PDA

View Full Version : CCW lawsuit filed against L.A. County Pro Per


Pages : [1] 2

CitaDeL
11-02-2010, 5:19 PM
Apologies if this has been posted before- Mods feel free to delete if duplicate... found it on OpenCarry.org here (http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?82676-LA-county-CCW-lawsuit-filed).

http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/filed047.pdf

wildhawker
11-02-2010, 5:25 PM
I cannot stress enough that gun owners have been, and continue to be, the biggest threat to gun rights.

N6ATF
11-02-2010, 5:40 PM
Crikey, fix those checkboxes and typos...

http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy55/sistermol2/epic-facepalm.jpg

HK4113
11-02-2010, 5:43 PM
So what does this mean for the rest of us in LA? Is this guy going to screw it up for the rest of us because he couldn't wait patiently for his turn in line.

Fjold
11-02-2010, 5:44 PM
3. Plaintiff is an attorney licensed to practice law in California and Nevada ....

I thought that attorneys knew better

CTallerico
11-02-2010, 5:48 PM
I cannot stress enough that gun owners have been, and continue to be, the biggest threat to gun rights.


Looks like a well submitted complaint to me.....Be interesting to see what the outcome is.

blakdawg
11-02-2010, 5:51 PM
I cannot stress enough that gun owners have been, and continue to be, the biggest threat to gun rights.

While there's no disputing that people file some stupid lawsuits, it's also worth remembering that the NRA fought as hard as it could (even going so far as to support legislation intended to make the issues in Heller moot) to prevent Heller from ever reaching the Supreme Court, saying that they were the expert in 2A legal issues, and that inexperienced idiots like Alan Gura could only screw things up and make things much worse for everyone . . .

N6ATF
11-02-2010, 5:51 PM
Looks like a well submitted complaint to me.....Be interesting to see what the outcome is.

Apparently you've never worked as a copy editor...

CTallerico
11-02-2010, 5:54 PM
Apparently you've never worked as a copy editor...

I saw the typo's....Big deal. I'm tired of the dot gov and their BS and am happy to see them having to defend themselves in court.

Flame on....

Rossi357
11-02-2010, 5:55 PM
Here is the site where he started it.

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/announcements/17265-lapd-lasd-lawsuit.html

HowardW56
11-02-2010, 6:06 PM
Thankfully, he hasn't filed it.

I don't care if he is an attorney, he needs to leave those battles to the guys that have done it before, and well...

bwiese
11-02-2010, 6:06 PM
While there's no disputing that people file some stupid lawsuits, it's also worth remembering that the NRA fought as hard as it could (even going so far as to support legislation intended to make the issues in Heller moot) to prevent Heller from ever reaching the Supreme Court, saying that they were the expert in 2A legal issues, and that inexperienced idiots like Alan Gura could only screw things up and make things much worse for everyone . . .

That is actually the fairly rare exception.

98% of the time, we end up with Silviera, or People v. James by public defenders or traffic ticket lawyers.

nicki
11-02-2010, 6:16 PM
Brief is fairly straight forward, if this lawyer will proceed I hope he is paying attention to what is happening in San Diego.

As long as he keeps his case at the district level, we can avoid bad case law.

If he plays his cards right he may be able to hit the LAPD with damages since I believe they are already under a stipulated court agreement.

I am curious as to what the cause of action under tbe 8th amendment is, perhaps he meant oth amendment.

Nicki

dantodd
11-02-2010, 6:17 PM
Perhaps he should work with Gorski.

It appears his demand is merely his own personal CCW. I suspect he'll get what he wants and go away.

Shiboleth
11-02-2010, 6:20 PM
What does it say for his case that he is suing prior to receiving a decision on the LAPD appeal, and didn't bother to file an appeal for LASO?

tango-52
11-02-2010, 6:47 PM
It is my understanding that he is already in touch with Chuck Michel on this.

obeygiant
11-02-2010, 7:36 PM
What does it say for his case that he is suing prior to receiving a decision on the LAPD appeal, and didn't bother to file an appeal for LASO?

cart before the horse?

N6ATF
11-02-2010, 8:07 PM
It is my understanding that he is already in touch with Chuck Michel on this.

Phew

wildhawker
11-02-2010, 8:28 PM
While there's no disputing that people file some stupid lawsuits, it's also worth remembering that the NRA fought as hard as it could (even going so far as to support legislation intended to make the issues in Heller moot) to prevent Heller from ever reaching the Supreme Court, saying that they were the expert in 2A legal issues, and that inexperienced idiots like Alan Gura could only screw things up and make things much worse for everyone . . .

Thankfully, our team is made up of (brilliant) "idiots" like attorney Gura (2 SCOTUS wins in 2 years), who recently had this to say about people and organizations who unwisely approach litigation:

52_27JeI9YY

Remember, also, that NRA was a primarily legislature-based grassroots organization [until recently, with some limited exceptions]. Real civil rights litigation has never been NRA's forte. Conversely, Mr. Gura, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. Davis and the SAF/CGF team have a focus in civil rights litigation and criminal defense support. Note that the only 2 attorneys to *ever* incorporate 2A are listed in my previous sentence.

My original comment stands.

The plaintiff made a decision to file suit - to which he is entitled under our system of government, and for that liberty I am thankful; however, this plaintiff is obviously uninterested in anything other than himself. It's amusing that he would start a case of immense significance only to offer it up to be taken over by the "gold standard attorneys" (his words) - the same attorneys telling him to "wait" - while concurrently claiming that he is "tired of waiting". God help us if similar logic prevails in his argumentation.

I say this over and over again: there is a tremendous difference between staying "busy" and being "productive".

ETA: Here's some comments from the plaintiff:

Each time I have heard this I have asked for a case site, but it hasnt been provided. I have reached out to all of the "gold standard" attorneys and invited them to participate. Chuck Michel has shown an interest and hopefully I will know this week if he will take over the case. If not, I assure you, they are in for a a fight, but either way, I welcome their input, and to date the only advice I have ignored is "wait". I am tired of waiting while LA ignores our rights.
Thank you to all who are supportive, and even those who aren't but have provided thoughtful comment or information.
Once the case is assigned a case number I will post the PACER link so you can follow along. I will also post updates of key developments on my site if you are interested in following along or joining in.

hoffmang
11-02-2010, 8:32 PM
This is a really bad idea by the wrong plaintiff.

Let's take a look at his bar standing (http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=183908).


November 5, 2009

JONATHAN WESLEY BIRDT [#183908], 39, of Pasadena was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on two years of probation with a 30-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Nov. 5, 2009.

Birdt represented a company that had been sued for “wage and hour” violations by nine employees. He met with the company’s former operations manager and asked him to speak with the class representatives. Because they were represented by counsel, Birdt was precluded from speaking with them directly. He told the former manager the company would pay him about $8,000 if he would approach the defendants, convince them to settle their claims and sign a release form prepared by Birdt.

The ex-manager spoke with five of the nine plaintiffs and convinced four to settle.

Birdt stipulated that he indirectly communicated with a party represented by counsel without the other lawyer’s consent.

When opposing counsel tried to have him prohibited from further conversations with the plaintiffs, Birdt falsely told the court under penalty of perjury that his client, the employer, directly negotiated the settlements with the four plaintiffs without his involvement. He stipulated that his actions involved moral turpitude.

In mitigation, Birdt cooperated with the bar’s investigation.

I guess we can hope that LA clarifies he was denied for bad moral character...

-Gene

hill billy
11-02-2010, 8:47 PM
Wonderful

Python2
11-02-2010, 8:50 PM
This is a really bad idea by the wrong plaintiff.

Let's take a look at his bar standing (http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=183908).



I guess we can hope that LA clarifies he was denied for bad moral character...

-Gene

Yay! sounds like bad moral character indeed.

jonbirdt
11-03-2010, 5:55 AM
I cant be denied for bad moral charachter. The State Supreme Court and The Federal District Court have already found that I am of good moral charachter such that I am entitled to practice law and remain and officer of the court despite agreeing to a settlement of a BS claim.

I guess the moral of the story here is that everyone who isnt Chuck Michel or Alan Gura isnt qualified to enforce our constitutional rights? (i.e. the NRA or an accomplished attorney willing to donate his time to end corrupt practices in LA county when others won't?)

I don't see how this lawsuit does anything but help. by the time the case is ready for an MSJ the Peruta decision will have come down and will either help us all and be immediately adopted in the Central District, or Peruta will be a loss and we all lose.

HowardW56
11-03-2010, 7:07 AM
I cant be denied for bad moral charachter. The State Supreme Court and The Federal District Court have already found that I am of good moral charachter such that I am entitled to practice law and remain and officer of the court despite agreeing to a settlement of a BS claim.

I guess the moral of the story here is that everyone who isnt Chuck Michel or Alan Gura isnt qualified to enforce our constitutional rights? (i.e. the NRA or an accomplished attorney willing to donate his time to end corrupt practices in LA county when others won't?)

I don't see how this lawsuit does anything but help. by the time the case is ready for an MSJ the Peruta decision will have come down and will either help us all and be immediately adopted in the Central District, or Peruta will be a loss and we all lose.


SO what is there to be gained by filing it? Wait for a couple decisions and you will have precedent to use in argument... You may even get an Ninth Circuit opinion or two...

Python2
11-03-2010, 7:20 AM
I guess the moral of the story here is that everyone who isnt Chuck Michel or Alan Gura isnt qualified to enforce our constitutional rights? .

Not really, we do know once you are licensed by the State to practice certain profession, you are deemed qualified to practice that prefession, but within that profession you specialize on something and that is what I think the folks here are saying.

But I do sincerely hope you prevail.

Wherryj
11-03-2010, 7:44 AM
While there's no disputing that people file some stupid lawsuits, it's also worth remembering that the NRA fought as hard as it could (even going so far as to support legislation intended to make the issues in Heller moot) to prevent Heller from ever reaching the Supreme Court, saying that they were the expert in 2A legal issues, and that inexperienced idiots like Alan Gura could only screw things up and make things much worse for everyone . . .

Even the best professional is an unknown, rank amature at some point.

ohsmily
11-03-2010, 7:53 AM
I don't see how this lawsuit does anything but help. by the time the case is ready for an MSJ the Peruta decision will have come down and will either help us all and be immediately adopted in the Central District, or Peruta will be a loss and we all lose.

So what you are saying is that you filed this for your own personal gain and not the gain of California gun owners as a group and acknowledge that your suit depends on the lawyers without disciplinary records and who know the difference between "site" and "cite." Basically, your suit can't help anyone but yourself (maybe). Got it.

jonbirdt
11-03-2010, 7:58 AM
The suit was filed to do exactly that, ride the precedent wave. The motion for summary judgment will be filed the same day the Peruta decision is handed down. If there is a better LA county Plaintiff willing to step up, I will dismiss and pay their filing fee.

N6ATF
11-03-2010, 7:59 AM
I guess the moral of the story here is that everyone who isnt Chuck Michel or Alan Gura isnt qualified to enforce our constitutional rights?

The moral of the story is pay a proofreader if you aren't qualified to earn an A in an English class.

OleCuss
11-03-2010, 8:00 AM
Mr. Birdt:

I wish you well, but so far as I can tell, you should be thinking of this in military terms.

You really need some battlefield preparation. There is an ongoing war and there is an attack on the enemies flank while you are trying a frontal assault that looks more like a suicide mission. It would make more sense to let the allied forces roll up the flanks and then, when the enemy of freedom is finding his flanks are crumbling - strike from your position.

Personally, I do not think you should be denied your CCW. What's more, I don't think Gene and the others think you should be denied either (although I clearly cannot speak for them).

What I see is that you are not the ideal plaintiff and that you are likely to have an unfriendly court. So your odds of success are not all that great and the potential for harm to the broader cause is significant.

So I wish you well but I also wish you'd wait until a tactically (if not strategically) more opportune moment to press your attack.

Edit: There was some cross-posting. I note that you are paying some attention to precedent and what is going on elsewhere. That is a good sign although I still think it'd be better to delay.

OleCuss
11-03-2010, 8:01 AM
The suit was filed to do exactly that, ride the precedent wave. The motion for summary judgment will be filed the same day the Peruta decision is handed down. If there is a better LA county Plaintiff willing to step up, I will dismiss and pay their filing fee.

Again, good luck, and I appreciate your attitude of being willing to step aside if a better plaintiff will step up to the plate.

The Shadow
11-03-2010, 8:07 AM
From what I've read from Gene, pending suits will address the good moral character issue by limiting it to people prohibited from possessing firearms. This suit appears to be putting the cart before the horse.

RomanDad
11-03-2010, 8:19 AM
An 8th amendment claim? **** me.

wash
11-03-2010, 8:42 AM
I haven't read the complaint but it sounds like he's trying to do a Billy Jack.

If that's true, go ahead.

If it's something else, I hope you would look at what has worked in the past and do that rather than attempt to blaze a new trail.

In the bigger picture Calguns Foundation has their CCW sunshine inititive designed to make the entire state shall issue CCW. Please don't do anything that will screw that up for LA county residents. While every CCW license they issue is a good thing, trading 1 license for a possible hundred or thousand down the road is stupid. It would be even worse if you can't get one while killing that future possibility.

Gray Peterson
11-03-2010, 9:04 AM
jonbirdt, PM sent...

Wherryj
11-03-2010, 9:35 AM
This is a really bad idea by the wrong plaintiff.

Let's take a look at his bar standing (http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=183908).



I guess we can hope that LA clarifies he was denied for bad moral character...

-Gene

I am not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm reading the bar's decision incorrectly. However, as a physician this seems familiar.

It appears to be a "malpractice" of law situation. Unless there was some very dishonest, rather than merely bad, advice given, so attempt to hide evidence/rewrite the records, etc. I don't see how this shows bad moral character.

This is like a physician who makes an honest mistake and gets sued for malpractice. The medical board may suspend/fine/force further education, etc. That doesn't mean that the person is a danger to the community.

Is there something more to this than meets the eye? He may not be the BEST plaintiff to push the issue, but I don't offhand see a bad moral character in these documents.

I'd suggest that only allowing the most skilled attorney with the best hand-picked plaintiff to go forward in the PRK. That doesn't necessarily mean that any other case does outright harm. If the case appears to be doing harm, is it possible for the NRA/CGF to offer advice to plaintiff's counsel?

wash
11-03-2010, 10:55 AM
They told him wait, he didn't...

GOEX FFF
11-03-2010, 10:55 AM
Mr. Birdt:

I wish you well, but so far as I can tell, you should be thinking of this in military terms.

You really need some battlefield preparation. There is an ongoing war and there is an attack on the enemies flank while you are trying a frontal assault that looks more like a suicide mission. It would make more sense to let the allied forces roll up the flanks and then, when the enemy of freedom is finding his flanks are crumbling - strike from your position.

Personally, I do not think you should be denied your CCW. What's more, I don't think Gene and the others think you should be denied either (although I clearly cannot speak for them).

What I see is that you are not the ideal plaintiff and that you are likely to have an unfriendly court. So your odds of success are not all that great and the potential for harm to the broader cause is significant.

So I wish you well but I also wish you'd wait until a tactically (if not strategically) more opportune moment to press your attack.

Edit: There was some cross-posting. I note that you are paying some attention to precedent and what is going on elsewhere. That is a good sign although I still think it'd be better to delay.

^^^ THIS 10000000%

What I picture here with this, it's like there are the Generals who know this battlefield well. They have already done tireless work, planning, strategizing, and working directly with the other best leaders there are in this fight. Many whom of which have won HUGE battles (Heller & McDonald) and are seasoned veterans.
Everyone so far has been on page with each other in "operation shall issue", and things are progressing steadily and are on course.

All of a sudden, comes an inexperienced (in this type of battle) lone PFC sitting in his fox hole peeking his head up to get a glimpse of the battlefield. He's a good kid, new to the fight, but has been disciplined before for some actions in his past. But while his best intentions are probably for winning this battle with the same desire and passion as the rest of the units in placement, its clear that he appears a bit antsy, finger on the trigger, waiting impatiently to get into "the action".

He can spot the opposition in the tree line, they're right there......
It seems so easy just to fire off a few pot shots at them to let them know he's serious. With anticipation, impatience and personal goals for his own valor getting the best of him, he suddenly snaps, rushing out of his fox hole alone with guns blazing, running directly into the pillbox fire that's waiting to cut him down like Swiss cheese. His ultimate demise was not waiting for the Calvary, the plan of attack and suppressing fire that's been in place.
Casualties in this one are small, but major ground for the rest of the unit has been lost.


Mr. Birdt,

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't be the PFC in this story like a couple of others have been in the past here.
Please, work directly with CGF and those who are already knee deep in this.
Going at this alone is a suicide mission and if you lose alone (mostly likely) it will only hurt countless hours of work that has already been done here.


.

E Pluribus Unum
11-03-2010, 10:59 AM
I am not a lawyer, so perhaps I'm reading the bar's decision incorrectly. However, as a physician this seems familiar.

It appears to be a "malpractice" of law situation. Unless there was some very dishonest, rather than merely bad, advice given, so attempt to hide evidence/rewrite the records, etc. I don't see how this shows bad moral character.

This is like a physician who makes an honest mistake and gets sued for malpractice. The medical board may suspend/fine/force further education, etc. That doesn't mean that the person is a danger to the community.

Is there something more to this than meets the eye? He may not be the BEST plaintiff to push the issue, but I don't offhand see a bad moral character in these documents.

I'd suggest that only allowing the most skilled attorney with the best hand-picked plaintiff to go forward in the PRK. That doesn't necessarily mean that any other case does outright harm. If the case appears to be doing harm, is it possible for the NRA/CGF to offer advice to plaintiff's counsel?


I am not an attorney, but I do know a little bit about some of the rules. One of the biggest rules they have is an attorney cannot talk to someone if he knows that person is represented by counsel.

According to the bar investigation, Mr. Birdt coerced the manager that worked for his client to contact the opposing party directly without his attorney present in order to propose a settlement. This is against the rules, and when asked by a judge, he lied.

It is a rule violation, and he lied under oath; while it is not very virtuous, it's not like he robbed a liquor store. The man made a mistake, he was punished, and he will have to live with that mistake the rest of his life. His employment opportunities will be forever limited as a result.

If I compare it to your profession: It's like a doctor that is licensed to practice medicine, but has a medical malpractice judgement against him so he can't find insurance.

Any attorney who says he has never stretched the truth under oath is probably lying. Mr. Birdt simply got caught, and then he was honest about it afterwards. He cooperated with the investigation.


My only worry is that even if Mr. Birdt is a competent attorney, he does not have the resources of Mr. Gura, or "the Don's". I am fearful that Mr. Birdt's lawsuit might be argued in front of a liberal LA judge, and that judge could establish bad precedent, or greatly restrict any opinion handed down in Peruta.

CDMichel
11-03-2010, 11:02 AM
To be clear, after reviewing Mr. Birdt's plans and draft Complaint I advised him against filing this lawsiuit, as did several other experienced civil rights litigators practicing in this field. They may want to weigh in.

I do not support this effort. This is the wrong suit, at the wrong time, by the wrong plaintiff, and the wrong lawyer.

Litigating these cases takes a lot of time and resources to do right. There are no such resources available here, and this suit should not become a vehicle by which previously allocated resources are diverted.

The NRA / CRPAF and CGF each have multiple CCW cases in motion, some filed already, some not yet.

In fact I expect to be filing NRA /CRPAF suits against LAPD and LASD soon. If folks are interested in being a plaintiff in either of those suits, please drop me an email. You will need to have applied for a CCW, but we can walk you through that process.

HowardW56
11-03-2010, 11:04 AM
To be clear, after reviewing Mr. Birdt's plans and draft Complaint I advised him against filing this lawsiuit, as did several other experienced civil rights litigators practicing in this field. They may want to weigh in.

This is the wrong suit, at the wrong time, by the wrong plaintiff, and the wrong lawyer.

Litigating these cases takes a lot of time and resources to do right. Both the NRA / CRPAF and CGF have multiple CCW cases in motion. In fact I expect to be filing against LAPD and LASD soon.

Thank you Chuck. Lets hope that he will take your advice..

N6ATF
11-03-2010, 11:11 AM
In fact I expect to be filing against LAPD and LASD soon.

Dos semanas?

jonbirdt
11-03-2010, 12:24 PM
Chuck's office said they wouldnt be filing their first case until at least mid January and as of Friday I was strategizing with one of his associates to amend the complaint and work with his office, but his post tells me he is more interested in "resources" than working with me. I posted on the other list and sought the input and advice of many. In fact chuck sat on the draft complaint for a week and I learned for the first time today that he actually read it, but didn't contact me with any suggestions.
In any event, there are a lot of opinions, and I wish you all well in this endeavor. I had hoped for a community of inclusion and that this would be a place to work together to advance our rights. The complaint will be up on Pacer by Friday, and as many of you have done, please feel free to contact me if you would like to file suit now or be kept in the loop as this matter progresses, but given the hostile approach from Gene and Chuck, I am going to respectfully bow out of this forum and this discussion.

Flintlock Tom
11-03-2010, 12:27 PM
I cant be denied for bad moral charachter. The State Supreme Court and The Federal District Court have already found that I am of good moral charachter such that I am entitled to practice law and remain and officer of the court despite agreeing to a settlement of a BS claim.

I guess the moral of the story here is that everyone who isnt Chuck Michel or Alan Gura isnt qualified to enforce our constitutional rights? (i.e. the NRA or an accomplished attorney willing to donate his time to end corrupt practices in LA county when others won't?)

I don't see how this lawsuit does anything but help. by the time the case is ready for an MSJ the Peruta decision will have come down and will either help us all and be immediately adopted in the Central District, or Peruta will be a loss and we all lose.
Mr. Birdt,
This is simply my opinion and it is definitely in the minority here. The same self-righteous, arrogant hand-wringing took place when Ed Peruta first filed his case. When that case began to take on productive traction they jumped on-board.
The attitude of "We are the only ones professional enough..." infects both sides of the gun control issue.

wildhawker
11-03-2010, 12:33 PM
Tom,

You do realize that many of us became less worried about Peruta *after* Chuck Michel took it over?

Yes, that same Chuck Michel who just stated:

I do not support this effort. This is the wrong suit, at the wrong time, by the wrong plaintiff, and the wrong lawyer.

Litigating these cases takes a lot of time and resources to do right. There are no such resources available here, and this suit should not become a vehicle by which previously allocated resources are diverted.

When you're ready to start listening to the people who actually do the work, please let me know. Until then, keep clicking your heels together.

Mr. Birdt,
This is simply my opinion and it is definitely in the minority here. The same self-righteous, arrogant hand-wringing took place when Ed Peruta first filed his case. When that case began to take on productive traction they jumped on-board.
The attitude of "We are the only ones professional enough..." infects both sides of the gun control issue.

Merle
11-03-2010, 12:34 PM
This thread reminds me of E.Peruta and how he was received when he first posted here.

Few supported him calling him the wrong plaintiff, the wrong time, etc. It got so uncomfortable that he simply left.

Cases should be argued based upon the merits of the case and the laws they abridge. The plaintiff (good, bad or indifferent) should have little to no bearing when we're discussing whether the law is sound or violates a fundamental right.

But when we must cherry pick our plaintiffs, play the game of which lawyers to use and figure out the right order in which to fight for our rights, I feel we're fighting from a precarious position and have already lost too much.

wildhawker
11-03-2010, 12:35 PM
But when we must cherry pick our plaintiffs, play the game of which lawyers to use and figure out the right order in which to fight for our rights, I feel we're fighting from a precarious position...

WE ARE.

Hello? Is anyone paying attention in class?

Librarian
11-03-2010, 12:45 PM
Cases should be argued based upon the merits of the case and the laws they abridge. The plaintiff (good, bad or indifferent) should have little to no bearing when we're discussing whether the law is sound or violates a fundamental right.

But when we must cherry pick our plaintiffs, play the game of which lawyers to use and figure out the right order in which to fight for our rights, I feel we're fighting from a precarious position and have already lost too much.

Right words, somewhat the wrong order, I think. Try"Cases should be argued based upon the merits of the case and the laws they abridge. The plaintiff (good, bad or indifferent) should have little to no bearing when we're discussing whether the law is sound or violates a fundamental right."
but "we're fighting from a precarious position " (so, in order to win) "we must cherry pick our plaintiffs, play the game of which lawyers to use and figure out the right order in which to fight for our rights"That strategy, in that arena, has already been productive.

By analogy, we're still digging the foundation for the solid edifice to come.

Matt C
11-03-2010, 12:49 PM
Cases should be argued based upon the merits of the case and the laws they abridge. The plaintiff (good, bad or indifferent) should have little to no bearing when we're discussing whether the law is sound or violates a fundamental right.


Yes, I don't think anyone here disagrees. That IS how it SHOULD be.


But when we must cherry pick our plaintiffs, play the game of which lawyers to use and figure out the right order in which to fight for our rights, I feel we're fighting from a precarious position and have already lost too much.

Unfortunately, that is simply how the system works.

E Pluribus Unum
11-03-2010, 1:10 PM
I have to admit that Gene and Chuck are a bit puting-off in their comments. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to go to law school and pass the bar. Coming at a man and telling him he is not competent to file suit tugs at his pride. It's situations like this that create men like Gorski. I see that Mr. Birdt has "Gun Rights" listed on his web site so he obviously wants to include this as part of his experience. After all, how is an attorney supposed to learn how to defend gun rights except by filing lawsuits? When you go to someone and tell him "you are not the person to litigate this case" you are basically guaranteeing that he wont reach out to you for help. You need to realize that when attorneys like Gorski and Mr. Birdt file these lawsuits, they aren't going anywhere. Regardless of how you tell them "you are not right for this", they are going to continue. You might as well deal with them respectfully and offer free critique and maybe they will be more receptive.

Gray Peterson
11-03-2010, 1:39 PM
I have to admit that Gene and Chuck are a bit puting-off in their comments. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to go to law school and pass the bar. Coming at a man and telling him he is not competent to file suit tugs at his pride. It's situations like this that create men like Gorski. I see that Mr. Birdt has "Gun Rights" listed on his web site so he obviously wants to include this as part of his experience. After all, how is an attorney supposed to learn how to defend gun rights except by filing lawsuits? When you go to someone and tell him "you are not the person to litigate this case" you are basically guaranteeing that he wont reach out to you for help. You need to realize that when attorneys like Gorski and Mr. Birdt file these lawsuits, they aren't going anywhere. Regardless of how you tell them "you are not right for this", they are going to continue. You might as well deal with them respectfully and offer free critique and maybe they will be more receptive.

I did offer critique. I explained this to Mr. Birdt in a PM, which I will post here:


Jon,

My name is Gray Peterson, and just to give you my bona fides I have done for 2A and gun rights:

1) I am the plaintiff in Peterson v. LaCabe, a RKBA/right to travel case in Colorado, a state which has conceded that concealed carry for the purpose of self defense. You can look at my signature line and see it for yourself.

2) I am the plaintiff in Chan et al v. City of Seattle et al, a state court case which successfully challenged and struck down the City of Seattle (WA)'s guns in parks rule.

3) I am one of the Project Coordinators for the Firearms License Reform and Education Program, a group of individual volunteers who are working on fixing the policies of all 58 counties, including Los Angeles County and their unlawful policies in terms of requiring you to apply to your city of residency first.

4) I was the original founder of the modern Open Carry movement in Washington State and in Oregon. Washington State had continual horrific police contacts until I did the research into the state law that the LEO's were citing for their harassment of open carriers and determined that the law was never meant to apply to peaceable open carry. Oregon had it disappear due to shall-issue, but it was brought back more widely.

5) Despite residing in Washington State, my second part to full time job is helping California residents with the above project and answering questions (which I don't get paid to do). I have family and close friends who live in California and who have benefited from my subject matter expertise on California's carry law.

Mr. Birdt, as you probably can figure out, I am skeptical of your lawsuit (which you're filing pro per) will be helpful to the cause of getting california PC12050 licenses shall-issue. I respect the fact that your rights have been violated. A few things I ask that you consider before you file (I checked PACER before PM'ing me here).

Also, a warning, I do not speak for Calguns Foundation as I am not a director. My own knowledge on the subject is based on my own litigations as well as my knowledge of the Perry case (which is directly applicable here to the relief you're asking for).

First. A federal district court ruling on a state statute is valid and has statewide effect. See Perry v. Schwarzenneger. Before the 9th Circuit put in a stay on the judgement in that case, every county in the state was preparing to issue marriage licenses to same gendered couples. It wasn't merely limited to the Northern District of California jurisdiction.

You stated that you intended to file a motion for summary judgement once Peruta or Richards goes through. This the incorrect method of dealing with LA being recalcitrant, assuming of course that Richards or Peruta do not make it to the 9th Circuit after the plaintiffs win (the two defendants could decide to throw in the towel at that point). When you ask for an MSJ, you are asking for an independent decision on the law by whoever is assigned to your case as a judge. Again, see Perry.


There was more to the PM but that is the particulars. Nothing in there about his history at all. It's all cool, calm, and collected, yet he decided to act like Claudette Colvin (the 15 year old who was going to be "the plaintiff" for challenging the bus segregation laws before they found out she was pregnant, and then replaced with Rosa Parks) when he gets challenged.

I am not impressed.

N6ATF
11-03-2010, 2:13 PM
Birdt got himself pregnant? Boy or girl? :p

E Pluribus Unum
11-03-2010, 2:14 PM
I did offer critique. I explained this to Mr. Birdt in a PM, which I will post here:




There was more to the PM but that is the particulars. Nothing in there about his history at all. It's all cool, calm, and collected, yet he decided to act like Claudette Colvin (the 15 year old who was going to be "the plaintiff" for challenging the bus segregation laws before they found out she was pregnant, and then replaced with Rosa Parks) when he gets challenged.

I am not impressed.

My comment was not to you... I committed a sacrilege and opposed Chuck and the Hoff in the same post.... I hope I am not excommunicated... :)

wildhawker
11-03-2010, 2:42 PM
Same thing we heard re Gorski, Peruta and now Birdt... :rolleyes:

Do you think that we only hear about cases through Calguns or other forums? Do you think we only communicate on Calguns?

The vast majority of substantive communication and work does not occur on this or any other forum.

Your assumptions are annoying.

I have to admit that Gene and Chuck are a bit puting-off in their comments. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to go to law school and pass the bar. Coming at a man and telling him he is not competent to file suit tugs at his pride. It's situations like this that create men like Gorski. I see that Mr. Birdt has "Gun Rights" listed on his web site so he obviously wants to include this as part of his experience. After all, how is an attorney supposed to learn how to defend gun rights except by filing lawsuits? When you go to someone and tell him "you are not the person to litigate this case" you are basically guaranteeing that he wont reach out to you for help. You need to realize that when attorneys like Gorski and Mr. Birdt file these lawsuits, they aren't going anywhere. Regardless of how you tell them "you are not right for this", they are going to continue. You might as well deal with them respectfully and offer free critique and maybe they will be more receptive.

E Pluribus Unum
11-03-2010, 3:04 PM
Same thing we heard re Gorski, Peruta and now Birdt... :rolleyes:

Do you think that we only hear about cases through Calguns or other forums? Do you think we only communicate on Calguns?

The vast majority of substantive communication and work does not occur on this or any other forum.

Your assumptions are annoying.

What are you referring to? I was commenting on how in a public forum they made the statement to Mr. Birdt that he was basically incompetent. It doesn't matter what was said beforehand in private; if you make a statement like that, it is bound to hurt his pride and he is very likely to tell you to shove it, even if it's cutting off his nose to spite his face.

I don't have to assume anything, it was said in the open. If I am annoying you, I apologize. I am simply trying to point out that nothing is served by running the man through the dirt, even if the dirt is true.

Gray Peterson
11-03-2010, 3:05 PM
Birdt got himself pregnant? Boy or girl? :p

Sand doesn't have a gender.

rodeoflyer
11-03-2010, 3:10 PM
Sand doesn't have a gender.


:kest:


I know just enough about law to keep me out of trouble. Having said that, I have no comment on Birdt's case.

What I DO know is that several heads are better than one. The last thing I would want to do is take on an issue like this alone.

J.D.Allen
11-03-2010, 3:36 PM
Sand doesn't have a gender.

But can you pound it?

Gray Peterson
11-03-2010, 3:39 PM
But can you pound it?
:innocent:

hoffmang
11-03-2010, 7:22 PM
1. Mr. Birdt is on the record admitting he lied to a judge. With that record he wishes to go in front of a judge and claim that he has the right to a permit. The legal argument may be sound, but the facts of the plaintiff enter the discussion and what do you think the judge thinks of counsel/plaintiff. It might be different if someone else was representing him but he's got to sit there and tell a judge he's not lieing this time about himself.

2. Mr. Birdt is an attorney. I'm not. You'll notice I don't file pro-se cases, nor does Chuck, Don, Jason, or Alan. A pro-se lawyer has a fool for a client. If Mr. Birdt wants to learn to practice in this area he should get a client that isn't him and he should take on a related issue that isn't central in about the worst place possible to fight.

3. Why does everyone who posts on this board think that they're Kobe Bryant? I mean lots of people can shoot hoops right? Lots of people can shoot hoops. Lots of people understand the game. Heck quite a few even get paid to play basketball. But you know what? There are damn few Kobe Bryants. Why do people egg on amateurs to go play in the pros? Chuck Michel is not a plumber. He's also smart enough to not go try to plumb on behalf of 35M Californians. He's also not a divorce lawyer - you'll note he doesn't do that. Why then does everyone think they can be a civil rights lawyer? The only winning civil rights lawyer I've seen in the last 10 years has been... Alan Gura. I realize why everyone wants to be Kobe Bryant, but what I don't get is why they're seriously willing to empiril lots of people's civil rights over the issue.

4. Want to know why I'm still not happy about Peruta? It's incentive for folks who don't have the wherewithal or the story to be able to go all the way and be Otis McDonald. Chuck stepped in and cleaned that case up but now its incenting bad behavior. I can't even explain in public why Mr. Peruta got very lucky. Flintlock Tom, master federal litigation strategist now thinks that means anyone can file and control the agenda. Great. Does everyone remember all the salacious stories about Otis McDonald's checkered past? Want to know why you don't? He didn't have one! Finding a good plaintiff like Mr. McDonald takes an amazing amount of work and I can tell you that work is not what is being done here.

Ego, it continues to be way more important than winning...

-Gene

bodger
11-03-2010, 8:33 PM
To be clear, after reviewing Mr. Birdt's plans and draft Complaint I advised him against filing this lawsiuit, as did several other experienced civil rights litigators practicing in this field. They may want to weigh in.

I do not support this effort. This is the wrong suit, at the wrong time, by the wrong plaintiff, and the wrong lawyer.

Litigating these cases takes a lot of time and resources to do right. There are no such resources available here, and this suit should not become a vehicle by which previously allocated resources are diverted.

The NRA / CRPAF and CGF each have multiple CCW cases in motion, some filed already, some not yet.

In fact I expect to be filing NRA /CRPAF suits against LAPD and LASD soon. If folks are interested in being a plaintiff in either of those suits, please drop me an email. You will need to have applied for a CCW, but we can walk you through that process.

I am in Los Angeles and may want to apply, (to most certainly be denied) and possibly be a plaintiff. Is a specific GC needed to be considered a good plaintiff?

I don't have anything on a record that would cause me to be considered of bad character, and I am a veteran.

gunsmith
11-03-2010, 10:53 PM
I dropped out of high school yet somehow even I know how to spell cite and know what it means.
Fortunately I was forced out of CA by excessive fines and fees and reside in NV, where I carry 24/7.
As soon as I recover my own personal economy I will donate to calguns, good luck you guys! you'll need it!

Sobriquet
11-03-2010, 11:52 PM
http://www.awesometoast.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tactical_facepalm.jpg

Errors in the first paragraph of a complaint are usually not a great way to get in a judge's good graces. There's not much that hasn't already been said, but seriously, the Eighth Amendment? Seriously?

One Gorski was enough. Where did I put the antacid...

anthonyca
11-04-2010, 5:52 AM
1. Mr. Birdt is on the record admitting he lied to a judge. With that record he wishes to go in front of a judge and claim that he has the right to a permit. The legal argument may be sound, but the facts of the plaintiff enter the discussion and what do you think the judge thinks of counsel/plaintiff. It might be different if someone else was representing him but he's got to sit there and tell a judge he's not lieing this time about himself.

2. Mr. Birdt is an attorney. I'm not. You'll notice I don't file pro-se cases, nor does Chuck, Don, Jason, or Alan. A pro-se lawyer has a fool for a client. If Mr. Birdt wants to learn to practice in this area he should get a client that isn't him and he should take on a related issue that isn't central in about the worst place possible to fight.

3. Why does everyone who posts on this board think that they're Kobe Bryant? I mean lots of people can shoot hoops right? Lots of people can shoot hoops. Lots of people understand the game. Heck quite a few even get paid to play basketball. But you know what? There are damn few Kobe Bryants. Why do people egg on amateurs to go play in the pros? Chuck Michel is not a plumber. He's also smart enough to not go try to plumb on behalf of 35M Californians. He's also not a divorce lawyer - you'll note he doesn't do that. Why then does everyone think they can be a civil rights lawyer? The only winning civil rights lawyer I've seen in the last 10 years has been... Alan Gura. I realize why everyone wants to be Kobe Bryant, but what I don't get is why they're seriously willing to empiril lots of people's civil rights over the issue.

4. Want to know why I'm still not happy about Peruta? It's incentive for folks who don't have the wherewithal or the story to be able to go all the way and be Otis McDonald. Chuck stepped in and cleaned that case up but now its incenting bad behavior. I can't even explain in public why Mr. Peruta got very lucky. Flintlock Tom, master federal litigation strategist now thinks that means anyone can file and control the agenda. Great. Does everyone remember all the salacious stories about Otis McDonald's checkered past? Want to know why you don't? He didn't have one! Finding a good plaintiff like Mr. McDonald takes an amazing amount of work and I can tell you that work is not what is being done here.

Ego, it continues to be way more important than winning...

-Gene

Thank you for explaining why this is a bad case by using examples and not demeaning the average person or calgunner. Your tone has always been inclusive even when telling someone they are wrong. Instead of insulting them you explain how they can help. A true leader.

geeknow
11-04-2010, 6:00 AM
Mr Birdt,

Youve been given excellent advice by Mr's Michel, Hoffman, and Weise. They are 'the right people' to offer the advice youve solicited. Your steadfast refusal to take their advice has made YOU the hostile one here. While I wish you well, in the grand sense, your mission is foolhardy, and you go it alone.

MasterYong
11-04-2010, 6:10 AM
:popcorn:

...and, ohsmileys back? When did that happen?

OleCuss
11-04-2010, 7:04 AM
I'm pretty sure I missed something. . .

Mr. Birdt said he'd stand aside and provide financial assistance should a better plaintiff be found.

Mr. Michel posted saying that he was interested in recruiting excellent plaintiffs and bodger has at least hinted he might be willing to be one of the plaintiffs.

Since I'm assuming that at present Jon Birdt really is sticking to the straight and narrow, the logical conclusion is that the problem will be solved in the fairly near future. Mr. Michel will have appropriate plaintiffs, Mr. Birdt will drop his court action and provide some financial assistance - and everyone will be happy.

Mute
11-04-2010, 7:23 AM
Is it just me or are there gun owners who seem fundamentally incapable exercising patience or accepting sound advice when it doesn't mesh with their own desires?

I'm sure everyone understands that this isn't just a game, but nevertheless behave like it is. I understand that many are frustrated at the perceived inaction. Let me tell you, it's just as frustrating and infuriating to watch a bunch of people who claims to be on our side but act like spoiled children when they don't get things their way. I'm trying to be polite and courteous, but frankly, it really pisses me off to see the likes of Gorski petulantly throwing all kinds of legal crap up to see what sticks. Some of you act as if you're the only person who's had their 2nd Amendment rights violated.

ptoguy2002
11-04-2010, 7:34 AM
ME->Oh crap another Gorski, I can't believe this s***......
The motivational picture was knee-jerk reactionary, and now removed.....

OleCuss
11-04-2010, 7:40 AM
I don't get it. I think it is in bad taste and likely counterproductive to dog on the guy.

He's not the right plaintiff and he is not the right lawyer. But for all I know he now walks the straight and narrow as well as any of us and he is wanting to fight for his and our rights.

I believe his action is ill-advised, but again, I'd note his stated willingness to step aside if there is a better plaintiff (and I'm sure there will be).

In the meantime, sticking to factual arguments/explanations and avoiding insults would seem to be to everyone's benefit.

wash
11-04-2010, 7:44 AM
I'm pretty sure I missed something. . .

Mr. Birdt said he'd stand aside and provide financial assistance should a better plaintiff be found.

Mr. Michel posted saying that he was interested in recruiting excellent plaintiffs and bodger has at least hinted he might be willing to be one of the plaintiffs.

Since I'm assuming that at present Jon Birdt really is sticking to the straight and narrow, the logical conclusion is that the problem will be solved in the fairly near future. Mr. Michel will have appropriate plaintiffs, Mr. Birdt will drop his court action and provide some financial assistance - and everyone will be happy.
What you are missing is that Chuck has said that a LA county CCW lawsuit is in the works, with the right lawyers and the right plantiffs but Birdt is pushing ahead with his anyway.

If what Birdt said was true, we probably would not have ever heard of him because he would have helped Chuck with his case and eventually got his CCW after LA County gets slapped around by Chuck.

Furthermore, Birdt could have just contacted Billy Jack and do things his way which is known to work but can be expensive.

n2k
11-04-2010, 7:46 AM
ptoguy2002,

Now that's the way to sway him to our side....:rolleyes:

loather
11-04-2010, 7:58 AM
I fear the outcome of this case.

putput
11-04-2010, 8:14 AM
Nice. You can also look to Kobe to see what happens when you want anal on the first date... :eek:


1. Mr. Birdt is on the record admitting he lied to a judge. With that record he wishes to go in front of a judge and claim that he has the right to a permit. The legal argument may be sound, but the facts of the plaintiff enter the discussion and what do you think the judge thinks of counsel/plaintiff. It might be different if someone else was representing him but he's got to sit there and tell a judge he's not lieing this time about himself.

2. Mr. Birdt is an attorney. I'm not. You'll notice I don't file pro-se cases, nor does Chuck, Don, Jason, or Alan. A pro-se lawyer has a fool for a client. If Mr. Birdt wants to learn to practice in this area he should get a client that isn't him and he should take on a related issue that isn't central in about the worst place possible to fight.

3. Why does everyone who posts on this board think that they're Kobe Bryant? I mean lots of people can shoot hoops right? Lots of people can shoot hoops. Lots of people understand the game. Heck quite a few even get paid to play basketball. But you know what? There are damn few Kobe Bryants. Why do people egg on amateurs to go play in the pros? Chuck Michel is not a plumber. He's also smart enough to not go try to plumb on behalf of 35M Californians. He's also not a divorce lawyer - you'll note he doesn't do that. Why then does everyone think they can be a civil rights lawyer? The only winning civil rights lawyer I've seen in the last 10 years has been... Alan Gura. I realize why everyone wants to be Kobe Bryant, but what I don't get is why they're seriously willing to empiril lots of people's civil rights over the issue.

4. Want to know why I'm still not happy about Peruta? It's incentive for folks who don't have the wherewithal or the story to be able to go all the way and be Otis McDonald. Chuck stepped in and cleaned that case up but now its incenting bad behavior. I can't even explain in public why Mr. Peruta got very lucky. Flintlock Tom, master federal litigation strategist now thinks that means anyone can file and control the agenda. Great. Does everyone remember all the salacious stories about Otis McDonald's checkered past? Want to know why you don't? He didn't have one! Finding a good plaintiff like Mr. McDonald takes an amazing amount of work and I can tell you that work is not what is being done here.

Ego, it continues to be way more important than winning...

-Gene

Gray Peterson
11-04-2010, 8:27 AM
I'm pretty sure I missed something. . .

Mr. Birdt said he'd stand aside and provide financial assistance should a better plaintiff be found.

Mr. Michel posted saying that he was interested in recruiting excellent plaintiffs and bodger has at least hinted he might be willing to be one of the plaintiffs.

Since I'm assuming that at present Jon Birdt really is sticking to the straight and narrow, the logical conclusion is that the problem will be solved in the fairly near future. Mr. Michel will have appropriate plaintiffs, Mr. Birdt will drop his court action and provide some financial assistance - and everyone will be happy.

Read the thread again, carefully following the timeline. He posted, and after Chuck Michel posted his missive about this being the wrong case, Birdt stated that he was working with his underlings (I'm guessing Sean Brady or Chris Monfort) and viewed what CD did was a betrayal. Birdt didn't really read Gene's comment, claiming that what he "plead to" was just to get out from under some bigger charge. False accusation or no, a plea is a plea. Period.

He didn't like that, so he took his ball and went home, and now he won't substitute a new plaintiff with no record.

Even worse, he's doing it the wrong way. When you ask for a declaratory judgment or an MSJ, you're asking a judge to do a determination independently of other judges. He wanted to "ride the wave".

A few issues....

A federal judges determination on the constitutional state law is the final word. It can be appealed, but it doesn't have to be. His smarter (and indeed much faster) option would be to file a writ of mandate in Los Angeles Superior Court. That was what I was trying to say when I kept mentioning Perry. Some of the counties in California outside of the nothern district are threatening to not issue marriage licenses to same gender couples of Judge Walker's decision is upheld on appeal (on standing grounds against the prop 8 proponents) on this notion that his decision applies only to the California northern district. AFER and other legal experts/subject matter experts have stated that if that does happen, they will file writs of mandate in every state superior court of every county which refuses to issue to force them to issue marriage licenses.

I've told him this, but his only response was that he respected my expertise on the matter and thanked me, but then he flipped out and ragequit the forum at Chuck's and Gene's comments.

How classy....

OleCuss
11-04-2010, 8:31 AM
What you are missing is that Chuck has said that a LA county CCW lawsuit is in the works, with the right lawyers and the right plantiffs but Birdt is pushing ahead with his anyway.

If what Birdt said was true, we probably would not have ever heard of him because he would have helped Chuck with his case and eventually got his CCW after LA County gets slapped around by Chuck.

Furthermore, Birdt could have just contacted Billy Jack and do things his way which is known to work but can be expensive.

OK, I'll happily admit that I have absolutely no inside knowledge on this and I could be confused on particulars. . .

But as I understand it, Mr. Michel has an appropriate lawsuit in the works for LA - but he is working on plaintiff recruitment which would suggest that at this time he does not have the right plaintiffs (I'm pretty sure he won't have much trouble getting them).

Birdt seems to be of the impression that he did not get much back from Mr. Michel's office but I have no knowledge of the truth of that matter (and I'm not sure Mr. Michel would be under any obligation at all to respond anyway - otherwise he'd likely be inundated with similar requests and not be able to do his actual job).

At the moment I'm happy to assume that Mr. Birdt is not a crazy and that as Mr. Michel's recruitment proceeds Mr. Birdt will gracefully bow out of his own case and let the better case proceed to his own benefit and that of everyone else as well.

I'll happily admit that I could be wrong. But even if my assumption is wrong, treating him with respect even if we vehemently disagree with his actions will more likely get us results we don't find objectionable. Vilifying him won't do anyone any good while reasoned arguments have the potential to help us all (Mr. Birdt included).

OleCuss
11-04-2010, 8:33 AM
Read the thread again, carefully following the timeline. He posted, and after Chuck Michel posted his missive about this being the wrong case, Birdt stated that he was working with his underlings (I'm guessing Sean Brady or Chris Monfort) and viewed what CD did was a betrayal. Birdt didn't really read Gene's comment, claiming that what he "plead to" was just to get out from under some bigger charge. False accusation or no, a plea is a plea. Period.

He didn't like that, so he took his ball and went home, and now he won't substitute a new plaintiff with no record.

Even worse, he's doing it the wrong way. When you ask for a declaratory judgment or an MSJ, you're asking a judge to do a determination independently of other judges. He wanted to "ride the wave".

A few issues....

A federal judges determination on the constitutional state law is the final word. It can be appealed, but it doesn't have to be. His smarter (and indeed much faster) option would be to file a writ of mandate in Los Angeles Superior Court. That was what I was trying to say when I kept mentioning Perry. Some of the counties in California outside of the nothern district are threatening to not issue marriage licenses to same gender couples of Judge Walker's decision is upheld on appeal (on standing grounds against the prop 8 proponents) on this notion that his decision applies only to the California northern district. AFER and other legal experts/subject matter experts have stated that if that does happen, they will file writs of mandate in every state superior court of every county which refuses to issue to force them to issue marriage licenses.

I've told him this, but his only response was that he respected my expertise on the matter and thanked me, but then he flipped out and ragequit the forum at Chuck's and Gene's comments.

How classy....

Thank you for the additional clarification. I think I'll need to go back and re-read the thread. I think from what you and was have said I must be missing some serious stuff.

Edit: I think I missed some of the implications from Post #43 and how it related to what Chuck said. I hang my head in shame. . .

nick
11-04-2010, 9:23 AM
I am in Los Angeles and may want to apply, (to most certainly be denied) and possibly be a plaintiff. Is a specific GC needed to be considered a good plaintiff?

I don't have anything on a record that would cause me to be considered of bad character, and I am a veteran.

You might want to email him.

Mute
11-04-2010, 10:51 AM
I'd like to know why all of these supposedly open-minded champions of the 2nd Amendment always come here to defend there action and says they'd be happy to listen to some solid advice from those with experience, but as soon as it is offered the response is always, "Screw you! Not good enough! I'll do my own damn thing so just stay out of my way!"

Kukuforguns
11-04-2010, 3:08 PM
Birdt's complaint is at least an order of magnitude better than anything I've seen from Gorski or Peruta (with respect to Peruta, I'm limiting it to what Peruta himself wrote).

Everything about Gorski's filings are wretched, including the formatting. Peruta sounds like a raving lunatic because of his exuberance (he actually gets the substance correct).

Birdt, on the other hand comes across as largely sane.

I think that this is a situation in which we should take President Reagan's advice, and not speak ill of another person with whom we share a common goal. We gain nothing by driving Birdt away. If we keep him here, he can get the benefit of all of the experience and knowledge that is available.

Is Birdt the perfect plaintiff? No. Nevertheless, we don't need to air his dirty laundry on a public forum. His professional history is irrelevant to the issues raised in his complaint and should not be disclosed to the judge (but it undoubtedly will). Moreover, he is far and away a better plaintiff than the vast majority of people who are asserting the Second Amendment (think drug dealers).

I don't think that Birdt "ragequit the forum at Chuck's and Gene's comments." Yeah, it looks like he left the forum, but I saw no rage in his post:
In any event, there are a lot of opinions, and I wish you all well in this endeavor. I had hoped for a community of inclusion and that this would be a place to work together to advance our rights. The complaint will be up on Pacer by Friday, and as many of you have done, please feel free to contact me if you would like to file suit now or be kept in the loop as this matter progresses, but given the hostile approach from Gene and Chuck, I am going to respectfully bow out of this forum and this discussion.
11-03-2010 12:11 PM Contrast this statement with Gorski's statement in his email. Birdt comes off as downright classy in comparison to Gorski (of course, Gorski makes an easy comparison).

I understand wanting to go with someone who has demonstrated success. On the other hand, I recall when lots of people were critcizing Gura for litigating Heller without the support of the NRA attorneys. Gura used to be an unknown quantity. Who knows where the next Kobe will be found. If we limit ourselves to four or five attorneys, then we bottleneck how quickly we can change the current status quo. I do understand that given the importance of these rights, speed is not the primary concern -- we need to consider that there is much more history ahead of us. But neither can we deny that newcomers may have something to add.

While it certainly appears that Mr. Birdt's ego is playing a factor here, his may not be the only ego that is implicated.

Finally, I wish the best of luck to Mr. Birdt and sincerely hope that he continues to participate in the forums here so that he can take advantage of the wealth of knowledge freely shared by the participants.

dantodd
11-04-2010, 3:30 PM
Birdt's complaint is at least an order of magnitude better than anything I've seen from Gorski or Peruta (with respect to Peruta, I'm limiting it to what Peruta himself wrote).

While it may be better than Peruta's original complaint no one got behind Peruta until Chuck took the case and amended the complaint to mirror Sykes. Do you have any idea why?

I think that this is a situation in which we should take President Reagan's advice, and not speak ill of another person with whom we share a common goal. We gain nothing by driving Birdt away. If we keep him here, he can get the benefit of all of the experience and knowledge that is available.

Mr. Birdt could have very easily offered to assist CGF or CRPA in their efforts if his intention was to protect the 2A. I know that CGF is working on some things where the input of an attorney would be quite valuable. But did he do any of these things? No. He filed a suit that has no chance of being decided until after Sykes or Peruta are complete. He is essentially filing a complaint based on the outcome of a case that is still being adjudicated. This is EXACTLY what Gorski did wrt Nordyke.

Is Birdt the perfect plaintiff? No. Nevertheless, we don't need to air his dirty laundry on a public forum. His professional history is irrelevant to the issues raised in his complaint and should not be disclosed to the judge (but it undoubtedly will). Moreover, he is far and away a better plaintiff than the vast majority of people who are asserting the Second Amendment (think drug dealers).

An attorney's professional history is directly relevant, particularly when the statute, as written, permits a sheriff to deny based on "good moral character" and when the plaintiff has stipulated that he lacked said character. And, whether it is appropriate or not the judge is not blind to an attorney's history and is also aware of the foolishness of representing oneself. If you don't think that the action of an attorney, in current and past cases is not considered by the judge hearing the case I suggest you ask around.


Finally, you might ask, "What's the big deal? It's just one more case to tear down the wall, isn't that a good thing?" The problem with that thinking is that every case has to be managed or at least followed by those people to whom we have entrusted 2A leadership in this state. That means more cycles for Gene to have to keep a handle on the possible impact of the Birdt case as well as its current status. He also has to plan how to deal with various outcomes. What if LA is granted MSJ quickly? Does this create a persuasive case that the judge in Peruta or Sykes (I can't get used to calling it Roberts) can use to punt one of our cases? All of this takes cycles away planning the next thing (like Large-Capacity Magazines or possible ways of bringing in legal Off-Roster handguns until Pena is done) from moving forward.

So, while he is not likely to set bad precedent we are losing because he COULD be working with us and he is usurping cycles from Gene and the rest of the CGF leadership and finally he is preventing other things from going forward.

jonbirdt
11-04-2010, 3:32 PM
I would like to thank the many reasoned and rational voices over the last few days. I would very much like to remain a part of this forum and continue the intelligent discussion. I opted out of this thread only because of the uninformed mudslinging. I understand there are many different opinions and strategies at play here and in the community at large. Before making my decision to file the law suit, I contacted many of the players and was clearly told none of them had any intention of taking on Los Angeles and so I was left with the choice, politics as usual, or do something about. My offer to step aside if someone else stands up remains and likewise my offer to help anyone else who wants to stand with stands. In a few days I will post the PAcer link to the case and a draft of my first amended complaint. I am not going away, but if you woud like to provide help or insight as many of you have stepped up to do, then I look forward to working with you.
Jon

dantodd
11-04-2010, 3:37 PM
Before making my decision to file the law suit, I contacted many of the players and was clearly told none of them had any intention of taking on Los Angeles and so I was left with the choice, politics as usual, or do something about.

No. That is a false dichotomy. You certainly could have chosen to work WITH CGF and wait for a couple months to a year for things to start turning in LA. There is and never was ANY intention to permit "politics as usual" to continue in LA County. The fact that a lawsuit there was going to wait until we had Circuit Precedence in the 9th in no way shape or form implies that ANYONE was happy with "politics as usual."

It is too bad too. We could actually use a few attorneys to help with a few projects. Alas, grabbing some headlines was much more important than doing good work and progressing our rights.

wildhawker
11-04-2010, 3:37 PM
Jon,

Taking on LA "right now" and taking on LA "period" are two different things entirely. I'm sure you're aware that at least 1 "bear" case will be heading to CA9 and SCOTUS soon, which will be binding upon LA. Why attack a monster directly when you can simply poison his well?

dantodd
11-04-2010, 3:39 PM
Jon,

Taking on LA "right now" and taking on LA "period" are two different things entirely. I'm sure you're aware that at least 1 "bear" case will be heading to CA9 and SCOTUS soon, which will be binding upon LA. Why attack a monster directly when you can simply poison his well?

You don't get good press by waiting. You get your name in local law magazines and pick up clients when you can claim to have slain a dragon, even when someone has done the heavy lifting. I can certainly see where this would come in handy if you are trying to move your practice into firearms law.

bwiese
11-04-2010, 3:40 PM
Jon,

Taking on LA "right now" and taking on LA "period" are two different things entirely. I'm sure you're aware that at least 1 "bear" case will be heading to CA9 and SCOTUS soon, which will be binding upon LA. Why attack a monster directly when you can simply poison his well?


Brandon,

Beautifully put. Love that metaphor, although I would've substitued "pee in" for poisoning (just because I am the way I am).

It's also funny (in a sad way) that Chuck Michel - who's "in the belly of the beast" and thus confirms with further on-the-ground advice - seems to be ignored. Sad.

Sometimes action is far far worse than no action, and many fail to get that and think "something must be done immediately".

hoffmang
11-04-2010, 3:52 PM
It saddens me that a lawyer who claims to want to win on civil rights in the gun field has no idea why a case in L.A. is not a smart move right now. I'll give people a hint. What is the reason that I call Mr. Peruta extremely lucky? That issue is why LA is not the right place to fight this particular battle for a few more months.

Mr. Birdt: What is the legal ramification of an MSJ granted in favor of Mr. Peruta or Mr. Richards in the Eastern or Southern District on the "good cause" and "good moral character" interpretations of PC 12050?

Mr. Birdt, you ABSOLUTELY must be able to answer that question correctly before you can claim that your's is a good idea.

-Gene

jonbirdt
11-04-2010, 3:57 PM
You know what they say about opinions...if we are supposed to wait, what are we waiting for exactly? Nordyke and Peruta decisions will be out by the end of the year and they had the wrong plaintiff on Sykes with two shall issue candidates on the ballot for sheriff. Heller and McDonald are done and quite clear. Why should we wait for a right you already have? Because a computer engineer says so? I dont think so. It is this type of worthless chatter that caused me to drop out, not rage.

jonbirdt
11-04-2010, 4:00 PM
Gene,
You and I have never spoken. You have attacked my charachter. Whose side are you on and what is your legal training? You ignored Peruta when he first came to you and only went back to him after he "got lucky". Review the record, he "got lucky" before you ever got involved. I hope to get lucky to. further, please disclose what "support" you have actually provided, versus the salary you have taken on behalf of members of this forum. Once we understand your bias, I am happy to answer your questions.
Jon

jonbirdt
11-04-2010, 4:01 PM
In closing, I dont claim to have a good idea, or to be right, but like they say about democracy, it is the worst thing that has ever worked and until you show me something better, i am sticking with it.

taperxz
11-04-2010, 4:04 PM
Well i may as well jump on the band wagon. I am going to go after san mateo county for not allowing me to have a ccw. Filing Monday morning.

:eek:

wash
11-04-2010, 4:06 PM
Sometimes action is far far worse than no action, and many fail to get that and think "something must be done immediately".
For example, in Sacramento county, many people were impatient when the Sykes case didn't seem to be moving forward even though a date for our side to file motions had opened up for a few weeks.

They didn't file anything because they had convinced the Sherrif to issue CCW licenses in Sacramento County which has become a "virtual shall-issue" county.

Lots of people were upset about that until CGF was able to tell what was actually going on.

Just look at the CCW sunshine inititive that CGF is running. It will get to LA eventually, it just needs to pick the low hanging fruit first. And it's not like they aren't working on LA County, they are already dealing with their reluctance to comply with their PRAR.

Bad litigation is worse than something like an idiot doing UOC wrong. It hurts us in court rather than in public opinion or politics.

CavTrooper
11-04-2010, 4:06 PM
has anyone checked this fellas credentials?

Is it possible the he has alterior motives and he knows EXACTLY what he is doing?

wash
11-04-2010, 4:08 PM
please disclose what "support" you have actually provided, versus the salary you have taken on behalf of members of this forum. Once we understand your bias, I am happy to answer your questions.
Jon
No CGF board member takes a salary.

All money goes to lawyers and expenses as far as I know.

wash
11-04-2010, 4:11 PM
CGF was voted grassroots organization of the year in 2009 by SAF.

They got that award because they get things done.

bwiese
11-04-2010, 4:14 PM
No CGF board member takes a salary.

All money goes to lawyers and expenses as far as I know.

Correct.

When I [others] travel or do something for CGF, it's on my [their] private nickel.

CGF monies only get expended for (trivially minor) operational overhead, distribution of educational materials (also relatively small) and legal research/ legal fees. We have a very very high "utilization ratio" of fees - which are largely either funding legal work or are in reserve to do so for upcoming matters.

HowardW56
11-04-2010, 4:16 PM
No CGF board member takes a salary.

All money goes to lawyers and expenses as far as I know.


I think they even pay their own travel expenses, conserving the foundations revenue for legal costs and fees....

wildhawker
11-04-2010, 4:17 PM
Jon,

We're an all-volunteer and entirely uncompensated board. Would you like the income equivalent of our combined contributions in time, or should we factor in opportunity costs, etc., also?

-Brandon

Gene,
You and I have never spoken. You have attacked my charachter. Whose side are you on and what is your legal training? You ignored Peruta when he first came to you and only went back to him after he "got lucky". Review the record, he "got lucky" before you ever got involved. I hope to get lucky to. further, please disclose what "support" you have actually provided, versus the salary you have taken on behalf of members of this forum. Once we understand your bias, I am happy to answer your questions.
Jon

jonbirdt
11-04-2010, 4:18 PM
You have been drinking too much cool aid. If it is a grass roots organization then get an accounting and tell me just how much went to the lawyers. either way the answer would be interesting, but i believe the answer is a big fat zero. You are just wrong about sykes. she blew the statute of limitations. she was the wrong plaintiff at the wrong time, but they got lucky because the new sheriff was shall issue. it doesnt get much more sinister than that, but please, keep sending in your donations because we are all on the same side:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675#

bwiese
11-04-2010, 4:19 PM
You know what they say about opinions...if we are supposed to wait, what are we waiting for exactly? Nordyke and Peruta decisions will be out by the end of the year and they had the wrong plaintiff on Sykes with two shall issue candidates on the ballot for sheriff

Wrong.

McGinniss was in no way shall-issue until Sykes hit. (If he were, or even close, there'd've been nothing to sue over, and there'd be other targets of opportunity.) Afterward, budgetary matters and consequent crime increase were the expressed reason for Sacto County's change in CCW policy, but the time alignment when the suit was filed and got traction is pretty obvious.

In addition even though the two CURRENT Sacto Sheriff's candidates are touting themselves as proCCW, we don't want any reversion by future candidates. Having achieved this settlement now will help us against personnel changes in the future.

taperxz
11-04-2010, 4:20 PM
I know i am a nobody here but i have to ask? Why would someone go out on their own to do this when there are many parts of the puzzle still being put together? There is a concerted effort here that seems to be working well as far as working with the different sheriffs dept's, to get "shall issue" state wide.

This is almost like going to Disney Land only to watch someone cut in line via the Handicapped line only to see that the person is not really handicapped.

That usually pisses people off.

bwiese
11-04-2010, 4:21 PM
I think they even pay their own travel expenses, conserving the foundations revenue for legal costs and fees....

Correct. For example, I'll be at SHOT in Vegas doing CGF stuff on my own nickel.

HowardW56
11-04-2010, 4:22 PM
Correct. For example, I'll be at SHOT in Vegas doing CGF stuff on my own nickel.

Ohhhh

Can I come to the shot show to "Help"????


:jump:

hoffmang
11-04-2010, 4:24 PM
You know what they say about opinions...if we are supposed to wait, what are we waiting for exactly? Nordyke and Peruta decisions will be out by the end of the year and they had the wrong plaintiff on Sykes with two shall issue candidates on the ballot for sheriff. Heller and McDonald are done and quite clear. Why should we wait for a right you already have? Because a computer engineer says so? I dont think so. It is this type of worthless chatter that caused me to drop out, not rage.
You're amusing. The Sykes case forced Sacramento to go shall issue. Did you see how long ago we put the right plaintiff in place for Richards?
Gene,
You and I have never spoken. You have attacked my charachter. Whose side are you on and what is your legal training? You ignored Peruta when he first came to you and only went back to him after he "got lucky". Review the record, he "got lucky" before you ever got involved. I hope to get lucky to. further, please disclose what "support" you have actually provided, versus the salary you have taken on behalf of members of this forum. Once we understand your bias, I am happy to answer your questions.
Jon
I didn't attack your character. I quoted public records about your crime of moral turpitude and your perjuring yourself in front of a judge. I did spend time with Mr. Peruta before he filed and asked him to co-ordinate with Jason Davis. He ignored me and filed without telling anyone after he'd promised he would be in contact when he filed and he got EXTREMELY lucky. Can you at least tell me that you understand why he got lucky? You didn't answer my other legal question above.

And for the record I'm untrained except for winning a bunch of Federal cases as a litigant and basically not losing a CGF case on the right to arms yet. As I told you, I'm not a lawyer, I just happen to know better than to go pro-se.

ETA: I am completely uncompensated. I have a day job that isn't anything to do with this.

-Gene

wildhawker
11-04-2010, 4:29 PM
Ok Jon, you're reaching here, but I'll bite in an attempt to redirect back to the real argument. By the way, you may want to salt your foot a bit before you insert it.

Here's our 2008 IRS form 990 submittal. Our 2009 return will reflect similar utilization and cost allocation.

74270 (note page 11)

You obviously either cannot comprehend or refuse to acknowledge the facts and reality of Sykes (now Richards). If the Sheriff had always been "shall issue" as you assert, why didn't it result in a dismissal rather than the settlement (in which the Sheriff stipulated that "self defense" is an acceptable good cause)?

I'm sorry that the people of LA, and possibly many others, may have to endure the likely negative outcome(s) from imprudent litigation by unsavory and inexperienced counsel.

-Brandon

You have been drinking too much cool aid. If it is a grass roots organization then get an accounting and tell me just how much went to the lawyers. either way the answer would be interesting, but i believe the answer is a big fat zero. You are just wrong about sykes. she blew the statute of limitations. she was the wrong plaintiff at the wrong time, but they got lucky because the new sheriff was shall issue. it doesnt get much more sinister than that, but please, keep sending in your donations because we are all on the same side:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675#

geeknow
11-04-2010, 4:30 PM
I love 'the right people'.

wash
11-04-2010, 4:30 PM
You have been drinking too much cool aid. If it is a grass roots organization then get an accounting and tell me just how much went to the lawyers. either way the answer would be interesting, but i believe the answer is a big fat zero. You are just wrong about sykes. she blew the statute of limitations. she was the wrong plaintiff at the wrong time, but they got lucky because the new sheriff was shall issue. it doesnt get much more sinister than that, but please, keep sending in your donations because we are all on the same side:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675#
Are you sure you know who you're talking to?

I don't think lawyers do Amicus Briefs for free.

wash
11-04-2010, 4:35 PM
Damn, that's a pretty good ratio.

But I would like to see you cut down on your office expenses.

taperxz
11-04-2010, 4:40 PM
After looking at the 990 i would have to say that more contributions are needed!! JMO I don't see where board members would be able to take a salary!! However i have tried to volunteer but get no response. I guess i am not very good at putting my thoughts in words.

HowardW56
11-04-2010, 4:41 PM
After looking at the 990 i would have to say that more contributions are needed!! JMO I don't see where board members would be able to take a salary!!


Absolutely....

CONTRIBUTE!

Rossi357
11-04-2010, 4:43 PM
He is in with the Fraidy Brady bunch. They sent him in to mess up the legal precess as much as he can. Hopefully he can't do too much damage. :eek: :mad:

taperxz
11-04-2010, 4:43 PM
I do.

wash
11-04-2010, 4:44 PM
You can volunteer. Just PM JD Berger or Wildhawker and they will tell you what you can do.

HowardW56
11-04-2010, 4:44 PM
Jon, we are all waiting for your next volley of malformed accusations and drivel…

taperxz
11-04-2010, 4:47 PM
You can volunteer. Just PM JD Berger or Wildhawker and they will tell you what you can do.

I have. I am only 2 miles from CGF headquarters.

From some of the babble i type though i can see why they would not need my help just looking at print:D

Gray Peterson
11-04-2010, 4:47 PM
Gene,
You and I have never spoken. You have attacked my charachter. Whose side are you on and what is your legal training? You ignored Peruta when he first came to you and only went back to him after he "got lucky". Review the record, he "got lucky" before you ever got involved. I hope to get lucky to. further, please disclose what "support" you have actually provided, versus the salary you have taken on behalf of members of this forum. Once we understand your bias, I am happy to answer your questions.
Jon

CGF DIRECTORS:

GENE HOFFMAN, JR.
CHAIRMAN 10.00 X X 0. 0. 0.
BILL WIESE
VICE CHAIRMAN 5.00 X X 0. 0. 0.
BEN CANNON
TREASURER 10.00 X X 0. 0. 0.
KEVIN L. THOMASON
SECRETARY 5.00 X X 0. 0. 0.
JAMES M. INGRAM
DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0. 0. 0.
WESLEY MORRIS
DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0. 0. 0.
PAUL T. NORDBERG
DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0. 0. 0.
IVAN PENA
DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0. 0. 0.
BRETT THOMAS
DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0. 0. 0.

There is no bias here. They take no money in salary for their work in CGF.

wash
11-04-2010, 4:48 PM
Howard, try to be polite.

I think he might start to see the light if we are nice.

Kukuforguns
11-04-2010, 4:49 PM
You have been drinking too much cool aid.
Mr. Birdt, if you want to engender the goodwill of the people who participate in these forums (and I suggest that you do), I recommend unflagging civility. Oh, and its "Kool-Aid.":D

DanTood: I don't disagree with essentially anything you say in your response to mine. However, I see someone (Birdt) who is going to go ahead with his lawsuit despite the collective wisdom of other people interested in the same outcome. We cannot (thank goodness it's a free country based on the rule of law) prevent him from proceeding with his action. In light of his insistence on proceeding, we can either (1) help him by providing advice and attempting to encourage him to follow the gameplan; or (2) tell him to go jump off a cliff. I do not see how #2 helps advance our position. To the contrary, #2 minimizes Birdt's chances of success and maximizes the potential that his actions will prejudice all of us.

Accordingly, I am all for being civil to Mr. Birdt, politely and resolutely encouraging him to wait for the currently pending CCW actions to be resolved before pursuing his action, and offering him whatever advice we have to maximize his chances of success. I see driving Mr. Birdt away from this forum as distinctly counterproductive.

Why would we want to drive Birdt away?

hoffmang
11-04-2010, 4:51 PM
And just because I'm tired of the meme that Sykes had nothing to do with McGinness going shall issue I'm posting this.

Here (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/MSJ-2009-08-06/018-2%20EX-A.pdf) is the Sacramento Sheriff's CCW procedure document as filed as Exhibit A of the MSJ in Sykes.

Let's compare that to the current document (http://www.sacsheriff.com/forms/documents/ccw_process.pdf) updated the week before we filed a joint dismissal.

Which one says self protection may be good cause for the issuance of a permit?

Jon,

Please read the dockets and think about the timelines before going off half cocked.

-Gene

wash
11-04-2010, 4:52 PM
I have. I am only 2 miles from CGF headquarters.

From some of the babble i type though i can see why they would not need my help just looking at print:D
From what I understand, the "headquarters" is just a mail drop and most of the board work is done by telephone or over a steak dinner while wearing unitards.

The volunteer work is mostly leg work, finding information to help in cases, showing up at City Council meetings whenever LCAV BS goes up for a vote and some behind the scene stuff...

I try to show up and I donate. That's what I'm good for.

goober
11-04-2010, 4:55 PM
someone else already said it, but me too:
i <3 The Right People.

Librarian
11-04-2010, 4:55 PM
Accordingly, I am all for being civil to Mr. Birdt, politely and resolutely encouraging him to wait for the currently pending CCW actions to be resolved before pursuing his action, and offering him whatever advice we have to maximize his chances of success. I see driving Mr. Birdt away from this forum as distinctly counterproductive.

Remembering this is a two-way street, let's go with this plan, shall we?

taperxz
11-04-2010, 4:56 PM
Its all good, they just don't seem to reply to my PM's I am sure they are pretty busy with what they are doing these days. I still send contributions when i can. Thanks for the info.

HowardW56
11-04-2010, 4:56 PM
Howard, try to be polite.

I think he might start to see the light if we are nice.

I will bite my tounge (fingers).

I may have found the accusations more offensive than Gene did...

taperxz
11-04-2010, 4:58 PM
Steak dinner? Ya, i know i missed the one at Izzys cause i was up at my ranch tending cattle. I still had a steak though.:)

wash
11-04-2010, 4:58 PM
Mr. Birdt, if you want to engender the goodwill of the people who participate in these forums (and I suggest that you do), I recommend unflagging civility. Oh, and its "Kool-Aid.":D

DanTood: I don't disagree with essentially anything you say in your response to mine. However, I see someone (Birdt) who is going to go ahead with his lawsuit despite the collective wisdom of other people interested in the same outcome. We cannot (thank goodness it's a free country based on the rule of law) prevent him from proceeding with his action. In light of his insistence on proceeding, we can either (1) help him by providing advice and attempting to encourage him to follow the gameplan; or (2) tell him to go jump off a cliff. I do not see how #2 helps advance our position. To the contrary, #2 minimizes Birdt's chances of success and maximizes the potential that his actions will prejudice all of us.

Accordingly, I am all for being civil to Mr. Birdt, politely and resolutely encouraging him to wait for the currently pending CCW actions to be resolved before pursuing his action, and offering him whatever advice we have to maximize his chances of success. I see driving Mr. Birdt away from this forum as distinctly counterproductive.

Why would we want to drive Birdt away?
It was actually Flavor Aid but lets just drop it.

Mr. Birdt, please investigate what CGF has and is doing for the state.

They even have a legal education deal for lawyers that want to specialize in firearms law.

I would like to have a NFA trust specialist in the state, if you want to get involved in firearm law, that might be a market that you can grab up easily.

We are friends.

We can be real friendly when we don't feel threatened.

We've been burned by Gorski so that's why we feel threatened when someone wants to go it alone in a pro-per.

HowardW56
11-04-2010, 5:01 PM
most of the board work is done by telephone or over a steak dinner while wearing unitards.

BAD VISUAL.... :puke:

Gray Peterson
11-04-2010, 5:02 PM
And just because I'm tired of the meme that Sykes had nothing to do with McGinness going shall issue I'm posting this.

Here (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/sykes/MSJ-2009-08-06/018-2%20EX-A.pdf) is the Sacramento Sheriff's CCW procedure document as filed as Exhibit A of the MSJ in Sykes.

Let's compare that to the current document (http://www.sacsheriff.com/forms/documents/ccw_process.pdf) updated the week before we filed a joint dismissal.

Which one says self protection may be good cause for the issuance of a permit?

Jon,

Please read the dockets and think about the timelines before going off half cocked.

-Gene

Also, to add, Sheriff McGinness was the only one who could have stipulated to the consent agreement. Neither Jones nor Cooper have the authority to do that.

Also, a few counties are starting to come around to loosening their issuance policy because of what happened in Sacramento.

What about the fact that LASD requires people to go to LAPD first to be denied?

Consent decrees are all state (Assenza consent decree). There are state law violations that cannot be followed up upon in federal court as it's outside of their particular jursidiction.

What's the point of winning a federal civil rights lawsuit in regards to good cause and good moral character when the sheriff's offices can just add requirements that are outside of state law such as liability insurance (illegal under PC12054), medical clearance paperwork (illegal under PC12051), numerous letters of reference (illegal under PC12051).

Computer and networking engineers are spoken ill of here. Do you understand that these engineers A) Brought back the AR-platform rifles to California in terms of the OLL movement and B) did more to fix california rulemaking than anyone had done in the last 20 years. Computer engineering, coding, and understanding of computer network architecture is how you fix the carry licensing system in California.

Read up on Salute v. Pitchess, which I am attaching to this post, which explains what sheriffs are required to do, which is individually consider each application. Did you ask for Public Records Request to see who had good cause to be issued, and then once you got those, pursued a PC12050 license under any similar/same good cause (if they deny you, it's a Guillory violation?).

taperxz
11-04-2010, 5:02 PM
BAD VISUAL.... :puke:

Yes it is! You forgot the Saphire Gin Martinis to go with it.

hoffmang
11-04-2010, 5:04 PM
I may have found the accusations more offensive than Gene did...

It's easy to have thick skin when your actions can speak more loudly than your words.

-Gene

HowardW56
11-04-2010, 5:11 PM
Yes it is! You forgot the Saphire Gin Martinis to go with it.


You would have to keep them coming to numb that visual...

HowardW56
11-04-2010, 5:12 PM
It's easy to have thick skin when your actions can speak more loudly than your words.

-Gene

So true.

H.M.
11-04-2010, 5:14 PM
If I may say something:

Everyone is on the same team here. But this discussion isn't one that really works well on a public forum. Trying to hash it out via this forum is only going to make an enemies.

The big players here should get on a conference call and chat, like friends who all have the same common goal, about the best way to achieve that goal.

Jon, why don't you PM Gene or BWeise your phone number and offer to talk for a few minutes about other efforts that are being undertaken in the same arena?

Theseus
11-04-2010, 5:14 PM
1. Mr. Birdt is on the record admitting he lied to a judge. With that record he wishes to go in front of a judge and claim that he has the right to a permit. The legal argument may be sound, but the facts of the plaintiff enter the discussion and what do you think the judge thinks of counsel/plaintiff. It might be different if someone else was representing him but he's got to sit there and tell a judge he's not lieing this time about himself.

2. Mr. Birdt is an attorney. I'm not. You'll notice I don't file pro-se cases, nor does Chuck, Don, Jason, or Alan. A pro-se lawyer has a fool for a client. If Mr. Birdt wants to learn to practice in this area he should get a client that isn't him and he should take on a related issue that isn't central in about the worst place possible to fight.

3. Why does everyone who posts on this board think that they're Kobe Bryant? I mean lots of people can shoot hoops right? Lots of people can shoot hoops. Lots of people understand the game. Heck quite a few even get paid to play basketball. But you know what? There are damn few Kobe Bryants. Why do people egg on amateurs to go play in the pros? Chuck Michel is not a plumber. He's also smart enough to not go try to plumb on behalf of 35M Californians. He's also not a divorce lawyer - you'll note he doesn't do that. Why then does everyone think they can be a civil rights lawyer? The only winning civil rights lawyer I've seen in the last 10 years has been... Alan Gura. I realize why everyone wants to be Kobe Bryant, but what I don't get is why they're seriously willing to empiril lots of people's civil rights over the issue.

4. Want to know why I'm still not happy about Peruta? It's incentive for folks who don't have the wherewithal or the story to be able to go all the way and be Otis McDonald. Chuck stepped in and cleaned that case up but now its incenting bad behavior. I can't even explain in public why Mr. Peruta got very lucky. Flintlock Tom, master federal litigation strategist now thinks that means anyone can file and control the agenda. Great. Does everyone remember all the salacious stories about Otis McDonald's checkered past? Want to know why you don't? He didn't have one! Finding a good plaintiff like Mr. McDonald takes an amazing amount of work and I can tell you that work is not what is being done here.

Ego, it continues to be way more important than winning...

-Gene

I understand where Gene and the rest are coming from. . . And I can see the other side, having a case and needing help myself.

Just like the ACLU, the Foundation needs to be smart about their action. This man may be an otherwise competent lawyer, so to get the experience he needs, perhaps he can instead provide his time and assistance to the more experienced lawyers, and maybe perhaps learn their strategy instead of trying to make his own path. I am sure that, if in that capacity, the more experienced lawyers could use some useful help?

I am torn however. . . On the one hand, the Foundation shouldn't have to jump to the rescue or aid of every single impatient person that threatens an ill-advised suit to save us. . . On the other, we need to fight on both fronts with our friends and our enemies. . . It is an exhausting battle, one that even I got tired of (and I am generally a pretty patient person).

I guess the question is to the members. . . do you really want the Foundation wasting your donated money helping prevent bad CASE-law, or working their strategy to make great CASE-law?

HowardW56
11-04-2010, 5:22 PM
Just like the ACLU, the Foundation needs to be smart about their action. This man may be an otherwise competent lawyer, so to get the experience he needs, perhaps he can instead provide his time and assistance to the more experienced lawyers, and maybe perhaps learn their strategy instead of trying to make his own path. I am sure that, if in that capacity, the more experienced lawyers could use some useful help?

I am torn however. . . On the one hand, the Foundation shouldn't have to jump to the rescue or aid of every single impatient person that threatens an ill-advised suit to save us. . . On the other, we need to fight on both fronts with our friends and our enemies. . . It is an exhausting battle, one that even I got tired of (and I am generally a pretty patient person).

I guess the question is to the members. . . do you really want the Foundation wasting your donated money helping prevent bad law, or working their strategy to make great law?

We need to do both, prevent bad law and make great (good) law.

Perhaps he can instead provide his time and assistance to the more experienced lawyers, not a bad idea, if egos can be put aside and positive outcome results...

jonbirdt
11-04-2010, 5:23 PM
You guys are funny, you dish it well, but can't take it.
We are all friends in pursuit of the same goal.
and no, I am not a Brady implant.
I plan on kicking the **** out of LA county using the work of others much smarter than me and will keep you posted. I have no interest in the foundations time or money, in fact, I didnt even bring the issue to this forum, one of your members did.
I wish you the best of luck and thank each of you for continuing to fight for my rights, and hope someday you understand that we have the same motives, just different ideas about the "right time", though i do agree with you about the right person and wish it wasn't me. I also wish i hadnt wasted several hours of my life with this inane drivel.
over and out.

raycm2
11-04-2010, 5:24 PM
... you should be thinking of this in military terms.

^This. :chris:

wash
11-04-2010, 5:25 PM
I'm pretty sure CGF is the type of non-profit that can't endorse politicians or suggest legislation.

I think we can only prevent bad law and fight existing bad laws.

So you're asking should CGF do what they are doing or do nothing...

wash
11-04-2010, 5:26 PM
Damn, it looks like he went full-Gorski.

hoffmang
11-04-2010, 5:40 PM
I plan on kicking the **** out of LA county using the work of others much smarter than me and will keep you posted.

Let's review.

You committed a crime of moral turpitude and you accused others of being mean by reporting that fact.

You didn't actually understand the stance and history of Sykes.

You continue to ignore the major impediment between you and "kicking the **** out of LA county."

Yep. We can't take it. :rolleyes:

I'd suggest you answer any one of the questions I've publicly posed to you.

:gene:

-Gene

HowardW56
11-04-2010, 5:48 PM
Damn, it looks like he went full-Gorski.

He does not seem to grasp that the past cases in the Central District of CA have not gone well, I do not know if there are any judges sympathetic to our side on the federal bench in Los Angeles.

Peruta was lucky to draw a sympathetic judge in San Diego. There is the potential for some good rulings to come from there. Which, if jonbirdt were patient, would serve strengthen his position.

What is the rush to take on the Los Angeles? The city and county budget may be tight, but I am willing to guarantee that on this issue they will spend enough to bury a sole practitioner…

Sgt Raven
11-04-2010, 5:49 PM
Damn, it looks like he went full-Gorski.

“A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.” - Abraham Lincoln :TFH:

goober
11-04-2010, 5:49 PM
Damn, it looks like he went full-Gorski.

Everybody knows, you never go full-Gorski... :chris:

Theseus
11-04-2010, 5:56 PM
You guys are funny, you dish it well, but can't take it.
We are all friends in pursuit of the same goal.
and no, I am not a Brady implant.
I plan on kicking the **** out of LA county using the work of others much smarter than me and will keep you posted. I have no interest in the foundations time or money, in fact, I didnt even bring the issue to this forum, one of your members did.
I wish you the best of luck and thank each of you for continuing to fight for my rights, and hope someday you understand that we have the same motives, just different ideas about the "right time", though i do agree with you about the right person and wish it wasn't me. I also wish i hadnt wasted several hours of my life with this inane drivel.
over and out.

And you keep coming back. . . You obviously want something. You desire to be validated. . . I can understand that. But what we see isn't someone interested in the cause, but someone who might wish to simply try and prove their skill. . . What have you done for the cause other than this lawsuit?

Don't file. As you said, the Peruta case won't be ready for a little while, and you don't know how it will turn out right now anyway, so what is the harm?

Relax, check the ego, and work with us, and you might find that you have some friends in the fight, you just didn't know it.

creekside
11-04-2010, 5:57 PM
If this is a sample of your courtroom skills, please drop your pro bono matter and don't set a bad precedent that may hurt the rights of the rest of us.

Fixing what you break is what is going to cost us time and money.

You guys are funny, you dish it well, but can't take
it.
We are all friends in pursuit of the same goal.
and no, I am not a Brady implant.
I plan on kicking the **** out of LA county using the work of others much smarter than me and will keep you posted. I have no interest in the foundations time or money, in fact, I didnt even bring the issue to this forum, one of your members did.
I wish you the best of luck and thank each of you for continuing to fight for my rights, and hope someday you understand that we have the same motives, just different ideas about the "right time", though i do agree with you about the right person and wish it wasn't me. I also wish i hadnt wasted several hours of my life with this inane drivel.
over and out.

MasterYong
11-04-2010, 6:02 PM
The language filter won't even let me say what needs to be said to this dude.

Bottom-line birdt, your actions and attitude are extremely selfish.

2009_gunner
11-04-2010, 6:15 PM
A. You think you've dished out anything? Everything you've slung has been incorrect. From understanding current lawsuits, to making claims about CGF board members.

B. You think you can copycat a law suit, without answering Gene's questions.

C. You are extremely confident that you'll be kicking ***, with no prior civil rights firearms experience. If you were to hire a lawyer, what would you think of that?



Just end it.

nick
11-04-2010, 7:28 PM
Ok Jon, you're reaching here, but I'll bite in an attempt to redirect back to the real argument. By the way, you may want to salt your foot a bit before you insert it.

Here's our 2008 IRS form 990 submittal. Our 2009 return will reflect similar utilization and cost allocation.

74270 (note page 11)

You obviously either cannot comprehend or refuse to acknowledge the facts and reality of Sykes (now Richards). If the Sheriff had always been "shall issue" as you assert, why didn't it result in a dismissal rather than the settlement (in which the Sheriff stipulated that "self defense" is an acceptable good cause)?

I'm sorry that the people of LA, and possibly many others, may have to endure the likely negative outcome(s) from imprudent litigation by unsavory and inexperienced counsel.

-Brandon

Only 56K in gross receipts? Damn, we've been slacking off.

hoffmang
11-04-2010, 7:34 PM
Only 56K in gross receipts? Damn, we've been slacking off.

Yes!

But really that's previous fiscal year. Things are larger in the next once we get that one filed. We still pay no one except the lawyers though - and we pay them damn little. Thank Jason and Don. Thanks SAF!

-Gene

mblat
11-04-2010, 8:11 PM
I am not sure what I find more disturbing:
our new "friend" or the fact that 40K+ membership managed to donate THE WHOLE $57K. That comes out to MORE than $1 per......

Kukuforguns
11-04-2010, 8:39 PM
Please let us not claim that Birdt committed a crime of moral turpitude.

The State Bar indicates:
Birdt falsely told the court under penalty of perjury that his client, the employer, directly negotiated the settlements with the four plaintiffs without his involvement. He stipulated that his actions involved moral turpitude.
If you parse the statement, the Bar never states that Birdt committed perjury. It states that he falsely told something to the court under penalty of perjury. Birdt also stipulated that his actions involved moral turpitude. That does not necessarily mean he committed a crime of moral turpitude. He has not been convicted of anything.

hoffmang
11-04-2010, 9:20 PM
Please let us not claim that Birdt committed a crime of moral turpitude.

The State Bar indicates:

If you parse the statement, the Bar never states that Birdt committed perjury. It states that he falsely told something to the court under penalty of perjury. Birdt also stipulated that his actions involved moral turpitude. That does not necessarily mean he committed a crime of moral turpitude. He has not been convicted of anything.

Uhm... Isn't perjury always a crime and not a civil violation?

-Gene

Mute
11-04-2010, 9:25 PM
So let me see if I have this right. The answer is, "Screw you! Not good enough! I'll do my own damn thing so just stay out of my way!"

Is that correct?

Don't patronize me and declare how you're on the same side as all of us. The only side you're clearly on is your own.

jdberger
11-04-2010, 9:25 PM
Its all good, they just don't seem to reply to my PM's I am sure they are pretty busy with what they are doing these days. I still send contributions when i can. Thanks for the info.

I don't recall a PM - and I don't think that I've ever ignored any. Sorry if I did. Send another with an email, please. I can't speak for Wildhawker. I'm amazed that he has anytime to answer emails. Honestly, he does the work of 12 men. It's astounding.

Yes it is! You forgot the Saphire Gin Martinis to go with it.

We're more Bourbon folk - though Bill has a fondness for white wine spritzers. ;)

Kukuforguns
11-04-2010, 9:53 PM
Uhm... Isn't perjury always a crime and not a civil violation?

-Gene
The Bar found that he told a falsehood while under penalty of perjury. The Bar did not find that he committed perjury. Perjury requires more than knowingly telling a falsehood under penalty of perjury. Moreover, Mr. Birdt's stipulation was with the the Bar of California -- not a prosecutor's office and certainly not before a court of law in connection with a criminal case against Mr. Birdt. I have no idea if Mr. Birdt's stipulation with the Bar would be admissible hearsay in a criminal prosecution and I'm not going to take the time to research the issue.

Librarian
11-04-2010, 9:56 PM
We're more Bourbon folk -
Well, when you (and your somewhat surprised wife) are buying ... :D

Thanks again, BTW.

hoffmang
11-04-2010, 10:01 PM
The Bar found that he told a falsehood while under penalty of perjury. The Bar did not find that he committed perjury. Perjury requires more than knowingly telling a falsehood under penalty of perjury. Moreover, Mr. Birdt's stipulation was with the the Bar of California -- not a prosecutor's office and certainly not before a court of law in connection with a criminal case against Mr. Birdt. I have no idea if Mr. Birdt's stipulation with the Bar would be admissible hearsay in a criminal prosecution and I'm not going to take the time to research the issue.

I'm sure those fine distinctions will be well taken by a Federal Judge in the Central District.... Apparently you can tell a knowing falsehood under penalty of perjury... Who knew?

-Gene

E Pluribus Unum
11-04-2010, 11:39 PM
I'm sure those fine distinctions will be well taken by a Federal Judge in the Central District.... Apparently you can tell a knowing falsehood under penalty of perjury... Who knew?


Bill Clinton

dantodd
11-05-2010, 1:14 AM
Apparently you can tell a knowing falsehood under penalty of perjury... Who knew?

-Gene

Bill Clinton

Nope. He was suspended from the Supreme Court and then resigned from that court's bar because he believed he was going to be disbarred. I believe He also lost his license in Arkansas for 5 years.

So, no, not even the President of the United States of America can commit perjury with impunity.

Kukuforguns
11-05-2010, 6:12 AM
I'm sure those fine distinctions will be well taken by a Federal Judge in the Central District.... Apparently you can tell a knowing falsehood under penalty of perjury... Who knew?

-Gene
I'm not, at the moment, trying to protect Birdt's case. I'm trying to protect you from yourself.

HowardW56
11-05-2010, 6:37 AM
Bill Clinton

My thought exactly...

He was suspended from the bar for 5 years

OleCuss
11-05-2010, 7:01 AM
My thought exactly...

He was suspended from the bar for 5 years

- Which really was no penalty at all since he wasn't actually practicing law anyway. . . Didn't seem to hurt his reputation, either, as he continued to rake in multiple millions of dollars from speaking engagements and the like. What's more, if he were able to run once again for POTUS I'd bet the trial lawyers would spend heavily to elect him.

No meaningful punishment for Clinton for obvious perjury.

jonbirdt
11-05-2010, 7:01 AM
Help me out with the truth Gene, something that seems to escape you:
Ed Peruta won his victory on his own without your help after you maligned him and turned him away, true?
Chuck Michel stepped in to the case in April, after Judge Gonzalez issued her now famous ruling on the motion to dismiss, true?
Sykes filed her case three years after her application was denied and a year after the statute of limitations ran, true?
Both incoming Sacramento Sheriff candidates supported shall issue, true?
So, while I applaud your legislative and sunshine efforts, what is you have done or know about the Federal District Judges in the Central District that tells you they wouldn't follow the Rulings already issued by their bosses up at the Supreme Court? What makes this lawsuit untimely? I still haven't had an answer to that question. Peruta didnt get lucky with Judge Gonzalez, he fought when you ignored him and he got the government to do what it is supposed to do. You are not the arbiter of what is right or wrong. Lastly (and I promise lastly) this Federal Court has already held a hearing on my discipline with the State Bar and has already found that I posses good moral charachter such that I am entitled to practice before them, as such, if the County would like to argue that the Judge got it wrong, I am okay with that, but under Judicial Estoppel they are prohibited from doing so as good moral charachter is a pre-requisite to maintaining admission to the Bar, something I have done.

edwardm
11-05-2010, 7:03 AM
This man may be an otherwise competent lawyer, so to get the experience he needs, perhaps he can instead provide his time and assistance to the more experienced lawyers, and maybe perhaps learn their strategy instead of trying to make his own path. I am sure that, if in that capacity, the more experienced lawyers could use some useful help?


I can say from having offered myself (I'll dig out the PM's if I have to) that the 'crew' doesn't want that kind of help from other counsel. They've got the counsel thing pretty buttoned up, and maybe for good reason. Actually, it is for a good reason, and I'll say no more on that.

But, there are other ways a competent and willing attorney *can* help. Opportunities abound and I found one and I'm glad to be doing what I can. Plus there has never been, to my knowledge, a refusal by these guys to talk to outside counsel representing other folks to lend a hand or advice.

Remember - you start at the bottom and climb one rung at a time. This Birdt guy knows no humility (not uncommon for our profession). But, he also seems to not see the bigger picture (not as common in our profession).

OleCuss
11-05-2010, 7:16 AM
Oh, c'mon guys. . .

This does not need to be a contest to see who can dump the greatest amount of excrement on the other.

This is turning into a very non-productive thread devoted to causing grief and hard feelings between people who (IMHO) have the same goal in mind but a difference of opinion on how to get there.

How about several of you lawyerly and CGF types sit down with Mr. Birdt, enjoy a libation or two and discuss the best way to proceed while assuming the best of motivations even if there is significant disagreement on tactics?

Gray Peterson
11-05-2010, 7:37 AM
Help me out with the truth Gene, something that seems to escape you:
Ed Peruta won his victory on his own without your help after you maligned him and turned him away, true?

That's not what happened, given what I know of what's been posted here. They made agreements and the agreement was broken.

Chuck Michel stepped in to the case in April, after Judge Gonzalez issued her now famous ruling on the motion to dismiss, true?

3 months afterwards. The amended complaint filed by Chuck significantly improved the case, gave more sympathetic plaintiffs with no "history", as it where.

Sykes filed her case three years after her application was denied and a year after the statute of limitations ran, true?

None of that matters. What Sacramento was attempting to do was to export the Navegar standard from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (USCA-DC) case law into the 9th Circuit. The Navegar standard was a creation of the DC Circuit to limit it's own workload, and it's unique to DC. For example, in the 2nd Circuit, Bach v. Pataki was decided and they decided that it would be futile for the applicant to apply and decided that the Navegar standard should not apply in their circuit.

Besides, one of the Sacramento plaintiffs had his license immediately revoked by Sacramento County when he moved into the county.

Both incoming Sacramento Sheriff candidates supported shall issue, true?

What does that matter? When the lawsuit was filed back in May of 2009. The candidates were pretty much unknown at that point.

So, while I applaud your legislative and sunshine efforts, what is you have done or know about the Federal District Judges in the Central District that tells you they wouldn't follow the Rulings already issued by their bosses up at the Supreme Court? What makes this lawsuit untimely? I still haven't had an answer to that question.

United States v. Skoien en banc. A great example of judges ignoring McDonald and Heller as a fundamental right. Heller v. District of Columbia in the US District Court in DC.

Every judge is a human being, and usually appointed to an area they prefer to be or raised. By far, the Eastern District of California has the most concentration of judges who are willing to read what the SCOTUS said and not attempt to substitute their own judgments and feelings against what SCOTUS did with McDonald and do everything possible to make a civil case against a gun control law lose.

Ask yourself this question: Why did the case Brown v. Board of Education get filed in Kansas rather than Alameda or Georgia to strike down racial segregation in schools? It's because the NAACP did their research on the judicial pools of the various district courts and decided that the judges in Kansas were more amiable to striking down the statutes than in Alabama.

Peruta didnt get lucky with Judge Gonzalez, he fought when you ignored him and he got the government to do what it is supposed to do. You are not the arbiter of what is right or wrong. Lastly (and I promise lastly) this Federal Court has already held a hearing on my discipline with the State Bar and has already found that I posses good moral charachter such that I am entitled to practice before them, as such, if the County would like to argue that the Judge got it wrong, I am okay with that, but under Judicial Estoppel they are prohibited from doing so as good moral charachter is a pre-requisite to maintaining admission to the Bar, something I have done.

Good moral character for carrying a gun is not the same as earning a living, especially to a judge who thinks that Heller/McDonald only applies to the home. Central District is filled with those kinds of judges.

OleCuss
11-05-2010, 7:52 AM
Gray:

That was a great post! Thank you.

It was to the point. Gave great information, and if there was any animus I couldn't tell.

Oh, and I certainly learned stuff even if no one else did.

wash
11-05-2010, 8:42 AM
I am not sure what I find more disturbing:
our new "friend" or the fact that 40K+ membership managed to donate THE WHOLE $57K. That comes out to MORE than $1 per......
That was for 2008. CGF had just formed as a non-profit and had not even really been taking donations by then.

CGN was probably more like 30,000 members, not 57,000, perhaps there were 7,500 "active" members.

I'm sure they are raising quite a bit more now.

In 2008, beyond a bit of funding for Nordyke I'm not sure how much they had used real lawyers in lawsuits. Maybe a few letters to OAL for underground regulations...

Now they are doing Amicus Briefs and sponsoring lawsuits (even some outside CA).

CGF has stepped it up and the more we donate the more they can get done.

HowardW56
11-06-2010, 6:02 PM
This case has been filed. I wish that Mr. Birdt had waited. Since he has decided to go forward, I wish him luck.

The case number is: 10-cv-08377-RGK - JEM

greasemonkey
11-06-2010, 11:16 PM
I humored myself today and skimmed through this thread again, mostly focusing on Birdt's comments and replies, then I contrasted it with the thread started by 'Fresno1199' about the Tulare Co. CO pertaining to AW charges.

I see a lot more wisdom in Ron Sawl's approach, he's confident and has done well with his defense cases but he didn't come in telling everyone how wrong they all are or how awesome people should think he is, Sawl graciously reached out to see if there's any way he could help or any way CGF counsel could help him bring about a better result for the firearms community as a whole.

Birdt, do yourself a favor and learn from someone else's approach that has gone over far more smoothly and effectively:
-Not Guilty on AW Charge (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=360239)
-See also 'how to win friends and influence people'.

obeygiant
11-07-2010, 1:20 AM
You know what they say about opinions...if we are supposed to wait, what are we waiting for exactly? Nordyke and Peruta decisions will be out by the end of the year and they had the wrong plaintiff on Sykes with two shall issue candidates on the ballot for sheriff. Heller and McDonald are done and quite clear. Why should we wait for a right you already have? Because a computer engineer says so? I dont think so. It is this type of worthless chatter that caused me to drop out, not rage.

Jon it appears you're right, those computer engineers really haven't accomplished much. Let's take a minute to examine their scorecard so far:
CGF's Score Card

Pre-formation (2007-2008)

ARs and AKs are legal in California: http://bit.ly/4u0M6g
Invention of the Bullet Button: http://bit.ly/4xEo6E
DOJ BoF Regulations are Underground Regulations: http://bit.ly/57MbNq
Return of the Milpitas Lowers: http://bit.ly/5ebd96


CGF Successes (2008-Present)

Defended Bright Spot Pawn from AW charges: http://bit.ly/7FC20j
Defended John Contos from AW charges: http://bit.ly/4wQDpv
Defended UOC-ing Marine charged in Oceanside: http://bit.ly/8o6nE5
Defended large-capacity magazine charge.
Gutted DC's adoption of California's Handgun Roster: http://bit.ly/8JhGZa
Defended Don Anderson against AW charges: http://bit.ly/6L0Ykb
Defended legal AR (Orange County Sheriff Department AR seizure): http://bit.ly/7xHFgT
Defended charges of illegal carry, established shotgun is not concealable upon the person: http://bit.ly/5GZjav
Assisted Theseus fundraising: http://bit.ly/5IAWq4
Assisted LA Airport AW case fundraising: http://bit.ly/6erDF9
Filed an Amicus in McDonald supporting P or I Incorporation: http://bit.ly/4ZFNJX
Assisted in defeating San Mateo County LCAV ordinances: http://bit.ly/5Ourca
Funded UOC Lawsuit vs. San Diego: http://bit.ly/byxMDw
Nordyke amicus brief, shows gun show ban has no crime effect: http://bit.ly/bNnRkJ
SAF/CGF gun ads negate SF MTA anti-gun policy: http://bit.ly/8XNCFc


CGF Projects Underway:

Peña - Handgun Roster is Unconstitutional: Peña v. Cid
Sykes - License to carry must be shall issue: Sykes v. McGinness
Peterson - Partial funding of Peterson v. LaCabe, (right to carry/travel): http://bit.ly/972uyl
OOIDA - AB962 (ammo ban) is pre-empted by Federal law: OOIDA_v._Lindley
Ventura - Governments must disclose public records: CGF v. County of Ventura
Min. Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program for firearms issues: http://bit.ly/buY43R
Inquiries into Livermore PD UOC policy (ongoing): http://bit.ly/ajZJd0
Challenged DOJ rulemaking on DROS fees, demanded audit: http://bit.ly/cX6rvA
Several undisclosed legal and grassroots actions.


Coming Soon:

Multiple undisclosed cases already filed.
Challenge of large-capacity magazine ban.
Challenge of assault weapons ban.
Other strategic cases and actions in planning phase.


Now that we have examined the scorecard of those "computer engineers", to be fair, let's take a look at your scorecard. :confused: Wait....I'm having some trouble finding what it is exactly that you have done to further 2A rights here in CA.

jonbirdt
11-24-2010, 7:40 AM
http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Birdt_v._Baca-_FAC-_final.pdf

MasterYong
11-24-2010, 8:03 AM
I'm no lawyer, but aren't you supposed to be more specific in lawsuits?

One line reads:

16
California Penal Code 12050 is the only mechanism in California by which a non-law
enforcement official can carry a loaded firearm.

But the statement is wholly untrue. You can open-carry a loaded firearm in a lot of places, just not incorporated areas and such. I carry a loaded firearm all the time, just not town the street in the middle of town.

Seems like the entire argument is "other states let me do it" and "other states thinks this violates the US Constitution."

He may be right, but the argument seems weak.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm kinda interested to see what people with more experienced legal (2A-related) minds have to say.

Maestro Pistolero
11-24-2010, 9:06 AM
Please everyone, there has been WAY to much vitriol against a guy whose goals line up perfectly with ours, whatever his background.

Jon has written a fairly straight-forward (at least in it's final form) punchy brief here. This brief appears to be lean, and perfectly on point. (IANAL)

I really detest the public ridicule of someone who, while perhaps not a 100% perfect plaintiff, has obvious ability and resources which, if coordinated, could be an asset to us.

Read the latest brief. I believe every word and point made in it is unassailable. As a basis for eventual victory, this brief is solid, IMO.

I would really like to see the tone be a little more collegial here. This guy is no Gorski. He has repeatedly stated a willingness to cooperate, collaborate, and even step aside if there is a better plaintiff/case.

I fail to see the wisdom of alienating this man, whatever our disagreements with the timing of this case.

Jon, please stick around, and continue to take the high road, remain open to suggestions about timing, and remain flexible about how your case is managed going forward. I, for one, believe you will win this, but I doubt you will do it on your own.

Perhaps you would be willing to continue the case, but step aside as your own attorney?

jonbirdt
11-27-2010, 6:04 AM
got Judge Klausner, a law and order conservative who is not political, but is also not published on his view on 2a.

Gray Peterson
11-27-2010, 6:59 AM
got Judge Klausner, a law and order conservative who is not political, but is also not published on his view on 2a.

Funny, this posting said something else:

"here is the latest (at least until Gene censors it):

http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Birdt_v.Baca-_FAC_final.pdf"

I've attached a copy of the CGN Moderator List for this particular forum. As you can see, hoffmang is not there.

I also point out that it wasn't Gene who made the decision to moderate your posts on the Los Angeles Calguns CCW info posting, that decision was mine. It's off-topic there. It is not off-topic here.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-27-2010, 8:56 AM
A wise person once told me, don't confuse hard work with results.

POLICESTATE
11-27-2010, 9:12 AM
Is that a Pink Floyd Facepalm?

Crikey, fix those checkboxes and typos...

http://i777.photobucket.com/albums/yy55/sistermol2/epic-facepalm.jpg

obeygiant
11-27-2010, 9:34 AM
jonbirdt,

Your posts were moved to moderation because they were not germane to the scope of the CCW Information project. As Gray stated earlier, they were off-topic in the Los Angeles County thread but are not off-topic in 2A. Here are your posts in their entirety from the Los Angeles County thread:

Why wait, we will have Peruta and Nordyke decisions before the end of the year?

http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Birdt_v._Baca-_FAC-_final.pdf

I think we have all patiently waited long enough for a right we all agree is ours. The more pressure put on LA County, the sooner we are going to realize any change. They arent going to do anything until a Central District Judge tells them they have to.

The application is availible, say self defense and protection of your family as good cause, get a denial and sue them.
Im not a lawyer, but doesnt the state law already lay out a timeline and fee schedule for CCW issuance?

If this is the case, doesnt asking the county court for these things make the complaint look a bit amateurish?
You sue in federal court for violation of civil rights, not state court.
While I do not agree with your timing, as you have elected to move forward now, I wish you the best of luck.

Who did you draw for a Judge?
Gary Klausner- couldn't have asked for better.
I hope that works out well for you, He was appointed by George W. Bush.

I felt that way about Stephen Wilson a couple years ago. While he is an excellent judge, he granted the defendants MSJ in a gun case. Judge WIlson was appointed by Ronald Reagan...



The one thing I know about the guy is he is a law and order conservative who does not bow to political influence, but I don't know his personal view on guns. That alone sets him far apart from much of the rest of the CD Bench.
Sorry. Replace "county" with "federal" and my question still stands.
I've heard that about him.

Like I said earlier, I wish you luck...

Have any of the attorneys that are active in firearms and here on CGN offered any opinion or assistance?

I am just curious, not that it is any of my business…
Gura won't take on central district though he said he was going to file an eastern district case. It appears his northern district case is still pending a motion to amend. I met with Michel, and Gene sent Davis to attend. They are not interested in getting involved at this point. peruta and nordyke decisions are due by the end of the year and I think we are all just waiting to see what happens with both of those.
A lot depends on Nordyke and Peruta. If by some miracle both come down in our favor, and by the end of the year, then I will try and file my motion for summary judgment by the end of January with the hopes that we would have a favorable order in Los Angeles by next summer, but that is truly a best case and unlikely scenario. They will likely file a motion to dismiss and we will have to wait for a ruling on that, which could take months. there is also a small chance of a stay, and if Peruta and/or Nordyke go south then this isnt the right time for this fight in the Central District. My plan is to move this as fast as i can if Peruta and Nordyke are favorable.
jonbirdt,

You have already been advised by Gene,Brandon,Gray and Chuck as to why this is an inopportune time for your case to be filed. This is not the forum or the thread for you to try and garner support for your actions as it is outside of the scope of the CCW Project.
Gura has Richards v. Prieto (formerly Sykes v. McGinness) in the Eastern District. Was he going to file another one, maybe you reversed it, the motion to amend is pending in Richards v. Prieto. Maybe he has something for the Northern District coming up...

Once again, Good luck...
I believe that Mr. Birdt is confused about which district courts are where. Richards has been fully amended.

I also would not characterize the universal advice given in the same way.

-Gene
.
Sorry Gene, I must have misread the docket...

I knew there was a stipulated motion to amend with the amended complaint filed... I didn't notice whether the Judge had actually signed off on the motion...
Gene- you can't censor what I say by deleting my posts and then respond the way you want. oh wait, yeah, you can, you control the information you choose to feed no matter how wrong it is. Given your censorship and lies I will not post on this group anymore and once again renew my request to have you delete my account. good luck comrade.
The decision to moderate your posts in the LA County forum as off-topic was mine, not Gene's. Perpetuating your own victimhood by your reactions is pretty epic.

Santa Cruz Armory
11-27-2010, 9:41 AM
If I may remind everyone of an old story that seems to fit here.

An old bull and a young bull are standing on a grassy knoll, looking over a bunch of female cows grazing in the pasture below. The young bull says to the old bull, "Hey pop, let's say we run down there and jump one of them cows". The older one says: "No son. Lets walk down and jump 'em all".

Slow down son. I know you're already there, but the old bulls are on the way.

darksands
11-27-2010, 9:58 AM
I cannot stress enough that gun owners have been, and continue to be, the biggest threat to gun rights.

Looks like it works both ways here. I don't know law but I do know people and no matter how many times the same argument is repeated here, Mr. Birdt will continue with this case whether it is time to or not so why not help him with what we can. I am hopeful that he has all the information he needs to proceed and if he doesn't I hope that Calguns can give that information to him to try to get the best outcome of this.

The head guys here have already tried to talk him out of it and that doesn't look like it's going to happen so:

Mr Birdt, goodluck and godspeed to your case. You have the weight of many people on your shoulders and although advised against, I hope (as well as many others) you get super lucky and come out on top so we can take a leap forward to this fight for our rights and not a leap back.

I'll be back in two weeks to see if we win. Two weeks right?

dantodd
11-27-2010, 10:37 AM
Darksands, the problem is that each case CGF chooses to help cost both time and money. Additionally, each pro per case that gets itself assisted and "fixed" by CGF only encourages the next. Mr. Birdt's continual talk about Peruta ahould be plenty of evidence of this pattern. Peruta was probably more willing to work with CGF and was more likely to be decided ahead of Richards so it needed to be dealt with. In Birdt's case he will basically be mooted before it is likely to do significant damage.

wildhawker
11-27-2010, 11:02 AM
@Dan - one can hope.

sighere
11-27-2010, 3:36 PM
Whether or not Jon is the right plaintiff is not very clear in my mind. If only "squeaky clean" plaintiffs are chosen then the second prong of "may issue" will not be dealt with. Once the sheriffs are bound to consider self defense as good cause, they will hang their hat on "good moral character" and they will continue to deny permits.

A transgression such as Jon's has little bearing on whether or not he can safely handle himself or a weapon. Probably less so than a DUI or some kind of "breach of the peace" arrest (without conviction). So, in my mind his colorful past seems to be the "right" kind of past for purposes of GMC. Either way, I think that GMC is being ignored somewhat and pushed off for "some other day" or "some other case".

That said, I'm sure I speak for lots of people in L.A. and S.F. counties, when I say that we will not wait forever before filing more actions like his. Naturally, a 9th circuit decision would be great to bring into court since it's binding on the central district. The assumed "win" in Peruta would not bind the central district, but rather would only be an "advisory" decision as it pertains to the central district (binding in the southern dist.). This being the case if Peruta were to win and Birdt were to lose it would necessarily need to get to the 9th circuit for clarification. As it stands now, unless San Diego or Yolo (assuming a win there too) appeal, neither Richards or Peruta may see their day at the 9th circuit.
I wish Jon lots of luck in his case. I fully understand that CGF and SAF might get really upset about "rogue" cases like this being filed because it puts them in a position where they feel they must get involved, or just grit their teeth and hope it does not turn into a "bad" precedent, but such is the nature of freedom and liberty; no one person or organization sets the agenda. Lots of vitriol on this thread towards Jon and his "untimely" and "unsanctioned" filing that is somewhat disconcerting. Let's see how it turns out, and in the meantime, I hope the "big boys" at least chime in with an amicus brief when it makes sense to do so.

Ok, now y'all can start flaming away at me!

HowardW56
11-27-2010, 5:54 PM
Whether or not Jon is the right plaintiff is not very clear in my mind. If only "squeaky clean" plaintiffs are chosen then the second prong of "may issue" will not be dealt with. Once the sheriffs are bound to consider self defense as good cause, they will hang their hat on "good moral character" and they will continue to deny permits.

A transgression such as Jon's has little bearing on whether or not he can safely handle himself or a weapon. Probably less so than a DUI or some kind of "breach of the peace" arrest (without conviction). So, in my mind his colorful past seems to be the "right" kind of past for purposes of GMC. Either way, I think that GMC is being ignored somewhat and pushed off for "some other day" or "some other case".

That said, I'm sure I speak for lots of people in L.A. and S.F. counties, when I say that we will not wait forever before filing more actions like his. Naturally, a 9th circuit decision would be great to bring into court since it's binding on the central district. The assumed "win" in Peruta would not bind the central district, but rather would only be an "advisory" decision as it pertains to the central district (binding in the southern dist.). This being the case if Peruta were to win and Birdt were to lose it would necessarily need to get to the 9th circuit for clarification. As it stands now, unless San Diego or Yolo (assuming a win there too) appeal, neither Richards or Peruta may see their day at the 9th circuit.
I wish Jon lots of luck in his case. I fully understand that CGF and SAF might get really upset about "rogue" cases like this being filed because it puts them in a position where they feel they must get involved, or just grit their teeth and hope it does not turn into a "bad" precedent, but such is the nature of freedom and liberty; no one person or organization sets the agenda. Lots of vitriol on this thread towards Jon and his "untimely" and "unsanctioned" filing that is somewhat disconcerting. Let's see how it turns out, and in the meantime, I hope the "big boys" at least chime in with an amicus brief when it makes sense to do so.

Ok, now y'all can start flaming away at me!

The desire for "squeaky clean plaintiffs" eliminates any side issues or distractions in a case like this, at this time. Once that hurdle is overcome, and shall issue for perfect applicants is achieved, establishing a standard for what is acceptable may or may not be another battle...

With a squeaky clean plaintiff, when trying the cases that are moving forward now, there are side issues for the defence to throw out questioning qualification.

hoffmang
11-27-2010, 6:32 PM
With no right to bear arms in California, do you think we should chose a harder case to establish that right, or an easier one?

I want to pick the fights that are easiest to win first and then, once we have momentum and some case law, start picking harder and harder fights. This entire wave was started with simple possession of a common handgun in the home - not a short barreled machine gun - for a reason.

-Gene

Merle
11-27-2010, 6:54 PM
With no right to bear arms in California...

The California Constitution states

The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Since the CA Constitution obviously recognizes the US Constitution, and is part of the US, then the RKBA exists within CA.

GaryV
11-27-2010, 6:59 PM
The California Constitution states



Since the CA Constitution obviously recognizes the US Constitution, and is part of the US, then the RKBA exists within CA.

Not that the CA constitution matters, since McDonald would make that so anyway. But that's not the point. The point is you don't want to confuse being right with winning, because they are two very different and separate things. Those who make that mistake almost invariably use very bad strategy, and consequently almost always lose.

Funtimes
11-27-2010, 7:03 PM
The California Constitution states



Since the CA Constitution obviously recognizes the US Constitution, and is part of the US, then the RKBA exists within CA.

Just because the constitution says something, doesn't mean your going to get it -- or really have it. For example, Hawaii is a may issue state, that means on the books we have a right to bear arms; the reality, however, is that no permits have been issued to regular citizens for a decade and a half. Therefore, we have no right to bear arms, regardless of what the constitution says.

Remember interpretation has been a killler of that document for years, we have to change all that one case at a time.

Merle
11-27-2010, 7:11 PM
Just because the constitution says something, doesn't mean your going to get it -- or really have it. For example, Hawaii is a may issue state, that means on the books we have a right to bear arms; the reality, however, is that no permits have been issued to regular citizens for a decade and a half. Therefore, we have no right to bear arms, regardless of what the constitution says.

Remember interpretation has been a killler of that document for years, we have to change all that one case at a time.

Simply saying "You don't have the right" doesn't hold water when it's clearly there in the CA and US Constitution.

The RKBA is an extension of the fundamental right of man to self-defense. The courts (and trial judge after one's arrest) may not see it, but it doesn't negate that right.

The CA people and courts may not recognize that right, and it may take a constitutional amendment (e.g. Rose Bird versus Death Penalty) to make them realize such a right exists.

IF the right can be granted by the courts, or politicians, then it most certainly be taken away by the same. In such a case, it is no longer a right and a privilege. Never do I want to think of the RKBA as a privilege.

hoffmang
11-27-2010, 7:14 PM
Simply saying "You don't have the right" doesn't hold water when it's clearly there in the CA and US Constitution.


Please cite the California Supreme Court case or the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or Supreme Court case that says that citizens of California have a right to bear arms in public.

We're trying hard to create such a beast, which was the point I was making. Do you want to take the easy way to that case or the risky hard way?

-Gene

Merle
11-27-2010, 7:18 PM
Not that the CA constitution matters, since McDonald would make that so anyway. But that's not the point. The point is you don't want to confuse being right with winning, because they are two very different and separate things. Those who make that mistake almost invariably use very bad strategy, and consequently almost always lose.

Honors, principles and morals dictate that one must always do what is right, or what one believes is right at the time. It may mean you do not win.

But the moment we fail to recognize what is right and do not do what needs to be done, we have lost. And not just the short term battle, but everything that defines us.

We can compromise all the way to the grave and no longer will we be the person we wanted to be growing up.

sighere
11-27-2010, 7:26 PM
Merle is waxing poetic, so that's cool!

It's fun to listen to all of the different opinions on this thread. Bear in mind that Jon Birdt is doing this for Jon Birdt. Whether or not this fits with the bigger picture agenda that SAF and Calguns is all about is debatable, but these rogue cases are part of the landscape. I'm sure some of them will help and some will not. I'd sure love to be a fly on the wall at LASO when they start discussing the fact that their turn has come in "dealing with" the new reality. I can only imagine what anti freedom, anti constitution, and anti personal rights, diatribe will be uttered that we won't have the privilege of hearing. Where's Wikileaks when you need them?

AndrewMendez
11-27-2010, 7:28 PM
I want to pick the fights that are easiest to win first and then, once we have momentum and some case law, start picking harder and harder fights. This entire wave was started with simple possession of a common handgun in the home - not a short barreled machine gun - for a reason.

-Gene

If you really stop and read just one post in this thread...please make it the quote one.


Bottom line, if your not coordinating with the CalGuns Foundation, you are against us if you try and coordinate your own fight, for your own personal gain.

Merle
11-27-2010, 7:31 PM
Please cite the California Supreme Court case or the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or Supreme Court case that says that citizens of California have a right to bear arms in public.

Do you believe ONLY a decision by the court determines our rights?

I sure don't.

CA and its constitution hold itself subservient to the US Constitution, and in the US Constitution there is a RKBA. So why say there isn't one in CA, because no court has said it was so?

dantodd
11-27-2010, 7:35 PM
Honors, principles and morals dictate that one must always do what is right, or what one believes is right at the time. It may mean you do not win.

But the moment we fail to recognize what is right and do not do what needs to be done, we have lost. And not just the short term battle, but everything that defines us.

We can compromise all the way to the grave and no longer will we be the person we wanted to be growing up.

No one has lost vision of "what is right" except, perhaps, you. "What is right" includes using the first amendment rights of redress rather than breaking the law in reforming our nation. Do you think we would have made it this far if Gura had been defending Dick Heller or Otis McDonald as defendants rather than plaintiffs? Do you even think that Gura, or similarly skilled attorneys would have taken those cases under those circumstances?

HowardW56
11-27-2010, 7:35 PM
Do you believe ONLY a decision by the court determines our rights?

I sure don't.

CA and its constitution hold itself subservient to the US Constitution, and in the US Constitution there is a RKBA. So why say there isn't one in CA, because no court has said it was so?

WHen trying to reverse current attitudes, and many years of judicial opinions, you need to start somewhere...

Start with the easy cases and geta good foundation of case law, then you have something to work from...

sighere
11-27-2010, 7:36 PM
Merle, I think the point Gene was making is that unless you can back up your rights with court cases they are theoretical and subject to interpretation. While you and I probably think that the recent Heller/McDonald decisions are pretty clear and we should not be having to battle CCW issuance in CA at all (every state should be like AZ with constitutional carry, no?) To take the "purist" position, we should not be battling 12050 at all, rather we should be battling 12031 head on. In a perfect world that's probably what calguns and SAF would do, but I think their strategy is to achieve the most in the shortest amount of time to help the greatest number of sponsors.....people...

Merle
11-27-2010, 7:46 PM
Merle is waxing poetic, so that's cool!

Lol. Sometimes when it's late and the Macallan flows :)

Bottom line, if your not coordinating with the CalGuns Foundation, you are against us if you try and coordinate your own fight, for your own personal gain.

This seems so wrong. Philosophically, everything being done is being done for selfish/personal gain (e.g. the right to own your own guns, carry your own self defense and choose the type of property you wish to own w/o restriction).

When did we start assuming a failure to coordinate assume they're against us? Adults can have disagreements, choose different routes and still not act against each other. I would assume groups of adults would enjoy the same privilege.

Freedom is the ability to choose, and being forced to follow group think. And isn't freedom what we are fighting for?

Librarian
11-27-2010, 7:51 PM
The California Constitution states
...
Since the CA Constitution obviously recognizes the US Constitution, and is part of the US, then the RKBA exists within CA.

Unfortunately, that bit of the CA constitution did not mean what you might think it means, to the men who wrote the CA constitution. The debates on the 1879 constitution are available on line, as well as several roughly contemporaneous law review articles. You could also search for the several posts I made here that provide the quotes and links.

But the summary is, until McDonald, the 2nd Amendment did not apply in CA.

dantodd
11-27-2010, 7:54 PM
Lol. Sometimes when it's late and the Macallan flows :)
duly noted.



This seems so wrong. Philosophically, everything being done is being done for selfish/personal gain (e.g. the right to own your own guns, carry your own self defense and choose the type of property you wish to own w/o restriction).

No, it is not. Some people do what they do because it is right and not because it is "good" for them in particular.

When did we start assuming a failure to coordinate assume they're against us? Adults can have disagreements, choose different routes and still not act against each other. I would assume groups of adults would enjoy the same privilege.

I think that what Andrew meant is that those who file cases, hold big UOC events, or make other sorts of distracting drama, are not working in the most effective way. The most effective way is to work under a common strategy. Coordinating doesn't always mean working on the same issues at the same time but it does mean accepting one leader or leadership group. If ones actions negatively impact our efforts they are working against us. This isn't to say they have different goals only that their "work" isn't getting us any closer to our common goal.

Freedom is the ability to choose, and being forced to follow group think. And isn't freedom what we are fighting for?

Here you are right. There is no law against stupid.

Merle
11-27-2010, 7:54 PM
Merle, I think the point Gene was making is that unless you can back up your rights with court cases they are theoretical and subject to interpretation. While you and I probably think that the recent Heller/McDonald decisions are pretty clear and we should not be having to battle CCW issuance in CA at all (every state should be like AZ with constitutional carry, no?) To take the "purist" position, we should not be battling 12050 at all, rather we should be battling 12031 head on. In a perfect world that's probably what calguns and SAF would do, but I think their strategy is to achieve the most in the shortest amount of time to help the greatest number of sponsors.....people...

Hmmm.

Okay, I won't disagree with that. Even the US Constitution with it's "shall not be infringed" portion would be subject to interpretation, which is very unfortunate.

If the US Constitution can be subject to interpretation, then any court case is subject to the same. And since court cases are subject to interpretation then there really is no limit.

So we're now stuck with interpretation by a few select individuals in the black robes. No longer do we have a Constitutional Republic but a defined ruling class who can interpret and re-interpret anything they decide (e.g. overturning Slaughterhouse, arguing P&I vs POI, etc.) versus King George.

So we created the US Constitution, ratified it and now have it interpreted by judges? We then pass amendments to make our intentions clear and the same judges re-intepret what we/they want? So we argue in court what the original intent is/was and how it should be, and it's up to judges to decide based upon their interpretation?

No, I don't like that.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me.

Merle
11-27-2010, 8:09 PM
Unfortunately, that bit of the CA constitution did not mean what you might think it means, to the men who wrote the CA constitution. The debates on the 1879 constitution are available on line, as well as several roughly contemporaneous law review articles. You could also search for the several posts I made here that provide the quotes and links.

But the summary is, until McDonald, the 2nd Amendment did not apply in CA.

I'm a simple guy and want to go with what is written being the written word and law.

However I do recognize that phrases like "legislative intent" have meanings deeper than the actual words scribed. When there is ambiguity or vagueness, then I see having to understand what the original "intent" is/was. The words written in the US and CA constitution do not imply such confusion to me.

The current words of the US and CA Constitution pertaining to the RKBA don't confuse me. The interpretation of those words do. But like I said... I'm a simple guy (enjoying a good 20 y/o scotch)

dantodd
11-27-2010, 8:12 PM
I'm a simple guy and want to go with what is written being the written word and law.

The world doesn't work this way. I'm sorry if this is news. We can only work with what IS, not with what we'd like the world to be.

Santa Cruz Armory
11-27-2010, 8:17 PM
Hmmm.

Okay, I won't disagree with that. Even the US Constitution with it's "shall not be infringed" portion would be subject to interpretation, which is very unfortunate.

If the US Constitution can be subject to interpretation, then any court case is subject to the same. And since court cases are subject to interpretation then there really is no limit.

So we're now stuck with interpretation by a few select individuals in the black robes. No longer do we have a Constitutional Republic but a defined ruling class who can interpret and re-interpret anything they decide (e.g. overturning Slaughterhouse, arguing P&I vs POI, etc.) versus King George.

So we created the US Constitution, ratified it and now have it interpreted by judges? We then pass amendments to make our intentions clear and the same judges re-intepret what we/they want? So we argue in court what the original intent is/was and how it should be, and it's up to judges to decide based upon their interpretation?

No, I don't like that.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear to me.

The light just came on.... ;)

And those justices are appointed by the President and Congress. (not saying you didn't know that) Left leaning presidents and congresses can drastically change the landscape of The Constitution.

hoffmang
11-27-2010, 8:50 PM
The current words of the US and CA Constitution pertaining to the RKBA don't confuse me. The interpretation of those words do. But like I said... I'm a simple guy (enjoying a good 20 y/o scotch)

When standing accused of breaking PC 12025 or PC 12031, the words of the US Constitution will not stop you from being convicted today (and so far.) Also, the words you are quoting from the California Constitution don't mean what you think, and no it's not because someone in a robe got them wrong. It's because they were written in a context you're not familiar with. Luckily, what you want them to mean is actually written into the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution (but not where 4 out of the 5 justices who agree with your interpretation of the Second Amendment said they are.)

It takes 20 years to make that scotch. I'd suggest it will take about half that time of real study for you to understand the points I'm making above fully if you start today.

-Gene

sighere
11-27-2010, 8:56 PM
I think you pegged it Merle. There's a fine line between "team" support and personal actions people take for their own personal reasons. By virtue of the fact that this website is a place where people go to be part of a community, I think there's a definite "team" attitude. I'm sure I'm not alone in being where Jon Birdt was a month or 2 ago in trying to figure out what "I" want to do and what that means, if anything, for "the team".

GaryV
11-27-2010, 9:49 PM
Honors, principles and morals dictate that one must always do what is right, or what one believes is right at the time. It may mean you do not win.

But the moment we fail to recognize what is right and do not do what needs to be done, we have lost. And not just the short term battle, but everything that defines us.

We can compromise all the way to the grave and no longer will we be the person we wanted to be growing up.

I agree with you. However, is it morally right to "do what needs to be done" in self-righteous way that we know ahead of time is doomed to failure, when we also know there is another way to "do what needs to be done" that has a much greater chance of actually achieving what is right. I personally don't think that it is.

wash
11-27-2010, 10:04 PM
What I won't compromise on is results.

I want my rights and I won't let anyone do the wrong thing for "the right reason" if it jeopardizes those results, well at least I'll tell off anyone doing that.

About "the right reason", being ideologically pure without reguard for results is not a "reasonable" strategy.

AndrewMendez
11-28-2010, 12:28 AM
This seems so wrong. Philosophically, everything being done is being done for selfish/personal gain (e.g. the right to own your own guns, carry your own self defense and choose the type of property you wish to own w/o restriction).

When did we start assuming a failure to coordinate assume they're against us? Adults can have disagreements, choose different routes and still not act against each other. I would assume groups of adults would enjoy the same privilege.

Freedom is the ability to choose, and being forced to follow group think. And isn't freedom what we are fighting for?

Well I agree that everything is essentially being done for "personal gain," on both sides, what the CalGuns Foundation is doing will benefit EVERYONE in LA County, not just that one person. If he goes to court, and fails, how difficult will it be for the CalGuns Foundation to now go a similar route via another lawsuit, but for the same thing? We are all very much a team, however, having the right man for the job is the key. i.e. When Heller was chosen, only 1 of the 6 possible plaintiffs were chosen. I don't assume he is going to fail, as I don't know the specifics of the case, however, if the Board Members of the CalGuns Foundation have advised him to hold off......

greasemonkey
11-28-2010, 6:35 AM
Freedom is the ability to choose, and being forced to follow group think. And isn't freedom what we are fighting for?

Keep in mind that uncoordinated, unorganized "group think" is more of a leaderless mob mentality than precise, planned 'strategery' from a coordinated leadership structure as applied to a team. Freedom is what we are all interested in and we are achieving it, so one can either take a stab in the dark on his own or recognize an effective coach/team and see if there's a way they can benefit the team in a way that will benefit oneself.

Of course, that approach isn't *required*, it's just prudent and effective, no one's saying you *have* to be prudent but that doing so makes the end result, freedom, a much more achievable goal.

20 years is a long time for a bottle of scotch...and well worth it(though I prefer bourbon, personally:)), it's okay to be patient and wise about attaining freedom, as well, even if it takes longer.

sighere
11-28-2010, 7:29 AM
I think we beat this horse grave yard dead!!

Scarecrow Repair
11-28-2010, 9:37 PM
Do you believe ONLY a decision by the court determines our rights?

This is the 2A legal and political forum, not the "I want my rights NOW because I said so" forum.

nick
12-05-2010, 5:42 PM
Uhm... Isn't perjury always a crime and not a civil violation?

-Gene

Not in CA, it isn't. Effectively there's no such crime (or civil violation, for that matter) as perjury in CA, courtesy of CA legislature and courts. I have the case law and appropriate statutes saved somewhere, I can dig them up if anyone's interested. There're several kinds of perjury on the federal level though.

Kid Stanislaus
12-05-2010, 6:28 PM
Effectively there's no such crime (or civil violation, for that matter) as perjury in CA, courtesy of CA legislature and courts. I have the case law and appropriate statutes saved somewhere, I can dig them up if anyone's interested. There're several kinds of perjury on the federal level though.

Ain't that a crock.

Barkoff
12-05-2010, 7:27 PM
Same thing we heard re Gorski, Peruta and now Birdt... :rolleyes:

Do you think that we only hear about cases through Calguns or other forums? Do you think we only communicate on Calguns?

The vast majority of substantive communication and work does not occur on this or any other forum.

Your assumptions are annoying.


Well if your advice is for everyone to sit tight and allow a certain few to carry a strategy, then who should you look to for inaccurate and annoying assumptions?

This guy does not seem to be totally unreasonable, rather he seems to be taking action out of frustration of inaction. If you in command central have known about this guy, maybe he should have been allowed a briefing instead of being told to stay outside the command tent and sit on his helmet..

Thanks for the work you guys do, it's too bad this guy could not be persuaded to get on board, but that isn't his failure alone.

I'm sure some of you remember the big flap I had over talking with one of Whitman's people. My only goal of that meeting was to convey a message that Whitman was in real danger of losing the gun owner vote, and give the guy somebody in the know to talk to. Instead of somebody in the know coming forward and giving me their number and offering to go with me to the meet, I was ripped upon in the same spirit of this thread. So that being said, did anyone pro-gun ever meet with Whitman?

I met with him, I said my piece, I told him if was was interested in talking with somebody more knowledgeable than myself to contact somebody from Calguns. He listened, but most likely I didn't make an impression like somebody else could have.

hoffmang
12-05-2010, 7:29 PM
I met with him, I said my piece, I told him if was was interested in talking with somebody more knowledgeable than myself to contact somebody from Calguns. He listened, but most likely I didn't make an impression like somebody else could have.

He spoke to everyone and universally ignored them.

-Gene

Barkoff
12-05-2010, 7:33 PM
He spoke to everyone and universally ignored them.

-Gene

How do you know that?

Oh, you are talking about this lawyer?

Barkoff
12-05-2010, 7:35 PM
If you have known about this guy for quite some time and reached out to him only to be ignored, you have my apologies.

wildhawker
12-05-2010, 7:59 PM
Very little in CA that is gun-related does not come across our desks at some time or another, as it were. Believe it or not, Calguns.net is not our primary method of communication with the outside world.

Steveo8
12-06-2010, 4:11 AM
Very little in CA that is gun-related does not come across our desks at some time or another, as it were. Believe it or not, Calguns.net is not our primary method of communication with the outside world.

:eek:

N6ATF
12-06-2010, 8:24 AM
It appears he didn't ignore http://www.paulcarr.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/clippy.jpg

goober
12-06-2010, 8:54 AM
auuuuuugh!!!! clipppyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!! :willy_nilly:

N6ATF
12-06-2010, 11:07 AM
Clippyyyyy

http://chzsomuchpun.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/472b3166-c407-4d48-a1fb-98f7a7387e80.jpg

jdberger
12-06-2010, 2:15 PM
The other side gets it - why don't we?

Why do some of the most vocal 2A proponents not understand that we have to work in synergy?

aNp6I6RCeSQ

Right about at the 3rd minute.

sighere
12-06-2010, 3:43 PM
The other side gets it - why don't we?

Why do some of the most vocal 2A proponents not understand that we have to work in synergy?



the answer to your question is:
1. Because it's a free country.
2. Rugged individualism
3. Divergent needs for vindication in the courts.

wildhawker
12-06-2010, 3:50 PM
the answer to your question is:
1. Because it's a free country.
2. Rugged individualism
3. Divergent needs for vindication in the courts.

Which really means:

1. Not simply acknowledging but embracing that liberty means the ability to make unwise decisions in spite of all counsel to the contrary.
2. People who have no, or little (so as to be impotent), practical understanding but refuse to consider any facts or experience outside their own creation.
3. An irrational and baseless concept which holds that securing the rights of the whole (including the individual) absolutely will impinge the timely remedy of the infringement of the individual.

Glock22Fan
12-06-2010, 3:52 PM
The other side gets it - why don't we?

Why do some of the most vocal 2A proponents not understand that we have to work in synergy?



Because some people's idea of working in synergy is doing it their way, or face being pilloried.

wildhawker
12-06-2010, 4:17 PM
Because some people's idea of working in synergy is doing it their way, or face being pilloried.

All actions from every party are subject to comment and criticism.

Glock22Fan
12-06-2010, 4:31 PM
All actions from every party are subject to comment and criticism.

Indeed, and rightly so, but some people are more blinkered than others.

I am getting concerned lately by what I see as a frequent viewpoint that if the CGF didn't originate it and Alan isn't leading it, it should not be allowed to procede.

sighere
12-06-2010, 5:03 PM
Which really means:

1. Not simply acknowledging but embracing that liberty means the ability to make unwise decisions in spite of all counsel to the contrary.
2. People who have no, or little (so as to be impotent), practical understanding but refuse to consider any facts or experience outside their own creation.
3. An irrational and baseless concept which holds that securing the rights of the whole (including the individual) absolutely will impinge the timely remedy of the infringement of the individual.

And the above really means:
1. I'm too scared to strike out on my own. I lack the moral fiber to know what is right, so I'll follow those "other" people who seem to know what they're talking about even though I'm not very comfortable with what they have to say. I simply don't possess the gonads to know what my rights are and when they are violated.
2. Freedom means freedom to fail, freedom to make unpopular decisions, and freedom to piss some people off. I'm too scared to exercise my freedoms without somebody telling me how to do it. I fear the unknown, I want to be coddled from cradle to grave like the europeans. I don't want to push the envelope, even thought this is the great American tradition!
3. I will subjugate the liberties of myself and my family and get into the "soupline" of rights vindication because I don't think that I or my attorney are worthy of interpreting the law and prosecuting cases in court, even though this happens thousands of times a day. If I'm not backed by SAF and Calguns, and my attorney is not A.Gura, then there is no possible way that I can be successful. I'm happier knowing that others are calling the shots and I will blindly follow.

wildhawker
12-06-2010, 5:20 PM
You've done well to inject an emotional reaction into the conversation. However, let's keep this discussion centered on logic and facts.

1. One may choose to remain with the hard because the herd does, indeed, possess collective strength and intelligence greater than that of the individual. Additionally, the individual may choose to add his strength to the collective and act as a force multiplier.

What happens to the young water buffalo when the hungry pride of lions splits it from the others?

If you're going to argue that the individual plaintiff possesses more moral fiber, or intelligence, than the community of gun rights advocates now active in California, then there's little else to discuss.

2. Your projection of fear is not relevant. This conversation is about wisdom and playing to the outcomes, not irrational responses and self-aggrandizing overcompensation cloaked in "patriotism".

3. Again, you assume that all persons making a choice to remain part of the team do so as uninformed individuals. Who is the real elitist here?

We back cases from other attorneys when they make sense and are relevant to our charter. See, e.g. http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Peterson_v._LaCabe. We're fortunate to work with every "gun lawyer" in California, and many outside it. We work with world-class professors, litigators and civil rights attorneys in and outside of California. That said, I distinctly recall Gene saying that an attorney who had prior 1983 experience would not be viewed in the same light as was in this particular case, where an attorney with no applicable experience is going to - pro per - cut their 1983 teeth on a new body of law which shall determine the bounds of our fundamental rights.

-Brandon

And the above really means:
1. I'm too scared to strike out on my own. I lack the moral fiber to know what is right, so I'll follow those "other" people who seem to know what they're talking about even though I'm not very comfortable with what they have to say. I simply don't possess the gonads to know what my rights are and when they are violated.
2. Freedom means freedom to fail, freedom to make unpopular decisions, and freedom to piss some people off. I'm too scared to exercise my freedoms without somebody telling me how to do it. I fear the unknown, I want to be coddled from cradle to grave like the europeans. I don't want to push the envelope, even thought this is the great American tradition!
3. I will subjugate the liberties of myself and my family and get into the "soupline" of rights vindication because I don't think that I or my attorney are worthy of interpreting the law and prosecuting cases in court, even though this happens thousands of times a day. If I'm not backed by SAF and Calguns, and my attorney is not A.Gura, then there is no possible way that I can be successful. I'm happier knowing that others are calling the shots and I will blindly follow.

sighere
12-06-2010, 5:29 PM
It's a big pool. My point is that there is room for everyone. The sex happens sometimes in the less likely places and without a "plan". That's what makes this country the greatest place in the world! The cutting edge and the new victory won't always come from where we expect it.

wildhawker
12-06-2010, 5:41 PM
It's a big pool. My point is that there is room for everyone. The sex happens sometimes in the less likely places and without a "plan". That's what makes this country the greatest place in the world! The cutting edge and the new victory won't always come from where we expect it.

I won't disagree, and in the context of almost anything else I'm inclined to be significantly more Laissez-faire. However, stare decisis make the foundational cases extraordinarily important; well-considered teams of attorneys, plaintiffs, organizations and grassroots will go a long way to ensuring that our house is built not upon sand or slab, but well-anchored piers which can withstand the test of time. As a contractor, you can appreciate that we're working towards a design life of liberty.

Gray Peterson
12-06-2010, 6:01 PM
Indeed, and rightly so, but some people are more blinkered than others.

I am getting concerned lately by what I see as a frequent viewpoint that if the CGF didn't originate it and Alan isn't leading it, it should not be allowed to procede.

If that's the case, then why was my case in Colorado allowed to proceed with partial CGF funding without Alan being the lawyer?

Foghlai
12-06-2010, 6:37 PM
It takes 20 years to make that scotch...

-Gene

To be fair, it might have taken longer than 20 years to make it... :D

Glock22Fan
12-06-2010, 8:33 PM
If that's the case, then why was my case in Colorado allowed to proceed with partial CGF funding without Alan being the lawyer?

I don't mean that everyone thinks like that, especially not the leaders of CFG. However, there are, IMHO, people on this board that give the impression that they feel that way. Typically, I'm guessing, most (perhaps all) of those people are not in the inner circles, just fans. There's a kind of "My team is the best, yours stinks" mob feel about it.

And, I'm painting with a broad brush in black and white. Obviously there are shades of grey as well.

Just look at some of the attacks on Jon Birdt: How dare he procede without putting his case in Alan's hands? How about Ed Peruta, before his case attracted so much attention? Gorski undoubtedly deserved scorn, but not everyone is a Gorski.

I don't have anything but admiration for the work of CGF, Alan, Don, Chuck, Jason et al. I understand that they are willing to cooperate and share their visions and policies. I agree that getting the right cases in front of the court is important (how often have I tried to explain to these same people that the reason Billy Jack would have nothing to do with them at this time was because they were the wrong cases in the wrong place at the wrong time?) But I stand by my thoughts that there are some who have no time for anyone working outside that vision.

No offense meant.

sighere
12-06-2010, 8:38 PM
discourse is meaningful and healthy.

hoffmang
12-06-2010, 8:39 PM
Indeed, and rightly so, but some people are more blinkered than others.

I am getting concerned lately by what I see as a frequent viewpoint that if the CGF didn't originate it and Alan isn't leading it, it should not be allowed to procede.

I think that's because you only hear when we're pointing out bad cases by bad (or no) lawyers.

Right this moment, lawyers or pro se's with no civil rights or gun experience should not be filing cases that require a federal or state court to expand the scope of the Second Amendment. Carry outside the home is an expansion outside the confines of the current jurisprudence.

Case that had nothing to do with us but are competent and interesting just off the top of my head:
MSLF case in Nevada parks at overnight campsites.
CRPA case in SF about safe storage and hollow points.
MSLF case re FOID cards in IL.
CRPA state AB-962 challenge.
NRA case against under 21 handgun ban.

The reason these cases are all just fine is that they are brought by lawyers with civil rights experience, in the right geographies, in the right court system in that geography, with well vetted plaintiffs. However one of the cases above has some plaintiff issues that seriously imperil it.

This case and most of Gorski's cases as well as a misguided pro-se UOCer in SF in a GFSZ require the courts to find carry outside the home. None of these people have the resources, experience, or plaintiff choice to go all the way and come under the microscope that the NYT and LAT put e.g. Otis McDonald under.

These issues are for keeps. The good news is that some of these ill advised cases have gotten lucky. I leave it to the reader to get what I mean by that. However, if these cases had been unlucky, carry might have been foreclosed in the 9th for a while. No carry going well in CA9, no teeth to the Sunshine Initiative.

As an aside so that you're catching the strategic issues. I've criticized Heller-II for being too much of a grab bag. It's such a grab bag that the DC Court of Appeals may side step ruling on the Constitutionality of California's AW ban and large-capacity magazine ban. That's a bummer. What's worse is that would effectively moot Palmer v. DC. Me, I'd rather have a win or a loss in Palmer instead of a moot. It'll be the second mooting of an attempt to get DC courts to rule on large aspects of California's gun laws...

Poor strategic decisions have consequences - and usually they're worst for California gun owners.

-Gene

mdimeo
12-06-2010, 10:38 PM
I am getting concerned lately by what I see as a frequent viewpoint that if the CGF didn't originate it and Alan isn't leading it, it should not be allowed to procede.

Mostly what I've seen from CGF is more along the lines of "you are doing something that is a very bad idea, for yourself and everyone else. Please, please, please don't." If someone else was running a good case, competently, in the right venue with the resources to see it through, CGF wouldn't be nagging, would probably offer all useful assistance, and we probably wouldn't be hearing about it at all.

I imagine it's frustrating when someone comes in thinking he's a Gura when CGF can see he's a Gorski, so you probably see some of that coming through too in the public parts of these discussions (I say public parts because I'm sure 99% of this stuff doesn't hit CGN).

-m@

wash
12-07-2010, 9:23 AM
well-considered teams of attorneys, plaintiffs, organizations and grassroots will go a long way to ensuring that our house is built not upon sand or slab, but well-anchored piers which can withstand the test of time.
Gorski builds with straw.

Jon Birdt builds with sticks.

CGF builds with bricks.

AMDG
12-07-2010, 10:03 AM
Gorski builds with straw.

Jon Birdt builds with sticks.

CGF builds with bricks.

Exactly. And what Gene and Brandon are trying to explain is that they are all building one house that everyone has to live in.

greasemonkey
12-07-2010, 10:07 AM
Exactly. And what Gene and Brandon are trying to explain is that they are all building one house that everyone has to live in.

"Yeah but I want to build a sand castle RIGHT NOW, stop telling me it won't work as well as the concrete & steel approach!":mad:



:D

Sgt Raven
12-07-2010, 10:09 AM
Gorski builds with straw.

Jon Birdt builds with sticks.

CGF builds with bricks.


In earthquake country unreinforced masonry can fail too.

CGF builds a reinforced concrete foundation. ;)

NoJoke
12-07-2010, 10:37 AM
...he is "tired of waiting". God help us

I'm very tired of waiting.

But, because I know that I am completely ignorant in the legal arena, I will do as I am told.

Thank you for a window into the workings of a very foreign field for me.

nicki
12-07-2010, 12:00 PM
We have been beaten down so long that gun rights face two problems.

1. The gun owners who a resigned to defeat and are just biting their time till their guns are outlawed. Since we can't win, why bother fighting.

2. The gun owners who want everything NOW.

This is WAR, the general who wins the battles is the one positions himself so that when the opportunity is right, he can pick the battles and have decisive victories.

The other side should be on defense, instead they still don't accept that they lost and they are operating as if Heller and MacDonald were victories for them.

Those of us who were following the Heller case from the beginning knew the case was tailored to deal with a few key questions.

1. Is the 2nd amendment a individual right
2. Do people have a right to functional arms in their homes.
3. Could a whole class of common arms be banned.

What the Heller case was not desgined to do was address issues such as licensing, registration, carrying of arms, machinegun bans, etc, etc.

The Supreme court could have written a very narrow ruling, but they didn't. What Scalia did was give us not only what we asked for, but a whole lot more.

The "Heller case" ruling IMHO gave us at least a 5 year leap in gun rights and the same with "MacDonald".

We are 10 years ahead of schedule in getting our gun rights back with the Heller/MacDonald rulings.

My reading of Heller is that it is written in such a way to encourage many more lawsuits so that we can deal with a variety of gun issues in a step by step approach.

The MacDonald ruling was a slam not only on Chicago, but on the lower courts since the 7th circuit was defiant with regards to incorporation.

Although the Peruta case is not a Calguns case, it is a case that borrowed heavily from Alan Gura's pleadings and things so far are looking very well for our side.

Right now the Peruta case will effect only San Diego and Imperial counties unless it gets appealed to a higher court.

I know that Ed Peruta will appeal if he loses, the unknown question is will sheriff Gore appeal.

Ed's case has become far more than just a gun case, so the eventual ruling is probably going to hammer the sheriff bigtime.

It is obvious that all the state sheriffs are watching both the Peruta and Richards case and victories in those cases will probably cause many sheriffs to just accept "personal protection" as good cause.

Potentially that means we could see most of California effectively becoming "shall issue" within the next 6 to 9 months.

Considering that even if California went shall issue that maybe 2 percent of the population would apply for CCW permits, the number of people having CCW permits in say LA county would only be around 100,000 to 200,000 people.

Statewide I would expect us to eventually have 500K to 1 million permits once we trully are shall issue.

BTW, that does not translate into everyone carrying a gun.


Nicki

Mute
12-07-2010, 1:52 PM
Let's get this straight once and for all. No one is being TOLD what to do. They are advised. Whether they choose to heed the advice is entirely up to them. However, those who don't heed good advice should not be surprised if things don't turn out well and it pisses people off, some of whom may have even rooted for them.

sighere
12-07-2010, 3:02 PM
In my opinion McDonald made it clear that "keeping" and "bearing" arms is a fundamental right that is applicable against the states. It is a fundamental right, and it is a personal right. The opinion very clearly states that "bear" means to carry upon one's person in case of confrontation. Not only is "may issue" unconstitutional, but most laws that outlaw carrying of firearms in public are unconstitutional. The decision shifted the burden of showing that a law abridging the right to "bear" arms from the person "bearing" to the government. While the decision did not indicate the level of scrutiny that needs to be applied to this, legal scholars agree that the "rational basis" test (the lowest level of scrutiny) is definitely out, and that most likely the "strict scrutiny" standard will apply. (this applies generally fundamental rights) Under strict scrutiny, the government must show a "compelling state interest" in restricting someone's rights.

What this means is that the burden falls on the government to show very specifically when and where they can violate your rights, as opposed to just saying it's a good idea because they fear gunfights in the street. (which is all they need for rational basis)

Peruta and Richards are going after the "may issue" aspect of the sheriff's discretion, which is a short cut to achieving what we want.... CCW's. A full frontal assault would be to get the laws that say it's not legal to carry weapons in public found to be unconstitutional. But, if you can get the CCW the easy way, why bother doing it the hard way. Naturally, if I got popped for carrying, my defense would include the constitutionality of the law that is being enforced against me (12031, I think).

Glock22Fan
12-07-2010, 3:09 PM
Naturally, if I got popped for carrying, my defense would include the constitutionality of the law that is being enforced against me (12031, I think).

Assuming the judge allowed you to use that defense. Seems these days as if more and more judges are suppressing evidence that we'd like to see introduced.

sighere
12-07-2010, 4:35 PM
Assuming the judge allowed you to use that defense. Seems these days as if more and more judges are suppressing evidence that we'd like to see introduced.

I don't think a judge can suppress a SCOTUS decision. If so, I'll reinstate the USSR and move there!