The lesson to be learned is to have OUR lawyers do the fighting.


About the NRA-bashing re: Heller.... yes, we've all read the articles. Gura's a great lawyer and did a fantastic job (esp because he ignored all the idiots chanting for introducing irrelevant NFA issues in the case) and we're gonna see more great work by Alan.

But we won Heller by ONE friggin' vote. When Hellerstarted as Parker, the Supremes had a different composition (pre-Alito/Roberts). The NRA rightfully was worried: they have very smart folks in Fairfax. If we failed, we could've failed BIG. But once things were more favorable, the NRA went full bore - and I believe the treasure trove of supportive briefs from the Vice President as well as DAs and AGs from around the country really buttressed Gura's lawyering and added to the political support side.


I see that as timidity. Great accomplishments require great risk. Further, what if we had lost? That wouldn't have been the end of the game. There's already a low-key call for a Constitutional Convention. Maybe a loss in HELLER would have been the final straw to get us one. We could not only fix the 2nd, we could address some of the other crap SCOTUS has handed us lately.
In any event, your argument goes to why we MUST hurry now. We've put a Marxist in the Oval Office. There are tons of empty seats in the Federal courts. And, as you say, we only won by ONE vote. Time is a luxury we don't have. I don't see why a 'carefully crafted' defense can't be made ready for a criminal defense post-NORDYKE. The incoming administration is going over the criminal statutes very carefully, you can be sure. They're going to be trying put a lot of us in jail, aren't they? Wouldn't it be a good thing if we could close that door before they get started? BEFORE Obama can pack the bench?


Our danger in fact is in BAD cases (like Iowa) getting traction


Then wouldn't it be a good idea to do an 'end-around' on Dorr? IE; find a case already extant that would get heard BEFORE he can hurt us? A criminal defense ("carefully crafted" & all that) of a guy already at the appellate level would do that. Further, it doesn't have to be in Iowa. Whatever Circuit that Iowa is in (the 3rd?), it includes other states. Surely there must be someone in that Circuit already appealing a suitable charge who is either 'acceptable' to us or that we can hold our noses over enough to tolerate. A successful defense of that person (by GOOD lawyers) would render Dorr's little action moot. By the simple expedient of being heard before Dorr even gets to the trial court. I think that would be a good thing.

But, all I'm seeing (except from meplat. Thanks for that, BTW) is 'criminal defense is bad because criminals are yucky.' Yeah, criminals are yucky. But it is thru the criminal courts that lies the fastest way to cement in HELLER & the Sons of HELLER before the playing field gets changed on us.

The Raisuli

hoffmang
11-21-2008, 2:14 PM
But it is thru the criminal courts that lies the fastest way to cement in HELLER & the Sons of HELLER before the playing field gets changed on us.


You invalid assumption is highlighted above. Alan Gura, Bob Levy, and I would all tell you that the quickest way to cement losses of Heller and in Sons of Heller is through criminals bringing bad cases.

I'll let Bob Levy's words speak for themselves:


We declined the NRA's advice for a number of reasons. First, and most
important from our perspective, the Fifth Circuit's 2001 Emerson
decision had prompted criminal defense attorneys nationwide to raise
Second Amendment defenses to gun charges. We feared that one of those
cases would eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, resulting in
an accused murderer or drug dealer becoming the poster child for the
Second Amendment.

The rest of this here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=131458

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
11-22-2008, 7:47 AM
You invalid assumption is highlighted above. Alan Gura, Bob Levy, and I would all tell you that the quickest way to cement losses of Heller and in Sons of Heller is through criminals bringing bad cases.

I'll let Bob Levy's words speak for themselves:
"We declined the NRA's advice for a number of reasons. First, and most important from our perspective, the Fifth Circuit's 2001 Emerson decision had prompted criminal defense attorneys nationwide to raise Second Amendment defenses to gun charges. We feared that one of those
cases would eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, resulting in an accused murderer or drug dealer becoming the poster child for the Second Amendment."


The rest of this here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=131458

-Gene


If you would pay attention, you would see that I'm not in favor of defending "criminals" per se as I am in favor of using the criminal defense route to lock in HELLER, & NORDYKE when (if) that goes our way.

If you would pay attention, you would see that I'm also not in favor of anyone bringing "bad" cases at all. What I am in favor of is using GOOD cases, prepared & presented by GOOD lawyers being presented.

But it is in your quote of Mr. Gura that you prove my point. His fear was NOT that a criminal defense case wouldn't be successful, but that it WOULD be. His fear was that this success would leave us with an "accused murderer or drug dealer becoming the poster child for the Second Amendment." He, & you, have a big problem with this possibility.

I don't! I didn't mind that a wife-beater (Emerson) was the "poster child" for the 2nd in the 5th Circuit. What mattered to me, & what I feel should matter to all here, is that the 2nd was finally 'interpreted' correctly by a Circuit Court. Adding to this, lawyers are SUPPOSED to be guided by the law. Applying it w/o fear or favor to ALL. A principal you clearly have a problem with.

Seeing that it's time for that broken record of mine again, I'll again mention MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA. Does it bother me that a rapist (a sleazeball, a complete waste of a human being, etc.) is the "poster child" for the 5th Amendment? Not even a little bit! What matters to me, & what I feel should matter to all here, is that the 5th was properly 'interpreted' & strengthened.

Should innocent people refuse to use MIRANDA because he was yucky? Ludicrous on its face! Forty years on, people have to be told just who Miranda was, yet the protection that sleazeball was used as a tool to give us remains.

Forty years from now, if HELLER is well & truly locked in, the people who are alive, & FREE because of it won't give a damn if he was a saint or a sinner, just as the people now protected against police beatings now because of Miranda don't give a damn about him. ALL they care about is that they are alive & free. If they give it bit more thought, they'll be happy the Constitution protects them.

Your talk about "unsympathetic defendants" leads me to EMERSON. I completely disagree with you & Gura in your thinking that the defendant is what matters to a judge. The lack of "sympathy" in re Emerson didn't lead the 5th to rule against him, did it? They looked at the issue (the law), ignored the 'who' & concentrated on the 'what' that was before them. Yes, I'm sure their philosophies guided them. But, it was the 'what' that mattered most. Which is why it is so very important for us to move quickly.

Example: Say the biggest Obama supporter in the land gets popped for illegal carrying. That would be a very "sympathetic" defendant to an Obama-anointed judge, wouldn't it? Yet, I've no doubt that the judge will have no qualms about ignoring the Constitution & throwing that "sympathetic" defendant in jail. Just because it will be the principal that the judge will protect. The need then, is to protect THIS principal, get it completely locked in before Obama can anoint judges who think as he does.

There's a tagline here that says something like 'I'd vote for a donkey humper if he was for the 2nd Amendment' (not an exact quote, but I haven't seen the tagline lately & so my apologies in advance to the poster). What I'm urging is much less radical than that. I'm saying that if freeing ONE guy, even a disgusting guy, makes it less likely that WE can wind up in jail, that's a fair bargain (I'll add again that even though Ernesto Miranda won, he still didn't go free). Keeping us free is what matters. Its ALL that matters. To lower our defense against going to jail, to allow the 2nd to be weakened, to allow this country to less than it can be, because we want a good "poster child" for the cause is, IMHO, insanity. Because having a good poster child to look at FROM OUR PRISON CELL is just nuts.

The Raisuli

SOneThreeCoupe
11-22-2008, 9:22 AM
The Raisuli is right.

Freedom doesn't differentiate between bad and good. There is no morality to freedom. It just is, or isn't. We weren't supposed to have degrees of freedom, but the Court decided, less than 12 years after ratification of the Bill of Rights, that it had the power to create degrees of freedom. It had the power to say that freedom used by a person with ill will could be squelched. It had the power to say that denying freedom because of possible consequences of that freedom was acceptable. The SCOTUS is no longer the protector of freedom but the creator of collectivist thought. To them, the good of the country outweighs the good of the individual.

Whatever and whomever it takes to get freedom back is what matters.

You're all so worried about what the populace will think about how we got the Second Amendment restored. Newsflash: it doesn't matter. The Amendments exist to give us protection from exactly that! We were given the Bill of Rights as a safeguard against tyranny of the majority, against ending up where we were in 1776. Now we have interpretationist judges and people who claim the Constitution is outdated and just a "g-d piece of paper."

HowardW56
11-22-2008, 10:24 AM
For speed.

Let me give an example. Cops can't beat 'confessions' out of people anymore. Why? Miranda vs. Arizona is why. Is this less of a good thing because a complete sleezeball (for that was what Ernesto Miranda was) was the tool used to get cops to stop beating suspects? I don't think so. I'm quite happy that cops have this restraint on them & I don't much care how the restraint got there. Protecting that sleezeball increased the protections for us ALL.


The Raisuli

Now if they happen to have used a tazer, they get the needed information immediately...

hoffmang
11-22-2008, 9:56 PM
If you would pay attention, you would see that I'm not in favor of defending "criminals" per se as I am in favor of using the criminal defense route to lock in HELLER, & NORDYKE when (if) that goes our way.

If you would pay attention, you would see that I'm also not in favor of anyone bringing "bad" cases at all. What I am in favor of is using GOOD cases, prepared & presented by GOOD lawyers being presented.


I'm the one not paying attention? Bob Levy said that he was afraid that a criminal would be the poster boy in the Supreme Court and therefor we would lose the Second Amendment FOREVER

Name me the civil right (not criminal procedure) that a criminal case ever strengthened?

Here is a list off the top of my head of civil rights that were won or expanded in court by not using criminals as the vehicle:
Desegregation of public accommodation
Right to vote
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of the Press
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom to March
Desegregation of Schools
Contraception
Privacy
Intimate contact in the home

There are very, very few Federal or even state prosecutions for criminal conduct where the firearms part isn't part of a drug bust, murder or other felonious mayhem. If all you're saying is that we should defend an otherwise law abiding person brought up on a gun charge ('cause those aren't the criminals we're talking about) then that's what the CGF is already doing.

-Gene

hoffmang
11-22-2008, 9:56 PM
The Raisuli is right.

Freedom doesn't differentiate between bad and good.

Freedom isn't a human judge. To be blind to that is to come unarmed to a gunfight.

-Gene

Meplat
11-23-2008, 1:10 PM
Again I ask, if that is the case, why not set up a defendant that is squeaky clean and in circumstances under your control?


I If all you're saying is that we should defend an otherwise law abiding person brought up on a gun charge ('cause those aren't the criminals we're talking about) then that's what the CGF is already doing.

-Gene

RANGER295
11-23-2008, 1:42 PM
Again I ask, if that is the case, why not set up a defendant that is squeaky clean and in circumstances under your control?

Do you want to volunteer? Do you want to take the chance that it will go wrong and that you will go to jail, loose your rights to own firearms for the rest of your life, or best case scenario take a good deal of time away from your life and family while you fight it? I am going to be careful, exercise my rights, fight it if I run into a problem, but I sure as hell am not going to try to set up a stingÖ at least not with me as the bait.

Meplat
11-23-2008, 5:54 PM
With a substantial defense fund in place, a commitment from Trutanich-Micel to see it through, and their advice on exactly how to set it up, yes. I would be the bait.

I'm not stupid. I would not just go out and try to get myself arrested without any preperation.

Do you want to volunteer? Do you want to take the chance that it will go wrong and that you will go to jail, loose your rights to own firearms for the rest of your life, or best case scenario take a good deal of time away from your life and family while you fight it? I am going to be careful, exercise my rights, fight it if I run into a problem, but I sure as hell am not going to try to set up a sting… at least not with me as the bait.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-24-2008, 8:50 AM
I'm the one not paying attention? Bob Levy said that he was afraid that a criminal would be the poster boy in the Supreme Court and therefor we would lose the Second Amendment FOREVER


Well, you're seeing something that isn't there. That's 'not paying attention' IMHO. Bob Levy's words, as quoted by you were:

"We declined the NRA's advice for a number of reasons. First, and most important from our perspective, the Fifth Circuit's 2001 Emerson decision had prompted criminal defense attorneys nationwide to raise Second Amendment defenses to gun charges. We feared that one of those
cases would eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, resulting in an accused murderer or drug dealer becoming the poster child for the Second Amendment."

I'm not seeing anything about 'losing' in that quote. Nothing. Now, if he said that somewhere else, that's different. But then, that 'somewhere else' wasn't quoted by you. True, he also didn't use the word "win" anywhere either. But I've never heard of a poster child being the symbol for a cause that was lost.


Name me the civil right (not criminal procedure) that a criminal case ever strengthened?

Here is a list off the top of my head of civil rights that were won or expanded in court by not using criminals as the vehicle:
Desegregation of public accommodation
Right to vote
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of the Press
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom to March
Desegregation of Schools
Contraception
Privacy
Intimate contact in the home


I mostly follow gun & abortion cases (an odd combo, I know). But didn't "intimate contact in the home" protections come from a criminal case out of TN? Didn't "contraception" protections come out of criminal case in CT? Further, does it matter? Would defense of a "criminal" have failed to work in the matters in your list? Weren't just about all of them criminal matters as well? And, most important, how long were Rights infringed while the civil cases wound their way thru the courts?

In the matter of the 2nd, we here all believe that the lack of 'gun control' saves lives. So, how many people will die while we sit & wait for your 'pure' defendant to be found?


There are very, very few Federal or even state prosecutions for criminal conduct where the firearms part isn't part of a drug bust, murder or other felonious mayhem. If all you're saying is that we should defend an otherwise law abiding person brought up on a gun charge ('cause those aren't the criminals we're talking about) then that's what the CGF is already doing.

-Gene


So, what? Also, & clearly, you aren't paying attention again. I'm not saying we should limit ourselves to otherwise law-abiding people. I'm saying that we should be able to find such, but that if we can't find someone we like, defend him anyway. Ernesto Miranda wasn't a 'pure' defendant, was he? I'll bet his lawyers had to hold their noses pretty strongly to defend that POS. Yet, the principal needed defending & he was the guy available for the purpose of doing so. AND HIS LAWYERS WERE RIGHT TO DO SO! The principal was more important that just the one sleazeball. Cops shouldn't be allowed to beat or taze (very funny, HowardW56) "confessions" from people. Protecting that one sleazeball increased the protections of us all. Even if Ernesto had gone free, it would STILL have been a good thing. Similarly, protecting ONE gang-banger (for example) from an illegal CCW charge would also be a good thing. More so than with the Miranda Right, because if that gang-banger can't be arrested for CCW, then neither can I. Which means that gang-banger returns to a world MUCH better able to resist his depredations than it could before.

Let me see if I can lay out this so even you can understand it:
Lets say a cop spots a guy carrying illegally. Lets call him Ernesto Miranda II (just for fun). The cop stops Ernesto for this. Arrests him for this. While emptying Ernesto's pockets, the cop finds evidence that leads to the dead body of a raped 4 y/o girl in the trunk of Ernesto's car. IE; just about the worst (best?) example of a bad defendant I can think of.

Lets say that this is after NORDYKE goes our way. Lets say that a bright defense attn. challenges the detention because "bearing" is a Constitutional Right. This kind of pre-trial Motion is a perfect example of something that gets heard very quickly; because a defendant sitting in jail awaiting trial gets absolute priority, so that Motion will travel thru the system VERY quickly. Lets say the lawyer wins on this. Under the Exclusionary Rule, everything found as a result of the illegal detention gets thrown out. Lets say this means that our utterly despicable defendant goes free.

Would I be happy about a child rapist/murderer going free? Not even a little bit. Because clearly such a guy should be at the end of a rope, & not walking free. But I could live with Ernesto Miranda II being the poster child for the 2nd. Just as I don't mind that the utterly despicable Ernesto Miranda I is the poster child for the 5th. It is the Right that matters, & NOT how it gets protected. A perfect vehicle to be used for the protection of a Right isn't a reasonable goal to be sought. Protection of a Right is.

But, its a fact that the CGF is NOT defending otherwise law abiding people. I mentioned our bobbarker before. You told me that all you're going to do is plead the matter out & not even try to establish precedent. He's the perfect example of a 'good' defendant with a 'pure' case (nothing about drugs or violence) to boot. Yet instead of running for the finish line, you're going to do nothing.

How about all those guys hassled while transporting guns? Honest people there. They wouldn't be hassled if "bearing" was a protected Right. I'll bet you could find a 'good' defendant & a 'pure' case there. But you won't.

In any event, it isn't important if Walter Whitebread is the tool used to protect the Right or if Ernesto Miranda II is. When Ernesto I won in SCOTUS, ALL convictions based on forced confessions were tossed. That means that many innocent people walked of prison. Similarly, if Walter Whitebread goes free because we defend him successfully, Ernesto Miranda II would walk anyway. Because The Law doesn't distinguish between the two. If the laws against CCW & LOC get struck down, they get struck down for everyone. Ernesto's initial detention would still be illegal & the Exclusionary Rule would still bar the introduction of all that resulted from that detention anyway.

Further, we'd still be ripped in the press. Say we do use Walter Whitebread as the tool to strike down the laws against LOC & CCW. We'll have kept our hands all dainty & clean, yet when Ernesto II goes free as well, the press will (no doubt) report on it something like this:
"Notorious child rapist/murderer Ernesto Miranda II walked out of jail a free man today because the Whitebread Ruling (an action brought by the NRA, the CGF, GOA, etc) meant that none of the proof he was a child rapist/murderer could be admitted into evidence." There would be then be editorials galore going on about how WE freed a child rapist/murderer & how WE are scum for allowing this to happen, etc., etc., etc.

Basically then, there's no practical advantage in defending JUST the pure. If we win, guilty people will go free & we'll be ripped. That's just the way it is. We live in an imperfect world. Its time this be recognized. So, its also time that what can be done to make this a better world should be done AS QUICKLY AS IT CAN BE DONE. If that means defending a sleazeball, then lets all hold our noses & get on with it.

The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
11-24-2008, 8:55 AM
The Raisuli is right.

Freedom doesn't differentiate between bad and good. There is no morality to freedom. It just is, or isn't. We weren't supposed to have degrees of freedom, but the Court decided, less than 12 years after ratification of the Bill of Rights, that it had the power to create degrees of freedom. It had the power to say that freedom used by a person with ill will could be squelched. It had the power to say that denying freedom because of possible consequences of that freedom was acceptable. The SCOTUS is no longer the protector of freedom but the creator of collectivist thought. To them, the good of the country outweighs the good of the individual.

Whatever and whomever it takes to get freedom back is what matters.

You're all so worried about what the populace will think about how we got the Second Amendment restored. Newsflash: it doesn't matter. The Amendments exist to give us protection from exactly that! We were given the Bill of Rights as a safeguard against tyranny of the majority, against ending up where we were in 1776. Now we have interpretationist judges and people who claim the Constitution is outdated and just a "g-d piece of paper."


Thank you!

And, you're right.

The Raisuli

hoffmang
11-24-2008, 11:59 PM
Again I ask, if that is the case, why not set up a defendant that is squeaky clean and in circumstances under your control?

Who do you think the anonymous SF Housing resident was? Plaintiff selection is something that everyone in the coalition does.

-Gene

hoffmang
11-25-2008, 12:08 AM
It boggles my mind that you can't catch the context of Bob Levy's thoughts on not using criminals as the vehicle to expand individual liberties. Since you can't catch that I'll quote him from an interview in Mother Jones:

MJ: Regarding the Parker case, the six plaintiffs were carefully chosen. Can you discuss your selection process?

RL: We wanted gender, racial, economic, and age diversity. We weren’t looking for criminals. We didn’t want a crack head coming into the court as a poster boy for the Second Amendment. Most importantly, we wanted compelling cases. Cite (http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2007/02/robert_levy-2.html) - emphasis added by me.

Miranda was a criminal procedures case - not an individual rights case.

You are correct that the intimate relations right was "criminal" but it was not criminal in the way you mean it. Their only charge was of violating the law in question barring sodomy in the home. They certainly weren't drug dealers, crackheads, or murderers. None of the major pro-2A groups has a problem coming to the aid/defense of someone whose only criminal charge is a true firearms violation. That's pretty much half to 2/3 of what the CGF is doing. However for example, most CCW cases are convicted on the gun charge because proving the Meth wasn't as quick and easy. That's not a case that NRA/CGF/SAF/everyone else who is serious should or would defend.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
11-25-2008, 7:44 AM
It boggles my mind that you can't catch the context of Bob Levy's thoughts on not using criminals as the vehicle to expand individual liberties. Since you can't catch that I'll quote him from an interview in Mother Jones:
Cite (http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2007/02/robert_levy-2.html) - emphasis added by me.


That you still aren't following me boggles my mind. Yes, I see that Levy didn't want a criminal to be the poster child for the 2nd. I'm still not seeing anything (not even in the link) that proves your claim that using a 'criminal' would have lead to us losing the case. It looks to me as if Levy has the same 'fear' you have; that a win would give us a "criminal" as the poster child for the Right. And just as having Ernesto Miranda as the poster child for the 5th. doesn't bother me, having a criminal as the poster child for the 2nd. wouldn't bother me either. PROTECTING THE RIGHT is what's important. At least, that's what should be important.



Miranda was a criminal procedures case - not an individual rights case.


My individual rights were enhanced by MIRANDA. Whether it rates as a "procedures" case or not is then, irrelevant.



You are correct that the intimate relations right was "criminal" but it was not criminal in the way you mean it. Their only charge was of violating the law in question barring sodomy in the home. They certainly weren't drug dealers, crackheads, or murderers. None of the major pro-2A groups has a problem coming to the aid/defense of someone whose only criminal charge is a true firearms violation. That's pretty much half to 2/3 of what the CGF is doing. However for example, most CCW cases are convicted on the gun charge because proving the Meth wasn't as quick and easy. That's not a case that NRA/CGF/SAF/everyone else who is serious should or would defend.

-Gene


And again you're going on about the quality (the purity) of the defendant. I already know that the NRA/CGF/SAF/everyone else won't defend the "impure." My point, my disagreement with you & them, is that we should. For the reasons I keep saying that we should. You don't seem to be able to follow that, but that's just you.

Further, how could my reference to the "intimate relations" right NOT be as I meant it???
In any event, it's a perfect example of what I'm going for. What you're having such a problem with following, so I'll use it.
An activity is outlawed. To the point that people can go to jail for it. That guy's lawyers found a pure defendant (a guy charged with just that & nothing else) to strike down the law prohibiting it. The comparison to our concern is obvious. Carrying is outlawed. People can go to jail for this. You're looking for a pure defendant (someone charged with just that & nothing else) to defend.
The first problem is that you aren't looking for such. I've given examples of people who would fit the description you give here & you told me that you're not going to defend them. In addition, when I mentioned finding someone charged with illegal LOC or CCW & defending that person, you poo-poo'd the idea. NOT on the basis that they might have 'other' charges against them, but simply & only because you thought it bad idea to defend 'criminals.'
The second problem is that one I started with; it takes time to find a perfectly pure defendant. The lawyers in TN had to wait a long while to find theirs. Meanwhile, people were going to jail, being harassed, etc. while things were on hold. In the TN case, that wasn't as a big a problem as the one we face. In re the 2nd., people die every day while the waiting goes on. In addition, every month of delay after 20 January gives our new masters time to pack the Federal Courts with people hostile to the Right. And you're OK with waiting years to present a perfect case???
One more thing; Once (if) NORDYKE goes our way, challenges to the law WILL be filed. By defense lawyers who are not us. People who do NOT hold our beliefs. People who's job it is to zealously defend their clients. Public defenders, in other words. That their clients are scum isn't their concern. If a challenge to the laws against CCW and/or LOC gets a client off on a murder charge (say, like the scenario I laid out in my last post), they will file that challenge. Since they don't hold our beliefs, they might not do a good job of it. You would sit there & think that this is a good thing, because a murderer stays in jail. You will have kept our hands dainty & clean. But, if keeping that ONE murderer inside results in us losing the Right, I would think that a bad thing. So, who do think is best for defending the Right; a "good" lawyer (one of us), or a "bad" lawyer (an underpaid public defender)? Given the reality that SOMEONE is going to file the challenge, I'd much rather it be one of us.
You wouldn't. You'd rather lose the Right. Looking good means more to you than winning. More than the 2nd. I just disagree.

The Raisuli