PDA

View Full Version : A Glimpse at the Upcoming Gun Ban Agenda


CDMichel
11-04-2009, 12:50 PM
A GLIMPSE AT THE GUN BAN AGENDA:
Ban More People From Owning Guns,
Ban Gun Shows on Private Property, and More

The California Legal Action Project (LAP) has obtained a copy of a solicitation by the Legal Community Against Violence (“LCAV”) to attorneys and law students seeking their pro bono assistance in advancing LCAV’s crusade to expand gun bans. This and related documents are posted at www.calgunlaws.com. LCAV has been actively drafting model ordinances and pushing the gun control agenda in California for many years, and in recent years has expanded its efforts nationally. LCAV works with and often provides legal advice to all the major players in the gun control movement.

LAP is a joint venture between the Nation Rifle Association (NRA) and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, and educate state and local officials about the programs at their disposal that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

The LCAV document provides a partial wish-list of gun ban groups’ agenda for new firearm laws. For example, LCAV seeks a free lawyer to come up with a legal argument that local governments can ban categories of persons from possessing firearms beyond state and federal prohibited classes. That way LCAV can encourage local governments to adopt much more strict prohibitions on those who may own guns. If cities were allowed to do this, practically any “category” of person could be prohibited from owning a gun. For now the proposal includes persons with misdemeanor or lesser offenses for merely carrying a concealed weapon or possessing a so-called “assault weapon.” But why would they stop there?

Also alarming is LCAV’s desire to develop a legal argument that local governments can ban gun shows on city/county-owned property if there is no history of gun shows on that property, and that a city or county can completely ban, or at least drastically hyper-regulate, all guns shows even on private property.

Besides displaying some of the specific projects LCAV is pursuing, this document also gives insight as to how LCAV advances the gun ban agenda with the help of pro bono assistance from big firm lawyers. Anti-gun owner politicians and groups like LCAV often tap into California’s “progressive-minded” law firms for free legal advice and services that work to the detriment of gun owners and businesses alike. In California many of the urban law firms are deeply entrenched in “progressive” democratic politics, and its companion “ban guns and criminalize gun owners” philosophy. These law firms collectively provide millions of dollars of free legal work to promote the anti-gun owner legislation in Sacramento and locally, to develop model legislation that can be exported throughout the country, and to get anti-gun owner politicians elected.

Business owners should be vigilant as to whether their legal services dollars are being used to subsidize LCAV’s efforts through their law firms’ pro bono assistance to LCAV. Choose your lawyers carefully!

# www.calgunlaws.com #

Super Spy
11-04-2009, 1:06 PM
Thanks for the update! Let us know if you know of any particular firms that are helping the anti's so we can spread the word.....

kf6tac
11-04-2009, 1:34 PM
Thanks for the update! Let us know if you know of any particular firms that are helping the anti's so we can spread the word.....

Agreed. I'm particularly interested to see if my firm is at all involved...

Untamed1972
11-04-2009, 1:43 PM
Interesting stuff......although it a little disheartening at times when you think about exponential rate at which new laws can be passed and on so many different levels and the time it takes to fight each one of them. Strike one down and 4 more take it's place.

jdberger
11-04-2009, 1:49 PM
Bingham McCutchen LLP

Two of its lawyers are on the Board of LCAV.

Bill Kissinger
George Hisert

Legal Community Against Violence Honors Bingham

By Allison Morgan

On July 15, Bingham was honored for our support of the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) at the organization’s 16th anniversary dinner in San Francisco.


LCAV is a public interest law center dedicated to preventing gun violence. Founded in 1993 by lawyers, it is the only organization in the U.S. devoted exclusively to providing legal assistance in support of gun violence prevention.


Over the past 16 years, Bingham has provided thousands of pro bono hours to LCAV. In addition, San Francisco partner Bill Kissinger and of counsel George Hisert serve on its board.


“LCAV was formed a few weeks after a deranged gunman walked into a high-rise office building at 101 California Street in downtown San Francisco, armed with two semi-automatic weapons and large capacity ammunition clips, and proceeded to kill or wound more than a dozen people,” said Bill, who accepted the award for Bingham. “The legacy McCutchen firm was one of the first firms to join LCAV and contribute not only money, but also pro bono legal services.”


Years earlier, Bill had worked as a paralegal at Pettit & Martin, the law firm where the gunman began his rampage. In the aftermath of the shooting, he recalled wondering aloud to one of his former colleagues whether it might be possible for anything good to come out the tragedy.


“Our partnership with LCAV has been one of the good things,” said Bill. “Over the years we have partnered with LCAV on numerous matters, beginning with a suit against the maker of the assault-style weapon used in the 101 California shootings that resulted in legislation stripping the industry of the state-law immunity it had previously.”



Today, Bingham continues to counsel the city of Oakland on its ordinance banning ultra-compact weapons.


“Hopefully these efforts will continue to save lives,” said Bill.

kf6tac
11-04-2009, 1:56 PM
Bingham McCutchen LLP

Two of its lawyers are on the Board of LCAV.

Bill Kissinger
George Hisert

Well, I'm glad they didn't offer me a job when I interviewed with them a few years back then ;)

EDIT: http://www.lcav.org/get_involved/anniversary2009.asp There's a list of 2009 sponsors on there; many of the firm names are familiar to me, but fortunately mine is not one of them.

jdberger
11-04-2009, 2:17 PM
Yup - it's pretty much a Who's Who of big law.

bulgron
11-04-2009, 2:25 PM
For example, LCAV seeks a free lawyer to come up with a legal argument that local governments can ban categories of persons from possessing firearms beyond state and federal prohibited classes. That way LCAV can encourage local governments to adopt much more strict prohibitions on those who may own guns.


It seems like in California, anyway, there would be state preemption problems with this.

Beyond state preemption, the standard of scrutiny placed on gun control laws by SCOTUS will probably gate how successful this kind of thing can be.


Also alarming is LCAV’s desire to develop a legal argument that local governments can ban gun shows on city/county-owned property if there is no history of gun shows on that property, and that a city or county can completely ban, or at least drastically hyper-regulate, all guns shows even on private property.

Too bad we lost the main argument in Nordyke. But I guess there's always a chance that'll be appealed now that the 9th went en banc on that case.

What does it mean to 'hyper-regulate gun shows'? In particular, gun shows on private property?

7x57
11-04-2009, 2:56 PM
In the "glass half full" department, notice the long, long shadow of Heller and related legislation. Those are not frontal attacks on guns, but attempts to find ways to outflank an Incorporated Individual Right to Arms.

Quite dangerous, but an acknowledgement of our strength. So very, very different than the situation throughout most of my lifetime. :thumbsup:

ETA: and thanks to Chuck for the heads-up, and for being one of the people that forces them to look for less direct attacks in the first place.

ETA2: as a note on how dangerous that sort of thing can be, nuclear reactors are legal, but so far as I know there have been no new ones licensed since the 70's. The reason is that a regulatory nightmare was created, ostensibly for "safety" but in reality in a systematic plan to regulate them out of existence. Same situation--they didn't have the strength to ban them, so they decided on the indirect strategy of burying them in red tape, safety study after impact statement, liability, and regulation. It worked. It's too expensive to build a new one for reasons that have nothing to do with engineering. So indirect doesn't mean weak. The reward for surviving the direct pushes for outright bans is that we live to fight again and again elsewhere.

7x57

IGOTDIRT4U
11-04-2009, 3:02 PM
Yup - it's pretty much a Who's Who of big law.

Seyforth Shaw LLP?!? WTF?!?

I can understand Gibson, Dunn, but Seyforth?

wash
11-04-2009, 3:03 PM
Too bad we lost the main argument in Nordyke. But I guess there's always a chance that'll be appealed now that the 9th went en banc on that case.
Don Kilmer and Mrs. Nordyke said that they would appeal to SCOTUS if they don't win their case in the en-banc. Nordyke might be the vehicle for SCOTUS to tell everyone what a "sensitive place" is.

7x57
11-04-2009, 3:05 PM
Don Kilmer and Mrs. Nordyke said that they would appeal to SCOTUS if they don't win their case in the en-banc. Nordyke might be the vehicle for SCOTUS to tell everyone what a "sensitive place" is.

I didn't hear that. If they said that, it means maybe the time and case are right to attempt to foreclose the attempt to make everything except my bedroom, and maybe that too, a "sensitive place." :party:

7x57

anthonyca
11-04-2009, 3:20 PM
Pg&e a benicactor? So everytime I turn on the lights I am iding his movement?

wash
11-04-2009, 3:29 PM
I didn't hear that. If they said that, it means maybe the time and case are right to attempt to foreclose the attempt to make everything except my bedroom, and maybe that too, a "sensitive place." :party:

7x57

Someone asked about an appeal in the restaurant after everyone sat down for the meal.

I don't think they had thought about it much, they looked at each other and then said yes.

It might make sense to go forward if they have some incorporation and scrutiny standards to try out and the next step is SCOTUS so it's on a pretty fast track if SCOTUS wants it.

7x57
11-04-2009, 3:53 PM
It might make sense to go forward if they have some incorporation and scrutiny standards to try out and the next step is SCOTUS so it's on a pretty fast track if SCOTUS wants it.

Definitely a fast track, if everything else is in place.

It would surely be nice to put a sock in "sensitive places" so we can get on to other vital issues (which, for gun banners, is apparently such burning issues as whether a parking ticket makes you a dangerous nut without civil rights).

7x57

bulgron
11-04-2009, 4:17 PM
Definitely a fast track, if everything else is in place.

It would surely be nice to put a sock in "sensitive places" so we can get on to other vital issues (which, for gun banners, is apparently such burning issues as whether a parking ticket makes you a dangerous nut without civil rights).

7x57

It's more than just sensitive places. Apparently there's some twisted thinking in gun banner land that says you might have the right to own a gun, but you don't have a right to actually be able to buy one. :rolleyes:

A Nordyke appeal would hopefully put that strained line of thinking down before it can become some kind of a legal hernia.

bwiese
11-04-2009, 4:23 PM
It's more than just sensitive places. Apparently there's some twisted thinking in gun banner land that says you might have the right to own a gun, but you don't have a right to actually be able to buy one. :rolleyes:

Except in the parking lot outside the (defunct) Alameda show.
Honest.
Sayre Weaver says so!

Ford8N
11-04-2009, 4:25 PM
Pg&e a benicactor? So everytime I turn on the lights I am iding his movement?

I saw that too. I know a bunch of linemen who I can now razz that the Company is trying to take away their guns. And they have ALL types of guns.:43:

7x57
11-04-2009, 4:45 PM
Except in the parking lot outside the (defunct) Alameda show.
Honest.
Sayre Weaver says so!

I remember that. If Sayre says so, that's good enough for me.

Actually, the one I remember the most is the lawyer in the first hearing, and the laugh that went through the observers when he suggested that we could still have a gun show, because we could just commit crime out in the parking lot.

Which, in a way, simply shows what they think of us. I mean, we're scofflaws anyway, so presumably we would be happy to do illegal transfers in the parking lot.

So they could catch us, obviously. :TFH:

7x57

command_liner
11-04-2009, 6:39 PM
Wash et 7x57, lets get the rest of the table involved.

I did hear Mrs. N. say she would continue the pursuit if required.

Also, Sayre, if that was her name, told all of us the only reason metal
detectors were at the fairground entrance was to prohibit illegal concealed
carry. Open carry on the fairground was OK.

Has anybody had the chance to test that out? Can we get Jerry Brown
to show up as a stoned hippie with a 45LC 6 gun in a holster and have him
walk around in the parking lot?

wash
11-05-2009, 6:47 AM
I definitely want to organize or participate in an Alameda County Fairgrounds UOC event once we've got incorporation and the right people say it won't have any negative consequences.

With their blessing I think we could get hundreds of people to show up.

Half will have to come unarmed (to document LEO interactions) but we can lend our guns to each other if the borrower has an HSC. Everyone can carry.

I don't think this will happen before incorporation but it will happen some day.

7x57
11-05-2009, 8:17 AM
we can lend our guns to each other if the borrower has an HSC. Everyone can carry.


You'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead...oh, wait. :D

7x57

nick
11-05-2009, 9:02 AM
I didn't hear that. If they said that, it means maybe the time and case are right to attempt to foreclose the attempt to make everything except my bedroom, and maybe that too, a "sensitive place." :party:

7x57

That'd be a sensitive place by virtue of people not wanting to know what goes on there :p

nick
11-05-2009, 9:02 AM
You'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead...oh, wait. :D

7x57

I don't think the anti crowd has a problem with that part. In fact, they might just prefer it. Especially if it's administered by another gunnie :p

HUTCH 7.62
11-05-2009, 9:04 AM
I don't understand this state.'lets legalize Drugs and Gay marriage, but ban firearms'. I don't get it.

Hopi
11-05-2009, 9:13 AM
I don't understand this state.'lets legalize Drugs and Gay marriage, but ban firearms'. I don't get it.

FWIW, choosing to support 2 out of 3 civil rights is better than choosing to support 1 out of 3.

wash
11-05-2009, 9:20 AM
That's a bad argument because marriage isn't really a civil right.

It's all about taxes, benefits and divorce.

I could go out and marry an albino midget to a gopher snake and they could lead a long and happy life together, just like any homosexual couple could do, it's just not recognized by the state.

Hopi
11-05-2009, 9:22 AM
That's a bad argument because marriage isn't really a civil right.

It's all about taxes, benefits and divorce.

I could go out and marry an albino midget to a gopher snake and they could lead a long and happy life together, just like any homosexual couple could do, it's just not recognized by the state.

That's weird.....the marriage between a black person and white person was decided as a civil right by SCOTUS.....the only question the anti-civil rights faction brings up is 'who does and does not get to enjoy civil rights'....

dantodd
11-05-2009, 9:25 AM
FWIW, choosing to support 2 out of 3 civil rights is better than choosing to support 1 out of 3.

In all fairness only one of the 3 examples is an enumerated constitutional right.

HUTCH 7.62
11-05-2009, 9:26 AM
How is being a crackhead a civil right. I can't find it in the constitution.

Untamed1972
11-05-2009, 9:28 AM
That's weird.....the marriage between a black person and white person was decided as a civil right by SCOTUS.....the only question the anti-civil rights faction brings up is 'who does and does not get to enjoy civil rights'....


I think that is more of an "equal protection" decision then marriage in and of itself being an enumerated right.

Basically saying that if a state is going to offer a license for something, then it must be equally available to all.......hmmmm.......kinda like "may issue" vs. "shall issue" CCW.

Hopi
11-05-2009, 9:28 AM
In all fairness only one of the 3 examples is an enumerated constitutional right.

That's a dangerous line to walk.

wash
11-05-2009, 9:33 AM
Is it a civil right for married couples to get a tax benefit?

Is it a civil right for married couples to share social security benefits?

Is it a civil right for divorcing couples to have our court system settle their disputes?

Fix those three things and I'll support legally recognized albino midget-gopher snake marriages.

And for the record, I voted against prop 8.

I just don't think it's proper to compare gay marriage with RKBA. It's not even close.

Drug prohibitions are much closer.

Hopi
11-05-2009, 9:34 AM
Who is being a crackhead a civil right. I can't find it in the constitution.

The folks that wrote that doc would laugh at the implication that it is an exhaustive list....

dantodd
11-05-2009, 9:42 AM
That's a dangerous line to walk.

No it is not. Nowhere did I say unenumerated rights are not worth protecting. THAT would be a dangerous line to walk. Now, let's all step away from the keyboards and not drive this great thread any further from its intent.

Hopi
11-05-2009, 10:01 AM
No it is not. Nowhere did I say unenumerated rights are not worth protecting. THAT would be a dangerous line to walk. Now, let's all step away from the keyboards and not drive this great thread any further from its intent.

You're right. My comment was w/r/t using the 'enumerated' angle as a way to rationalize an assault on unenumerated rights.



/threadjack

nicki
11-05-2009, 10:56 AM
When the government tells you what you can and can't put into your body, they are exercising ownership over your body.

If we get government health care, what is to stop the government from penalizing you due to your lifestyle under the name of healthcare.

If you are too fat for instance, the government could send you to a fat farm for mandatory weight reduction for your own good.

Marriage used to be a blessing from God performed by churches to unite a Man and Woman in holy matrimony. When racist religious leaders and politicians brought made it a function of the state by licensing it and then attaching privileges and benefits to that license, they took marriage away from God and gave it to the state.

The real issue isn't gay marriage, the real issue is that God has bee replaced.
If Gays don't have equal rights, none of us do.

Not all rights have to be spelled out, that is why we have the 9th amendment. Of course that hasn't been incorporated yet, but could be soon.

Wonder if we could hit the LCAV with RICO actions once we get incorporation?

Nicki

HUTCH 7.62
11-05-2009, 11:21 AM
Wonder if we could hit the LCAV with RICO actions once we get incorporation?

Nicki

Or they'll RICO us.

7x57
11-05-2009, 11:47 AM
That'd be a sensitive place by virtue of people not wanting to know what goes on there :p

I was just *waiting* for this thread to go there, and sure enough Nick took the setup....

Now waiting until it veers into a lurid discussion of "sensitive places".... :popcorn:

7x57

7x57
11-05-2009, 11:51 AM
How is being a crackhead a civil right. I can't find it in the constitution.

There is a richer field of entities than than simply rights and non-rights. Some things are not Rights, simply things the government was never delegated the power to control. The logic of the Constitution is that some things are inherently wrong for the government to control, others we deny simply as part of a general program of keeping the government weak enough to be our servant instead of our master.

While one can argue whether or not personal liberty implies a right to be a crackhead, there is a good argument that the answer doesn't matter because the feds simply don't have any delegated authority in that area.

7x57

aklon
11-05-2009, 12:02 PM
John Heisse is one of the managing directors of LCAV. I worked for a while in the same law firm he did. One day Heisse found out I was in NRA and that was it for me: contract cancelled, picture posted at guard shack with orders to arrest me on sight, bad mouthed to potential references ... the whole treatment you can expect when up against the practitioners of "punitive liberalism."

The best part was once I was ready to move against the firm, they went out of business forever.

John is a good example of the kind of mentality we're up against: when it comes to guns, the man is completely unhinged and has the cold glint of the irrational fanatic in his eyes.

RedStripes
11-05-2009, 12:03 PM
The American people will always have the Second Amendment and the arms to enforce it. I do not see why the anti gunners even try, how hypocritical is it for the Government to use arms to deprive us of our right to bear them, all the while claiming we are being disarmed for our safety. That is not America the way it was intended to be.

HUTCH 7.62
11-05-2009, 2:13 PM
But the CA. Govt will legalize drugs so that you won't care about RKBA anymore you'll be too high to even care anymore

wash
11-05-2009, 2:24 PM
I'm pretty sure that those two demographics don't overlap all that much.

bubbapug1
11-05-2009, 8:37 PM
Mexico has a gun ban...and it works for the criminals.

Guns will always be available....

HUTCH 7.62
11-05-2009, 8:39 PM
Mexico has a gun ban...and it works for the criminals.

Guns will always be available....

+911 time 1000

POLICESTATE
11-05-2009, 8:47 PM
The American people will always have the Second Amendment and the arms to enforce it. I do not see why the anti gunners even try, how hypocritical is it for the Government to use arms to deprive us of our right to bear them, all the while claiming we are being disarmed for our safety. That is not America the way it was intended to be.

Who says it's going to be "America" if it happens anyway. Think about it, if we lost 2A for whatever reason, for the sake of argument, you can be sure that the rest of the amendments would soon follow. We would be the USA in name only. Or maybe the gun-grabbing, left-wing extremists finally get a constitutional convention, just rewrite everything, may not be America in name either.

Or it could simply be nullified with a new amendment, similar to the 21st amendment which reads:
"Text

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
"

HUTCH 7.62
11-05-2009, 8:58 PM
John Heisse is one of the managing directors of LCAV. I worked for a while in the same law firm he did. One day Heisse found out I was in NRA and that was it for me: contract cancelled, picture posted at guard shack with orders to arrest me on sight, bad mouthed to potential references ... the whole treatment you can expect when up against the practitioners of "punitive liberalism."

The best part was once I was ready to move against the firm, they went out of business forever.

John is a good example of the kind of mentality we're up against: when it comes to guns, the man is completely unhinged and has the cold glint of the irrational fanatic in his eyes.

Thats a crazy story. What a P.O.S. John Heisse is.