PDA

View Full Version : (CO/10th Circuit) Peterson v. Martinez Official Appeal Thread


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Gray Peterson
04-23-2011, 4:31 PM
This will be the "official thread" for the appeal of in the district court decision of Peterson v. LaCabe. The case is now Peterson v. Martinez et al, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Case #11-1149.

As RECAP does not work on appellate courts, I will be posting .pdf files in this thread.

As an aside, I wish to give my thanks to those who have supported, both in spirit and financially, to the case, and give the greatest thanks to the CalGuns Foundation for supporting this critical litigation going upwards to the 10th Circuit. When Judge Miller made his decision quicker than expected and we needed to go up to the Tenth Circuit, CGF stepped in order to keep the litigation going up to the appellate level.

UPDATE 12/17/2011: All pertinent Appellate Files are now uploaded to the following location to save you money looking at PACER. Also, for your convenience, the MP3 file of the oral argument is uploaded there for your listening.

Peterson Appeals Folder (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson)

Also, I took a few hours tonight to do an unofficial transcription, for the folks here who are more readers than listeners. It is attached to this post as "Peterson v. Martinez Unofficial Transcript" in pdf format...

Window_Seat
04-23-2011, 6:03 PM
I have high hopes, and feel strongly that you will prevail in this case.

I think you said 10 months to a hearing?

Is it possible that you get a MSJ in your favor without the need for a hearing?

Erik.

Window_Seat
04-24-2011, 9:34 AM
Bump so this doesn't drop off so soon (being honest, since it's Easter Sunday :cool2:), but to also advise all;

I've modified my signature to link Peterson to this thread rather than the Archive page, that way a search doesn't need to be done for access, all they have to do is click on Peterson v. Garcia.

And it looks like people can still donate to support your case (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=JH3DGQ6FQ2MLW). :cool:

Erik.

Maestro Pistolero
04-24-2011, 10:03 AM
donate to support your case (https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_flow&SESSION=ltqLMreab6f4kE3y2F837qv_QvSkJJRfRf0kk_br6h chK9py69LRaTiglaK&dispatch=5885d80a13c0db1f8e263663d3faee8d5863a909c 4bb5aeebb52c6e1151bdaa9)

Linky no worky

Ubermcoupe
04-24-2011, 10:09 AM
Filed Jan 2010??? I had no idea this had been going on for that long! Looking forward to the progress. :D

Blackhawk556
04-24-2011, 10:38 AM
good thing they stepped in and appealed quick. That way the right cases make it up the ladder asap instead of crappy cases.

Window_Seat
04-24-2011, 10:50 AM
donate to support your case (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=JH3DGQ6FQ2MLW)

Linky no worky

Fixied!

Gray Peterson
04-24-2011, 11:44 AM
I have high hopes, and feel strongly that you will prevail in this case.

I think you said 10 months to a hearing?

Is it possible that you get a MSJ in your favor without the need for a hearing?

Erik.

MSJ's are not issued by appellate courts. They are a court of reversal of legal and factual errors, essentially. What would happen is an order of reversal, essentially directing the lower court to issue an MSJ after coming to their legal conclusions of the proceedings.

As for "10 months to a hearing". Try "4 to 6 months" (oral argument will occur either in September 12th week or November 14th week).

Thinking about the scenarios here, the potential of a Williams v. State of Maryland cert grant might hold things up at some point. We will, however, proceed as normal and assume an upward trajectory. I am not actually hopeful for a Tenth Circuit win because not one lower court in the federal system has gotten the carry issue correct. I think really think that either as a first civil SCOTUS case for carry, or the map up for non-residency, both issues will be a "5 of 9" situation.

AndrewMendez
04-24-2011, 11:57 AM
Is a SCOTUS case the ultimate game plan, or does the team just want a win and are ok with it being in a lower court?

Gray Peterson
04-24-2011, 4:32 PM
Is a SCOTUS case the ultimate game plan, or does the team just want a win and are ok with it being in a lower court?

The loser of a case at appeal controls whether or not an appeal is filed.

Given that I lost in district court, it was I who could appeal upwards to the Tenth Circuit.

If any of you remember the Parker case in 2007 in the DC Circuit. We won that one. There was a big question of whether or not DC would appeal to the Supreme Court. They attempted to get it up to en banc, but they were smacked down 6-4.

Though the Brady Campaign, Mayor Daley, and numerous others were begging DC not to appeal, Mayor Fenty decided to appeal because politically, a strike down of the handgun ban without taking EVERY available option was not in political cards for Mayor Fenty. Whereas the power brokers of the gun control movement wanted him to not appeal, the local politics did not support the last ditch effort. Fenty appealed, and the rest is history.

It's possible that we could win in the Tenth Circuit, and Colorado/Denver will not appeal to the SCOTUS. If we lose though, a SCOTUS appeal is in the cards, and yes it's being tee'd up for it.

press1280
04-24-2011, 4:40 PM
Refresh my memory, the goal is one of two things: Either Denver must allow OC like the rest of CO, or, non-residents must be allowed to get a CO CCW. The odd CO law not honoring non-resident(3rd party) is not in play, as this would moot the case but provide little in the way of a usable precent. Is this correct?

AndrewMendez
04-24-2011, 4:51 PM
The loser of a case at appeal controls whether or not an appeal is filed.

Given that I lost in district court, it was I who could appeal upwards to the Tenth Circuit.

If any of you remember the Parker case in 2007 in the DC Circuit. We won that one. There was a big question of whether or not DC would appeal to the Supreme Court. They attempted to get it up to en banc, but they were smacked down 6-4.

Though the Brady Campaign, Mayor Daley, and numerous others were begging DC not to appeal, Mayor Fenty decided to appeal because politically, a strike down of the handgun ban without taking EVERY available option was not in political cards for Mayor Fenty. Whereas the power brokers of the gun control movement wanted him to not appeal, the local politics did not support the last ditch effort. Fenty appealed, and the rest is history.

It's possible that we could win in the Tenth Circuit, and Colorado/Denver will not appeal to the SCOTUS. If we lose though, a SCOTUS appeal is in the cards, and yes it's being tee'd up for it.


Exactly I thought. We shall know...in :twoweeks:

nicki
04-24-2011, 8:24 PM
This case is more than just 2nd amendment, it is 9th amendment(right to travel) and equal protection(14th amendment).

Let's step back for a minute and forget the 2nd amendment.

Colorado's law discriminates against people strictly based on their state of residence.

A California resident cannot CCW legally in Colorado because Colorado doesn't recognize California CCW permits and if that Californian had a Utah or FLorida permit, those would be no good either even though Colorado will recognize permits issued by Florida or Utah for their state residents.

Could this case hit the SCOTUS, who knows. If it does, it opens alot of issues.

The 4 justices who can't seem to read the 2nd amendment might do better on the 14th amendment.

Nicki

Blackhawk556
04-25-2011, 1:46 AM
@nicki...."A California resident cannot CCW legally in Colorado because Colorado doesn't recognize California CCW permits and if that Californian had a Utah or FLorida permit, those would be no good either even though Colorado will recognize permits issued by Florida or Utah for their state residents."....what the hell! That doesn't make any sense. Oh these damn laws.:)

press1280
04-25-2011, 3:13 AM
@nicki...."A California resident cannot CCW legally in Colorado because Colorado doesn't recognize California CCW permits and if that Californian had a Utah or FLorida permit, those would be no good either even though Colorado will recognize permits issued by Florida or Utah for their state residents."....what the hell! That doesn't make any sense. Oh these damn laws.:)

Gray may have to answer this, because if I recall they didn't pursue that particular angle. I suspect that, yes, it would have forced CO to honor non-resident reciprocal permits, but in the 2A "master plan" by doing this wouldn't move the ball forward(getting all states to go shall-issue and issue to non-residents). It would affect only CO, and be persuasive against SC, due to the fact that SC, like Denver, outlaws OC, and like CO requires a permit for CCW and honors only specific resident permits, and doesn't generally issue to non-residents.
The stupid lawmakers' intent in CO was to simply have CO residents carry only on a CO permit, but sloppily wrote the law so now non-residents are also affected. I heard rumors NM was also thinking about doing this as well. They can't seem to figure out that they can just single out their own residents for this rule and leave non-residents out, just like it is in many other states.

Gray Peterson
04-25-2011, 9:28 PM
Gray may have to answer this, because if I recall they didn't pursue that particular angle. I suspect that, yes, it would have forced CO to honor non-resident reciprocal permits, but in the 2A "master plan" by doing this wouldn't move the ball forward(getting all states to go shall-issue and issue to non-residents). It would affect only CO, and be persuasive against SC, due to the fact that SC, like Denver, outlaws OC, and like CO requires a permit for CCW and honors only specific resident permits, and doesn't generally issue to non-residents.

South Carolina, Denver (Colorado), New York, and Michigan are the only four jurisdictions with this particular problem.

The stupid lawmakers' intent in CO was to simply have CO residents carry only on a CO permit, but sloppily wrote the law so now non-residents are also affected. I heard rumors NM was also thinking about doing this as well. They can't seem to figure out that they can just single out their own residents for this rule and leave non-residents out, just like it is in many other states.

In the early stages of this bill, I actually reached out to Senator Morse (the author of this bill and advised them of the consequences to the residents of the 22 states, and gave suggested language from Washington State and Arizona to fix the evil they were trying to address (which was Colorado residents using out of state licenses to avoid the local process). They made one change (people moving into Colorado have 90 days to change over to a Colorado license), but they completely ignored the rest of my suggestions.

sreiter
04-26-2011, 1:10 AM
Denver had [has?] its own crazy set of laws when i lived there 7 yrs ago. Like if you lived in Denver, you couldn't buy a AW, but the rest of Co you could. IIRC, you need a DENVER CCW to CCW in Denver, and be a resident of Denver to get a Denver CCW or something like that.

The good news though, is if you have a face, you can get a Denver CCW. Clean background check, proof you're a resident, a CCW course. Very minimal.



There was a law suit against denver because people driving through denver would become criminals for some gun related something (i thought it was ccw, maybe a AW), but because it was legal in the rest of CO, it was like "people driving through might miss the city limit.

Anyway, I know Denver, has/had its own unique set of bazaar laws that needed to be dealt with.

sreiter
04-26-2011, 1:24 AM
South Carolina, Denver (Colorado), New York, and Michigan are the only four jurisdictions with this particular problem.



In the early stages of this bill, I actually reached out to Senator Morse (the author of this bill and advised them of the consequences to the residents of the 22 states, and gave suggested language from Washington State and Arizona to fix the evil they were trying to address (which was Colorado residents using out of state licenses to avoid the local process). They made one change (people moving into Colorado have 90 days to change over to a Colorado license), but they completely ignored the rest of my suggestions.

i don't see how that would have changed anything for residents that wasn't VERY EASILY remedied.

if you live there, you have some form of ID as proof. IIRC a out of state CCW was enough to prove you had gone through CCW class. So it was just a question of finger print back ground check, fill out application (i dont remember if i brought in pic's or they took them).....

But the process took under a 1/2 at the police station. Actually, I think it took under 15 mins.

I don't see that being any more intrusive then, and less of a hassle then having to change your D/L when you move there.

I understand this fight is all about getting Co/Denver into reciprocity, and I'm all for it.

I just don't see how parker applies. Denver/Co has a very liberal shall issue CCW policy, thereby providing a mechanism for law abiding residents to carry a handgun in public for self defense

Sorry if I'm peeing on your parade, and truly don't mean to. Maybe I'm missing something here with respect to your post, not your case.

I get that your case hinges on equal protection clause now that the 2a is incorporated, you are trying to expand Mcdonald's "keep", to "BEAR".

sreiter
04-26-2011, 1:44 AM
question, is the wiki wrong, or I'm i reading the constitution wrong


"GeorgiaCarry.org v. Toomer is a cousin case filed against a county probate judge (who are the issuing authorities for firearms licenses in Georgia). Peterson differentiates from the GeorgiaCarry.org case due to the plaintiff applying for and being denied the license by Denver, and a denial of a license or registration is considered automatically an injury under Article III of the United States Constitution."

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 1 - Judicial Powers
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
Section 3 - Treason

is this more applicable/what you mean?

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


Or more to the point, the 14a Equal protection?

Again, apologies if i'm missing something/totally misconstruing everything/don't understand one word i read

Gray Peterson
04-26-2011, 5:58 AM
I just don't see how parker applies. Denver/Co has a very liberal shall issue CCW policy, thereby providing a mechanism for law abiding residents to carry a handgun in public for self defense


That's nice that Denver is a very liberal shall-issue carry policy. They don't issue to out of state residents (nor does any county in the state). That's the problem.

Residents are not effected by this lawsuit, except violations of their civil rights in the future would now be addressable in federal court rather than just purely state court, especially if we win in the 10th Circuit.

sreiter
04-26-2011, 8:40 AM
That's nice that Denver is a very liberal shall-issue carry policy. They don't issue to out of state residents (nor does any county in the state). That's the problem.

Residents are not effected by this lawsuit, except violations of their civil rights in the future would now be addressable in federal court rather than just purely state court, especially if we win in the 10th Circuit.

Can you elaborate on what these future civil rights violations the residents will endure could be?

And doesn't their have to be a injured party to bring suit?
if their civil rights haven't been issued yet, how can you sue?

i'm just trying to understand what the legal concepts you have for the suit.

So again, is this a 14a case?

Are you claiming their is con law/concept which mandatory states MUST afford non-residents the right to carry?

Wouldn't we need a law that all state must allow their own citizens first? If all states don't allow all lawful citizens to carry, how can you expect states be force into reciprocity?

That would create case of someone who resides in cali, with a non-resident Fla card, to carry in CO. but not in their home state. not exactly a uniform "equal protection" law

Also, arent their restriction on non-res permits vs res permits, in the issuing states?

thanks

Gray Peterson
05-02-2011, 1:27 AM
Can you elaborate on what these future civil rights violations the residents will endure could be?

And doesn't their have to be a injured party to bring suit?
if their civil rights haven't been issued yet, how can you sue?

i'm just trying to understand what the legal concepts you have for the suit.

So again, is this a 14a case?

Are you claiming their is con law/concept which mandatory states MUST afford non-residents the right to carry?

Wouldn't we need a law that all state must allow their own citizens first? If all states don't allow all lawful citizens to carry, how can you expect states be force into reciprocity?

That would create case of someone who resides in cali, with a non-resident Fla card, to carry in CO. but not in their home state. not exactly a uniform "equal protection" law

Also, arent their restriction on non-res permits vs res permits, in the issuing states?

thanks

I can't believe I missed this post. Sorry, let me answer your questions in turn.

First is that this isn't a "future civil right" nor is it a matter of "the civil right hasn't been issued". This is a case of first impression on a burgeoning constitutional doctrine which already pre-exists, but is not recognized yet by the courts in the way that it should.

Let's take Heller, for example. Originally, the case was called Parker v. District of Columbia Heller gave us three answers to the age old question of what 2A means. They determined, in a narrow fashion, four things: There is a right to keep and bear arms by individuals, that the city could not ban the registration of handguns, nor could they ban carrying of one's gun or loading of one's gun in the home for the purpose of self defense.

Heller then went on to describe the contours of the right, much to many people's surprise.

The Parker case was truly a case of first impression, basically asking the basic question of whether a city could do what they did, and the Supreme Court ruled no.

McDonald followed the same path for the 14th amendment application of it to the states.

"Is there a right to carry a functional firearm outside of the home?". All of the rest of the questions, from affording to non-residents the ability to carry, flow from this very basic question. If my case ends up in the Supreme Court, that is the question SCOTUS will answer, along with instructions to the lower courts on how to rule on these issues. The lower courts are generally doing their own thing and essentially kicking the cases upstairs, using flawed logic of their own because they didn't get a Roe v. Wade-style wide pronouncement on the issues.

Originally it was solely going to be PorI with 2A thrown in, but the posture of the Colorado Attorney General's office has made this entire thing purely about 2A.

If Peterson v. Garcia makes it to the Supreme Court, and rules in our favor on that basic question of if there's the ability to carry outside of the home, and they use the critical words "strict scrutiny", it'll help you folks in California, too.

sreiter
05-02-2011, 8:27 AM
I can't believe I missed this post. Sorry, let me answer your questions in turn.

First is that this isn't a "future civil right"

Let's take Heller, for example. Originally, the case was called Parker v. District of Columbia Heller gave us three answers to the age old question of what 2A means. They determined, in a narrow fashion, four things: There is a right to keep and bear arms by individuals, that the city could not ban the registration of handguns, nor could they ban carrying of one's gun or loading of one's gun in the home for the purpose of self defense.



thanks for the response.


2 small points..... here you say "First is that this isn't a "future civil right""...however, if you look at my post. i quote you say this is about some future civil right. ....

2nd - heller said nothing of "bear", only keep, in the home.

I hope you prevail, and i'm behind you 100%. I donate to the CGF.

IANAL, my personal view is your case is too broad in scope. I think we need bear in the state you live before we go after reciprocity, especially for non-residents, as i feel it would be to easy to argue "you dont have the right to carry in the state you live". I think that argument is a very compelling one when talking about PoI, or anything to do with citizens of one state being treated as equals of another. Co is affording you the exact same rights as you would find in Ca.

i guess my thinking is more in line with HR822


I hope you're right right and I'm wrong.

best of luck

OleCuss
05-02-2011, 9:38 AM
Good points, but I think that Gray and company are working at a pretty strategic level. I'm not sure exactly how this ties into everything else that is going on, but Peterson v Garcia seems likely to be of significance at the national level in ways that may not be immediately apparent.

I don't even bother to track exactly how or why. Gray and company are very sharp operators and I'm happy to leave the lead to them on these things. My expertise is elsewhere.

Connor P Price
05-02-2011, 10:28 AM
IANAL, my personal view is your case is too broad in scope. I think we need bear in the state you live before we go after reciprocity, especially for non-residents, as i feel it would be to easy to argue "you dont have the right to carry in the state you live". I think that argument is a very compelling one when talking about PoI, or anything to do with citizens of one state being treated as equals of another. Co is affording you the exact same rights as you would find in Ca.


There are a few problems here.

Gray resides in WA, his case is in CO. Both states are shall issue, so the argument "you don't have the right to carry in the state you live" doesn't come up in this case.

We don't really need to get shall issue in all 50 for residents first to then go after non residents. We need a clarified definition of the right. If SCOTUS says that 2A confers a right to carry for non-prohibited individuals for example, that right can not then be hinged on staying within the confines of your state of residence.

As to the statement that "Co is affording you the exact same rights as you would find in Ca." The 10th circuit doesn't care, neither does SCOTUS. CO won't be making the argument "but.. but.. but California does it!"

ETA: Please don't misconstrue this as me arguing on Gray's behalf as its not my place to do so, these are simply my opinions.

Gray Peterson
05-02-2011, 11:13 AM
There are a few problems here.

Gray resides in WA, his case is in CO. Both states are shall issue, so the argument "you don't have the right to carry in the state you live" doesn't come up in this case.

We don't really need to get shall issue in all 50 for residents first to then go after non residents. We need a clarified definition of the right. If SCOTUS says that 2A confers a right to carry for non-prohibited individuals for example, that right can not then be hinged on staying within the confines of your state of residence.

As to the statement that "Co is affording you the exact same rights as you would find in Ca." The 10th circuit doesn't care, neither does SCOTUS. CO won't be making the argument "but.. but.. but California does it!"

ETA: Please don't misconstrue this as me arguing on Gray's behalf as its not my place to do so, these are simply my opinions.

You would actually be correct here. If it weren't for AG Suthers responses changing the posture of the litigation (AG Suthers being the CO Attorney General), this would have been more of a right to travel case.

Also, Legislation doesn't fix the underlying problem, and there may be litigation on HR822 which may cast doubt onto the law unless the basic question is asked: Is there a right to carry outside of the home.

sreiter
05-02-2011, 7:42 PM
There are a few problems here.

We need a clarified definition of the right. If SCOTUS says that 2A confers a right to carry for non-prohibited individuals for example, that right can not then be hinged on staying within the confines of your state of residence.



I'm looking at this from a article iv perspective. States are [supposed to be] sovereign. article iv goes on to say one state has to treat citizens of another state the same (expanded by the 14th).

This is at the core of the argument, IMO (IANAL), because the SCOTUS has not given us BEAR, only KEEP.

So it comes down to equal protection. How can you argue equal protection when not all states are equal in this regard.

Since there is no national reciprocity, and since all rights not reserved by the fed become reserved by the states, the states can enter into agreements with other states about reciprocity. They can choose who the want to deal with and who they don't.

Grey is using his non-res Fl permit, here, not his Wa permit, because no reciprocity between Wa and Co - which is still a argument. "Sorry, we don't have any agreements with Wa"

Now, if the strategy is too lose at every turn, and hope for cert., then i can see the rational. I just don't see any valid recourse/remedy for forcing a state to recognize a CCW from a state it doesnt want to.

Can you break down the legal argument as to what justification the case has merit?

sreiter
05-02-2011, 7:48 PM
i know i'm still focused on right to travel, even though you keep saying the AG changed the scope to 2a....but i can't think of a valid 2a argument, other then the "bear" section. And, maybe i'm not smart enough to see this as the "perfect" case to challenge bear at the SCOTUS level, again, IANAL, but from the few scotus case's i've read, etc. I don't know if this case rises to the level of being granted cert.



again, maybe i'm just not smart enough to be catching on.

Connor P Price
05-02-2011, 10:17 PM
I'm looking at this from a article iv perspective. States are [supposed to be] sovereign. article iv goes on to say one state has to treat citizens of another state the same (expanded by the 14th).

True, therefore CO has to treat residents of other states the same as it treats its own. Since CO is shall issue for residents, wouldn't one reasonably believe that this means they must be shall issue for non residents as well?

This is at the core of the argument, IMO (IANAL), because the SCOTUS has not given us BEAR, only KEEP.

True, they'll need to be the ones to give us BEAR if it is to be binding for the entire nation. Its possible that this case could be the one to do that.

So it comes down to equal protection. How can you argue equal protection when not all states are equal in this regard.

Since the suit is in Denver CO specifically, that is the only place that matters if one tries to make an equal protection claim. Denver is shall issue for its residents, it would be violating equal protection by not issuing to non residents. Other states not being equal holds no bearing on the argument as it applies to Denver's conduct. However this case is less about equal protection than it is about 2A

Since there is no national reciprocity, and since all rights not reserved by the fed become reserved by the states, the states can enter into agreements with other states about reciprocity. They can choose who the want to deal with and who they don't.

Very true. They can decide what states they would like to recognize. That doesn't mean they can deny people their fundamental right to armed self defense by virtue of the state they live in. For example, they can decide they don't to recognize CA permits, but that doesn't mean they can deny my rights there. They just have to recognize them another way (most likely by issuing me a non-res permit.)

Grey is using his non-res Fl permit, here, not his Wa permit, because no reciprocity between Wa and Co - which is still a argument. "Sorry, we don't have any agreements with Wa"

I believe this to be factually incorrect. Gray is asking for a non-resident CO permit.

Now, if the strategy is too lose at every turn, and hope for cert., then i can see the rational. I just don't see any valid recourse/remedy for forcing a state to recognize a CCW from a state it doesnt want to.

Cases are often designed for higher courts, they have to go through the lower ones before they get there. Your right that one probably cant force a state to recognize a permit from another (judicially, legislatively would be another story) but its quite likely that one could force a state to issue non-resident permits.

Can you break down the legal argument as to what justification the case has merit?

My thoughts above in blue.

Connor P Price
05-02-2011, 10:25 PM
i know i'm still focused on right to travel, even though you keep saying the AG changed the scope to 2a....but i can't think of a valid 2a argument, other then the "bear" section. And, maybe i'm not smart enough to see this as the "perfect" case to challenge bear at the SCOTUS level, again, IANAL, but from the few scotus case's i've read, etc. I don't know if this case rises to the level of being granted cert.



again, maybe i'm just not smart enough to be catching on.

As far as the SCOTUS level? I like to think about it this way: Ignore preconceptions about right to travel, ignore state sovereignty, think strictly about 2A. SCOTUS would be deciding whether 2A grants a right to carry. Does it? If it does, will SCOTUS say that the right only applies when one is in their home state?

I say yes it does grant the right to carry. Assuming that it does, SCOTUS simply cant say that one only has that right in their state of residence. Depending on wording states would likely still be able to require licenses, and still decide what licenses to recognize. However they would have to allow some way to exercise the right, whether through reciprocity or through non-resident permits.

Admittedly this is a very brief, simple, and inexperienced analysis. The important thing to take away is that its less about right to travel than it is about 2A. Why is it the best? I can't say with any degree of certainty that it's the best, but its good, and Gray is a solid plaintiff. I don't have a deep enough understanding of all the cases working their way up to formulate an opinion as to which is best.

sreiter
05-03-2011, 1:14 AM
Originally Posted by sreiter
I'm looking at this from a article iv perspective. States are [supposed to be] sovereign. article iv goes on to say one state has to treat citizens of another state the same (expanded by the 14th).

True, therefore CO has to treat residents of other states the same as it treats its own. Since CO is shall issue for residents, wouldn't one reasonably believe that this means they must be shall issue for non residents as well?

Thats only half right. I do understand that the law was written to stop prejudice of a states citizens over that of another, especially in business. But, the other side is if you had a right in your state, you should be afforded the same rights in other states. There were several slavery cases that came up because in the SCOTUS because slave holders would travel to free states, and bring their slaves. The slaves brought suit that claimed, now thay i'm in a free state, i should be freed. they lost.

This is at the core of the argument, IMO (IANAL), because the SCOTUS has not given us BEAR, only KEEP.

True, they'll need to be the ones to give us BEAR if it is to be binding for the entire nation. Its possible that this case could be the one to do that.

which is what i'm wondering about. I think on its merits at the state/district level, it won't stand, but if the end game is SCOTUS, then who knows

So it comes down to equal protection. How can you argue equal protection when not all states are equal in this regard.

Since the suit is in Denver CO specifically, that is the only place that matters if one tries to make an equal protection claim. Denver is shall issue for its residents, it would be violating equal protection by not issuing to non residents. Other states not being equal holds no bearing on the argument as it applies to Denver's conduct. However this case is less about equal protection than it is about 2A

Fair enough. I would think it EP would only matter to residents.ie not being able to get a CCW in denver if you have blond hair. Why can't you get a non-resident D/L ? And before you say a CCW is a right,I would disagree with you. It's a policy. I didnt believe Denver shall issue is in the states constitution.


Since there is no national reciprocity, and since all rights not reserved by the fed become reserved by the states, the states can enter into agreements with other states about reciprocity. They can choose who the want to deal with and who they don't.

Very true. They can decide what states they would like to recognize. That doesn't mean they can deny people their fundamental right to armed self defense by virtue of the state they live in. For example, they can decide they don't to recognize CA permits, but that doesn't mean they can deny my rights there. They just have to recognize them another way (most likely by issuing me a non-res permit.)

exactly when was it established the people had the right to bear arms in public as being a fundamental right? As 2a advocates, evangelistic, etc., we like to believe that, thats what the framers had in mind, and thats what i believe they had in mind. However, this fight has been going on a long time, and sine the scotus hasnt ruled bear is ok, as in not one of the things that can be totally regulated against (such as sensitive places), I'm not going to go as far as to proclaim it a fundamental right in the eyes of the law. If it was well established, Gray wouldnt be in this fight


Grey is using his non-res Fl permit, here, not his Wa permit, because no reciprocity between Wa and Co - which is still a argument. "Sorry, we don't have any agreements with Wa"

I believe this to be factually incorrect. Gray is asking for a non-resident CO permit.

I was going off of Nicki's post. I thought he(apologies if you prefer to be called she) was speaking of Grays case specifically


Now, if the strategy is too lose at every turn, and hope for cert., then i can see the rational. I just don't see any valid recourse/remedy for forcing a state to recognize a CCW from a state it doesnt want to.

Cases are often designed for higher courts, they have to go through the lower ones before they get there. Your right that one probably cant force a state to recognize a permit from another (judicially, legislatively would be another story) but its quite likely that one could force a state to issue non-resident permits.

How would that work? Ca. to issue non-res permits, so Out of stater's could carry, while us residents can't?




my thoughts in green

press1280
05-03-2011, 1:48 AM
Since there is no national reciprocity, and since all rights not reserved by the fed become reserved by the states, the states can enter into agreements with other states about reciprocity. They can choose who the want to deal with and who they don't.

This is one thing I think the Feds may have legitimate involvement with. States aren't supposed to make special deals with only certain states, even though in the case of reciprocity most of it is because the anti-gun states don't want any reciprocity,period.

sreiter
05-03-2011, 3:05 AM
Since there is no national reciprocity, and since all rights not reserved by the fed become reserved by the states, the states can enter into agreements with other states about reciprocity. They can choose who the want to deal with and who they don't.

This is one thing I think the Feds may have legitimate involvement with. States aren't supposed to make special deals with only certain states, even though in the case of reciprocity most of it is because the anti-gun states don't want any reciprocity,period.

don't states make special deals with other states?

NY/NJ have the port authority, a joint venture. Didn't we enter into a special deal with Nevada about water rights, etc.?

It does however open up the interpretation of the commerce clause, which has been used to support the registration requirement under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

so if the fed can regulate that.....

although the court ruled in United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr that the clause didnt include the power to regulate the gun free school zone, which it had tried to do.

05FLHT
05-03-2011, 4:29 AM
This is at the core of the argument, IMO (IANAL), because the SCOTUS has not given us BEAR, only KEEP.


This is an inaccurate statement. The Second Amendment says "keep and bear." The SCOTUS ruled in Heller that this is an individual right and again in McDonald that the right is enforceable against the States.

The problem here is not that the SCOTUS didn't 'say so more plainly,' it's that the lower courts won't 'grow a pair.'

sreiter
05-03-2011, 12:22 PM
This is an inaccurate statement. The Second Amendment says "keep and bear." The SCOTUS ruled in Heller that this is an individual right and again in McDonald that the right is enforceable against the States.

The problem here is not that the SCOTUS didn't 'say so more plainly,' it's that the lower courts won't 'grow a pair.'

Sorry, but i believe you are incorrect. Heller we can keep them in the home. mcdonald said the right is enforceable against the states, as in it applies to the states. Scotus said reasonable restrictions are still ok, like no guns in sensitive places.

No one has challenged what the sensitive place means or what reasonable restrictions are.

For all we know, the court may define a sensitive place as city or town there is a population > 10 people.

For all intents and purposes, who dont have "Bear" yet. Not until the scotus has ruled on where bear applies. Until then, the anti states will use the wording of "not in sensitive places" to mean whatever they want, which means we haven't won the right to bear anywhere we want yet.

05FLHT
05-03-2011, 1:37 PM
Sorry, but i believe you are incorrect. Heller we can keep them in the home. mcdonald said the right is enforceable against the states, as in it applies to the states. Scotus said reasonable restrictions are still ok, like no guns in sensitive places.

Yes, DC residents being able to keep a functional firearm 'in the home' was one of the outcomes of Heller, but first the court had to determine if the Second Amendment right to 'keep and bear' arms was a collective or individual right.

You, like the castrated courts, seem to want to gloss over this. The right is to 'keep and bear' arms. To 'keep and bear' is the individual right that is enforceable (applies) against the States via the courts decision in McDonald.

No one has challenged what the sensitive place means or what reasonable restrictions are.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs?

For all we know, the court may define a sensitive place as city or town there is a population > 10 people.

I suppose they could, but that's not really probable. Is it?

For all intents and purposes, who dont have "Bear" yet. Not until the scotus has ruled on where bear applies. Until then, the anti states will use the wording of "not in sensitive places" to mean whatever they want, which means we haven't won the right to bear anywhere we want yet.

Again, I'll argue we do indeed have the right to 'keep and bear.' The court just hasn't 'said so more plainly.':flowers:

N6ATF
05-03-2011, 1:56 PM
When the courts completely skip out on their responsibility to strike down intentionally unconstitutional laws, the probability is that things will get much worse on the legislative+judicial rubber stamping front before they get better (what we hope will be favorable SCOTUS rulings before any of the Heller 5 retire or die).

Connor P Price
05-03-2011, 2:48 PM
my thoughts in green

You are operating under numerous false assumptions, equal protection is not only for residents, its for everyone. CCW in colorado is a right not a policy, they have a very robust 2A equivalent and laws protecting the right to carry. So if the case is decided there it must be treated as such.

Drawing analogies to drivers license as you have is also not proper. First because driving has nothing to do with a fundamental right and second because there is already national reciprocity there. There would never be a need for a non resident dl because all state dls work everywhere.

Lastly, you seem to mistake the distinction between this case being decided in the 10th or the possibility of SCOTUS. As far as you question regarding california having to issue non resident permits you fail to acknowledge that california its only effected if the decision is made by the supremes. That means that if they declare carry to be protected under the second california would have to issue to residents. Not just non residents.

Its unlikely that the supremes would draw out a particular system for carry, that would likely be left up to the states. What with their sovereignty and all. States could probably decide between concealed, open, or both, but no carry would be unacceptable if the right is protected. Its also likely that states could decide who to grant reciprocity to. However if the right its affirmed, they can't deny it based on lack of residence, states would have to recognize other permits or grant their own non resident permits. National reciprocity will be found through the legislature.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

sreiter
05-03-2011, 4:30 PM
Yes, DC residents being able to keep a functional firearm 'in the home' was one of the outcomes of Heller, but first the court had to determine if the Second Amendment right to 'keep and bear' arms was a collective or individual right.

You, like the castrated courts, seem to want to gloss over this. The right is to 'keep and bear' arms. To 'keep and bear' is the individual right that is enforceable (applies) against the States via the courts decision in McDonald.



What does this have to do with the price of eggs?



I suppose they could, but that's not really probable. Is it?



Again, I'll argue we do indeed have the right to 'keep and bear.' The court just hasn't 'said so more plainly.':flowers:


Ok, so you have the right to bear.... So you LOC, and/or CCW without permits, right? Or you can walk into any issuing agency and get a permit to BEAR in anywhere in the USA, and then you can BEAR anywhere but the few specific sensitive places mentioned in heller and mcdonald, RIGHT?

Heck, why is Gray bothering with this suit if he already has a fundamental right to bear?

I'm not glossing over anything. Of course the amendments stands as written, which includes BEAR. However, since Heller and McDonald, no locale has been able to stop functioning weapons from being in every home who wishes one.

The same can't be said for every person wishing to carry. Therefore, until the court tells us exactly what BEAR means, we don't have bear.

Do you really not understand that concept?

Funny thing is, these exact sentiments have been echo'd on the board by numerous people, and IIRC Gene is one of them.


re: [senstive place defined as city/town >10 people] I suppose they could, but that's not really probable. Is it?

i wouldn't put it past L.A. NYC, NJ, Chicago, DC, Ma., etc to try, would you?

sreiter
05-03-2011, 4:46 PM
CCW in colorado is a right not a policy, they have a very robust 2A equivalent and laws protecting the right to carry. So if the case is decided there it must be treated as such.[/quote]

if it were as robust as you claim, Denver wouldn't be able to do what it does.


Drawing analogies to drivers license as you have is also not proper. First because driving has nothing to do with a fundamental right and second because there is already national reciprocity there. There would never be a need for a non resident dl because all state dls work everywhere.

While thats true, every state requires you change D/L and reg within 30 days of moving there. Why not allow you to keep your old tags with a non-res permit, keep your Ca D/L as a non-res D/L?

D/L's are valid for travel, however, you are expected to follow local laws.



Lastly, you seem to mistake the distinction between this case being decided in the 10th or the possibility of SCOTUS. As far as you question regarding california having to issue non resident permits you fail to acknowledge that california its only effected if the decision is made by the supremes. That means that if they declare carry to be protected under the second california would have to issue to residents. Not just non residents.

Its unlikely that the supremes would draw out a particular system for carry, that would likely be left up to the states. What with their sovereignty and all. States could probably decide between concealed, open, or both, but no carry would be unacceptable if the right is protected. Its also likely that states could decide who to grant reciprocity to. However if the right its affirmed, they can't deny it based on lack of residence, states would have to recognize other permits or grant their own non resident permits. National reciprocity will be found through the legislature.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

I don't buy that premise at all. You are expanding the scope of this case, and the SCOTUS never does that. They focus as narrow as they can.

This case is about non-resident CCW ONLY. Thats what will be decide. How you think SHALL ISSUE to residents will be thrown in is beyond me.

Gray Peterson
05-03-2011, 5:32 PM
This case is about non-resident CCW ONLY. Thats what will be decide. How you think SHALL ISSUE to residents will be thrown in is beyond me.

Because the Colorado Attorney General claimed that under the 2nd Amendment, the 2A doesn't apply outside of the home. When the AG did they, they called into question the basic question of "bear".

Check your PM's.

sreiter
05-03-2011, 6:52 PM
GRAY - pm sent back

Connor P Price
05-03-2011, 7:01 PM
Sreiter, you have good points, I'm not disputing that. There are two sides to all of these things, that's why there has to be litigation.

As far as your comment about if they have such a robust right to bear then why can Denver do what it does? I would contend that they can't, and they will lose this case. Unfortunately that's the way our system works, the government gets to pass bogus laws that are in direct contradiction to superior laws. We don't find out that they "can't" legally do that until it gets litigated.

So how can Denver do what they're doing if they can't "legally" do it. The same way DC and Chicago had handgun bans until Heller and Mcdonald told them its not allowed. They just haven't been told they can't do that yet.

Connor P Price
05-03-2011, 7:10 PM
Because the Colorado Attorney General claimed that under the 2nd Amendment, the 2A doesn't apply outside of the home. When the AG did they, they called into question the basic question of "bear".

This seems to be the game changer that makes your case a great one to bring before SCOTUS. Would you tend to agree or am I off base here?

sreiter
05-03-2011, 7:12 PM
Because the Colorado Attorney General claimed that under the 2nd Amendment, the 2A doesn't apply outside of the home. When the AG did they, they called into question the basic question of "bear".

Check your PM's.

interesting...i didn't see that before....

My non-lawyerly mind is spinning.

On one hand, I can see that expanding the issue, on the other hand, the suit is still a challenge to their "non-residential" [non] issuance.

That Is the question that ultimately would be put before the court. "Does Denver have to issue non-resident ccw permits". as opposed to the question "does the 2a apply outside the home, and therefore must everyone be afforded a means to carry outside the home" That is what you're suing for, isn't it?

So while their AG is offering (what i assume is) various arguments why they don't have to issue because the 2a doesn't exist outside the home, and while I'm sure you will have excellent retorts that will be 100% correct from a con law stand point. I mean wtf was he thinking saying the 2a only exists in the home, with 100,000s if not more gun owners in Co.

I don't think the court will give a blanket ruling "the 2a exists outside so everyone must be issued some form of carry throughout the land."

Depending if, where, and how the judges address that argument, as opposed to simple equal protection arguments, in their opinion, this could open the door for future cases where the question put before the court would be "do we the people have the right to carry outside the home (limited by reasonable regulation) "

Again, they may or may not address the argument. They may aaddress it through dicta.

But at least now i can see what the end game is

thanks grey....lol - I actually asked as one of the first questions what was i missing about this case.....had you answered with your last post....it would have saved a whole lot a time....lolol


thanks....and i actually have nothing further to say....

like i said, maybe i wasnt smart enough to catch on. at least it was because i didnt have enough info....or i'm still not catching on, but i'm think i am, so i'm good with it...lolololol

Connor P Price
05-03-2011, 7:17 PM
It probably doesn't help that I muddy up the water with my sophomoric views on things. lol. Gray's case is incredibly interesting though, so i can't help but be intrigued by the discussion.

sreiter
05-03-2011, 7:18 PM
Sreiter, you have good points, I'm not disputing that. There are two sides to all of these things, that's why there has to be litigation.

As far as your comment about if they have such a robust right to bear then why can Denver do what it does? I would contend that they can't, and they will lose this case. Unfortunately that's the way our system works, the government gets to pass bogus laws that are in direct contradiction to superior laws. We don't find out that they "can't" legally do that until it gets litigated.

So how can Denver do what they're doing if they can't "legally" do it. The same way DC and Chicago had handgun bans until Heller and Mcdonald told them its not allowed. They just haven't been told they can't do that yet.

I lived in Denver for 2 years and was very involved with the gun world there. i was taking private lessons from 2 gun site range masters, one is world famous, the other is pretty famous in 3 gun, and was a lt on Denver's PD.

One of my best friends owned(no longer a brick and mortar store), the largest gun store in Co. for 20 years - Dave's guns

There were many challenges to denvers laws, and to my knowledge, denver woon them all. i dont know the outcome of the assualt weapon ban denver had still in pace when the rest of Co expired with the national ban. i know there was a suit, just moved before the outcome, so it didnt matter to me.

sreiter
05-03-2011, 7:22 PM
This seems to be the game changer that makes your case a great one to bring before SCOTUS. Would you tend to agree or am I off base here?

if my most recent sophomoric analysis is correct, then i believe it is a game changer, and possible juggernaut ! i know, i know "possible juggernaut" is almost a oxymoron!

Connor P Price
05-03-2011, 7:26 PM
I lived in Denver for 2 years and was very involved with the gun world there. i was taking private lessons from 2 gun site range masters, one is world famous, the other is pretty famous in 3 gun, and was a lt on Denver's PD.

One of my best friends owned(no longer a brick and mortar store), the largest gun store in Co. for 20 years - Dave's guns

There were many challenges to denvers laws, and to my knowledge, denver woon them all. i dont know the outcome of the assualt weapon ban denver had still in pace when the rest of Co expired with the national ban. i know there was a suit, just moved before the outcome, so it didnt matter to me.

Lucky you, I wish I could live there. Someday maybe. I believe there AWB was upheld, I know they also ban open carry (ccw still being shall issue), and I think they have some ammo restrictions within the city limits. So Denver is certainly more strict than the surrounding areas.

I still feel that because this case cuts to the very core of the right to bear arms for self defense that it will have to be looked at with greater scrutiny than the other laws.

sreiter
05-03-2011, 7:44 PM
Denver is a great place. If not for the cold, I'd live there forever. Small town feel, with big city convenience. People are genuinely nice. Like mid westeners. I made MANY friends for life there. People took me in like family from the moment i met them.

Night life is great. Some excellent restaurants. Great outdoors close by. Very fitness oriented (i think they're like the 8th leanest city in america), obviously very pro gun, several large colleges, have great free festivals down town with big name bands playing for free (i saw kansas and big bad voodoo daddy play their end of summer bash) and Interestingly enough for a very bible belt, midwest values, red state, they're very progressive. Huge gay community. Their GPP is as big as LA's (i think), and they have as big a swinger community (so i'm told).

The winters i was there were cold, but the snow either didnt stick, or melted within one day. You get -10 one day, and 60 the next. If you dont like the weather, wait a hour or so the saying goes. Obviously, 1/2 hour outta town and things change. Castle Rock will get 6 feet of snow, while denver wont get any.

If you ever do move there, get on the aurora gun clubs list to join. I shot all of the ranges, and this outdoor range is the best (when its not to cold). They have like individual ranges, so, if you and a friend wanna run drills, etc, you have that range to yourself.

Zak
05-03-2011, 9:20 PM
Denver is a great place. If not for the cold, I'd live there forever. Small town feel, with big city convenience. People are genuinely nice. Like mid westeners. I made MANY friends for life there. People took me in like family from the moment i met them.

Night life is great. Some excellent restaurants. Great outdoors close by. Very fitness oriented (i think they're like the 8th leanest city in america), obviously very pro gun, several large colleges, have great free festivals down town with big name bands playing for free (i saw kansas and big bad voodoo daddy play their end of summer bash) and Interestingly enough for a very bible belt, midwest values, red state, they're very progressive. Huge gay community. Their GPP is as big as LA's (i think), and they have as big a swinger community (so i'm told).

The winters i was there were cold, but the snow either didnt stick, or melted within one day. You get -10 one day, and 60 the next. If you dont like the weather, wait a hour or so the saying goes. Obviously, 1/2 hour outta town and things change. Castle Rock will get 6 feet of snow, while denver wont get any.

If you ever do move there, get on the aurora gun clubs list to join. I shot all of the ranges, and this outdoor range is the best (when its not to cold). They have like individual ranges, so, if you and a friend wanna run drills, etc, you have that range to yourself.

I lived there for 4 years, so I know what you're talking about. Unfortunately, living in California now, I can't visit my old state without disarming myself first. I actually liked the winter, because people tend to dress better in the winter with their coats and scarves.

Didn't mean to go too off-topic--I better stop talking about Colorado because it's making me miss it ;)

Because the Colorado Attorney General claimed that under the 2nd Amendment, the 2A doesn't apply outside of the home. When the AG did they, they called into question the basic question of "bear".

Check your PM's.

I never had a CCW from Colorado when I lived there, but I have friends who did, so apparently it's permissive. That's why I'm wondering why AG Suthers is saying that the 2A only refers to inside the home, while the issuing policy is very relaxed.

Connor P Price
05-03-2011, 9:38 PM
I never had a CCW from Colorado when I lived there, but I have friends who did, so apparently it's permissive. That's why I'm wondering why AG Suthers is saying that the 2A only refers to inside the home, while the issuing policy is very relaxed.

Especially with the Colorado Concealed Carry Act having been passed to protect CCW holders within his very own state that argument seems a bit silly.

Sgt Raven
05-06-2011, 12:05 PM
interesting...i didn't see that before....

My non-lawyerly mind is spinning.

...snip......
So while their AG is offering (what i assume is) various arguments why they don't have to issue because the 2a doesn't exist outside the home, and while I'm sure you will have excellent retorts that will be 100% correct from a con law stand point. I mean wtf was he thinking saying the 2a only exists in the home, with 100,000s if not more gun owners in Co.
..snip..

But at least now i can see what the end game is

thanks grey....lol - I actually asked as one of the first questions what was i missing about this case.....had you answered with your last post....it would have saved a whole lot a time....lolol


thanks....and i actually have nothing further to say....

like i said, maybe i wasnt smart enough to catch on. at least it was because i didnt have enough info....or i'm still not catching on, but i'm think i am, so i'm good with it...lolololol

WTF he was thinking was Heller was a 'keep and bear' in the home, that was the question SCOTUS was asked. Co's AG was playing the cards he had. ;)

sreiter
05-06-2011, 2:33 PM
Heller didn't incorp 2a...McD did

Window_Seat
05-28-2011, 12:41 AM
Ghost post prevention bump to say I'm still as excited about this case, as I am the others, esp. filed in the past week. So having said that, anything new on Peterson?

I also noticed that the Wiki page hasn't been updated to reflect the new title.

No worries though. :cool2:

Erik.

ccmc
05-28-2011, 6:59 AM
That's nice that Denver is a very liberal shall-issue carry policy. They don't issue to out of state residents (nor does any county in the state). That's the problem.

Residents are not effected by this lawsuit, except violations of their civil rights in the future would now be addressable in federal court rather than just purely state court, especially if we win in the 10th Circuit.

My interest in this appeal is how it would affect states like CA that neither honor any other states' permits nor allow non-residents to apply for a CA permit. CO does recognize my FL resident permit. Sorry if this sounds selfish, but there are a lot of CA residents with CA permits on this board complaining about CO's policy of not recognizing CA permits while not seeing the irony in CA not recognizing any other states' permits resident or not. Maybe we're all a little selfish?

Zak
05-28-2011, 9:03 AM
My interest in this appeal is how it would affect states like CA that neither honor any other states' permits nor allow non-residents to apply for a CA permit. CO does recognize my FL resident permit. Sorry if this sounds selfish, but there are a lot of CA residents with CA permits on this board complaining about CO's policy of not recognizing CA permits while not seeing the irony in CA not recognizing any other states' permits resident or not. Maybe we're all a little selfish?

I believe the rationale is that Californians have no way of carrying in Denver, as open carry is banned. Since we can't CCW there either, we're left with no way to bear arms. However, anybody can UOC when they come to California. (Well, maybe not for long).

Drivedabizness
05-28-2011, 10:00 AM
thanks for the response.


2 small points..... here you say "First is that this isn't a "future civil right""...however, if you look at my post. i quote you say this is about some future civil right. ....

2nd - heller said nothing of "bear", only keep, in the home.

I hope you prevail, and i'm behind you 100%. I donate to the CGF.

IANAL, my personal view is your case is too broad in scope. I think we need bear in the state you live before we go after reciprocity, especially for non-residents, as i feel it would be to easy to argue "you dont have the right to carry in the state you live". I think that argument is a very compelling one when talking about PoI, or anything to do with citizens of one state being treated as equals of another. Co is affording you the exact same rights as you would find in Ca.

i guess my thinking is more in line with HR822


I hope you're right right and I'm wrong.

best of luck

See emphasis on your post above. That's a huge Maggies Drawers there. Read the NRA amicus in Peruta. They throughly debunk the assertion that Heller only guaranteed the RKBA in the home.

ccmc
05-28-2011, 12:31 PM
I believe the rationale is that Californians have no way of carrying in Denver, as open carry is banned. Since we can't CCW there either, we're left with no way to bear arms. However, anybody can UOC when they come to California. (Well, maybe not for long).

I don't support AB 144, but I don't see much point in UOC. When CA has a way for non-residents to legally CC like my home state of FL does then I'll believe there's real progress in CA gun laws. It would happen a lot faster if Californians didn't elect so many anti 2A people into office. Doing it through the courts takes a really long time. That's not how shall issue happened here in FL.

Maestro Pistolero
05-28-2011, 3:25 PM
disregard

Window_Seat
07-31-2011, 8:26 PM
BTT...

108590 (from 07/18/2011)

Erik.

dawgcasa
07-31-2011, 8:47 PM
BTT...

108590 (from 07/18/2011)

Erik.

All I can say is Wow, talk about selectively presenting snippets of case law out of context in a not very well disguised attempt to mask what was really stated in those cases and support their own agenda. Just Wow. It's like they really believe if they pull out a couple partial sentances from the Heller decision, wrap them in their own verbal BS, that they can re-engineer what those decisions said in their own words.

Sobriquet
07-31-2011, 9:05 PM
BTT...

108590 (from 07/18/2011)

Erik.

I tried... I just don't have the stomach for that this evening. I'm starting to get nauseated by the intellectually dishonest argument that Heller and McDonald don't implicate 2A rights outside the home. I really hope the Supreme Court decides to clarify this in Masciandaro.

Connor P Price
07-31-2011, 11:53 PM
If I were a judge, I'd probably be more than a bit upset if an amicus brief like that one was given to me. Its almost insulting to expect that one would be fooled by such obvious use of quotes entirely out of context.

press1280
08-01-2011, 3:35 PM
More of the same from the Bradys-using 19th century law prohibiting CCW, while ignoring open carry. And of course, blood in the streets talk.
Is CO going to fight this battle for Denver, or can they just tell the court,"Yea,we think they should be LOC, just like the rest of the state."?

Patrick-2
08-01-2011, 3:49 PM
More of the same from the Bradys-using 19th century law prohibiting CCW, while ignoring open carry. And of course, blood in the streets talk.
Is CO going to fight this battle for Denver, or can they just tell the court,"Yea,we think they should be LOC, just like the rest of the state."?

You are not alone seeing that pattern.

The anti-rights crowd, in some attempt to create a record that presupposes gun control at our nation's foundation, have all of a sudden reached back over the pond to English Common Law at that same time.

This is making its way into the defense position nationwide. Obviously they talk.

Heller opened the door by citing English Law to lend credence to the idea that this was a fundamental issue. Apparently the other side sees this as a chance to literally use the King's gun control measures to bolster their argument. It's a stretch. Heller also noted that the violation of some of those original Common Law understandings resulted in a little thing called the American Revolution.

My note to the gun control historians: don't stop at 1775. Add one year and open the history books. See how that turned out for the Empire. We didn't exactly follow their rules.

Window_Seat
08-04-2011, 11:12 AM
Garcia says no brief, saying that Colorado CRS §18-12-213 (http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpExt.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=jump&iid=51102ea2.db91b27.0.0&nid=d55f#JD_18-12-213) is completely silent as to the administration and implementation of the statute, and they (among other reasons) are not filing a brief for that (in addition to one other) reason.

It's 4 pages, so an easy read.

Erik.

Patrick-2
08-04-2011, 11:32 AM
Basically: "It's the state's fault. Don't blame us. We're outta here."

Go Gray.

Window_Seat
08-04-2011, 11:52 AM
Is there case law in this, or other CA courts that says "you can't point blame to some other Government Entity for causing you to be :confused: and use it to not file a (reply) brief for this type of reason"?

Erik.

Connor P Price
08-04-2011, 1:06 PM
5. The two statutes at issue in this lawsuit are state statutes and the City and
County of Denver has no legal obligation to defend the constitutionality of state
statutes.

From a logical view, that kinda makes sense to me. In the legal sense (not always the same as logical) I never thought it quite worked that way. This will be an interesting one.

press1280
08-04-2011, 3:10 PM
Is there case law in this, or other CA courts that says "you can't point blame to some other Government Entity for causing you to be :confused: and use it to not file a (reply) brief for this type of reason"?

Erik.

I'd like to see what caselaw is made of this. Does the court tell the entity being sued(Denver sheriff) that the OC ban is unenforceable, or tell the state to alter its CCW practices? Seems unlikely Denver(or CO) would win a case in which neither wants to do anything, but heck who knows.

Purple K
10-28-2011, 4:37 PM
Any news in this case?

Window_Seat
10-28-2011, 5:02 PM
Any news in this case?

Oral arguments are set to happen 11/17 at 08:30. Not sure whether there will be audio cast, or maybe televised? Gray?

Erik.

Connor P Price
10-28-2011, 5:23 PM
Oral arguments are set to happen 11/17 at 08:30. Not sure whether there will be audio cast, or maybe televised? Gray?

Erik.

I think I remember Gray saying he isn't going to be present for the arguments. Maybe we could track down somebody from rocky mountain gun owners to see if they will have anyone in attendance.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

press1280
10-29-2011, 3:19 AM
Oral arguments are set to happen 11/17 at 08:30. Not sure whether there will be audio cast, or maybe televised? Gray?

Erik.

The 10th circuit website says 30$ for audio recordings. I don't know if Gray will get it for free since it's his case. Then we'll have to see if it can be posted.

Gray Peterson
10-29-2011, 6:26 AM
I think I remember Gray saying he isn't going to be present for the arguments. Maybe we could track down somebody from rocky mountain gun owners to see if they will have anyone in attendance.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

I wouldn't involve Rocky Mountain Gun Owners in this. Dudley and I have had some major issues and I wouldn't trust anything he had to say about my case, given what he's said about HR822. He would likely claim that I'm trying to enshrine licensing as a constitutional standard or some other BS (which isn't actually true).

Gray Peterson
10-29-2011, 7:55 AM
The 10th circuit website says 30$ for audio recordings. I don't know if Gray will get it for free since it's his case. Then we'll have to see if it can be posted.

All things being equal, plaintiffs do not get free audio. I already messaged the court clerk and asked, we'll see what they say, and we'll make arrangements from there.

-Gray

Smokeybehr
10-29-2011, 7:30 PM
Looking at the original documents, there's a huge parallel between this case and Mishaga v Monken even though it's CCW v FOID. It's all about a state not issuing a permit to a non-resident, and the non-resident wanting a permit in order to comply with the laws of the State.

Amiright?

hoffmang
10-29-2011, 8:40 PM
Looking at the original documents, there's a huge parallel between this case and Mishaga v Monken even though it's CCW v FOID. It's all about a state not issuing a permit to a non-resident, and the non-resident wanting a permit in order to comply with the laws of the State.

Amiright?

Basically, yes. Even absent a fundamental incorporated 2A, the non issuance to non residents was probably unconstitutional under the right to travel.

-Gene

oaklander
10-29-2011, 9:42 PM
All things being equal, plaintiffs do not get free audio. I already messaged the court clerk and asked, we'll see what they say, and we'll make arrangements from there.

-Gray

Not to go OT - but I owe you a call!!!


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

Window_Seat
11-07-2011, 5:13 PM
Another bump to say...








9 DAYS & A WAKE UP!!! :D

10/27/2011 Open Document Notice of time change for oral argument on 11/17/2011 to 8:30 a.m.. Counsel shall report 45 minutes prior to the session to check in with the clerk. Counsel must complete a new calendar acknowledgment form within 10 days to confirm the change.

Erik.

hoffmang
11-07-2011, 6:05 PM
Oral argument next week in Denver.

-Gene

Connor P Price
11-07-2011, 6:11 PM
I wouldn't involve Rocky Mountain Gun Owners in this. Dudley and I have had some major issues and I wouldn't trust anything he had to say about my case, given what he's said about HR822. He would likely claim that I'm trying to enshrine licensing as a constitutional standard or some other BS (which isn't actually true).

Thanks for letting us know, that is brand new to me. Its a darn shame that we can't just all get along :oji:

As a future CO resident I really hoped for more from that organization.

Gray Peterson
11-07-2011, 10:32 PM
Basically: "It's the state's fault. Don't blame us. We're outta here."

Go Gray.

Honey Badger don't care.

Sgt Raven
11-08-2011, 8:55 AM
Another bump to say...








9 DAYS & A WAKE UP!!! :D



Erik.

With that line, you must be 'prior service'. :oji: :p

Funtimes
11-08-2011, 3:36 PM
With that line, you must be 'prior service'. :oji: :p

Dude I know right?!! I thought I wouldn't have to hear that and "Commence field day" ever again.... lol.

Sgt Raven
11-09-2011, 7:36 AM
Dude I know right?!! I thought I wouldn't have to hear that and "Commence field day" ever again.... lol.

For someone that's 6'3", there was a time, I was so 'short' "I had to look up to see down". :p

krucam
11-17-2011, 2:05 PM
Alright Gray...we're waiting...

wildhawker
11-17-2011, 2:07 PM
Last I heard was that Gray couldn't attend. However, it sounds like the court will be ordering additional briefing and oral arguments.

-Brandon

Gray Peterson
11-17-2011, 2:27 PM
Last I heard was that Gray couldn't attend. However, it sounds like the court will be ordering additional briefing and oral arguments.

-Brandon

Concur with this. I had to work today in Seattle so I could not attend. The above is correct. Until I can get the transcript and/or audio recording, I will refrain from making a full statement at this time. What I will say is that it's good news, but on a slight sidetrack.

Purple K
11-17-2011, 5:46 PM
Good news, big or small, is still good. I can't wait for the details.

Paladin
11-17-2011, 6:45 PM
Good news, big or small, is still good. I can't wait for the details.

MegaDittos! ;)

Window_Seat
11-17-2011, 7:02 PM
I looked all over for audio, nothing... It says on the CA10 site $30.00 for audio... :(

Erik.

Gray Peterson
11-18-2011, 9:53 PM
I looked all over for audio, nothing... It says on the CA10 site $30.00 for audio... :(

Erik.

We are working on it.....

hoffmang
11-20-2011, 1:00 PM
We are working on it.....

I'll have an update on timing to get the oral argument audio later this coming week.

-Gene

hoffmang
12-10-2011, 9:07 PM
Oral argument is now available here: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson/11-1149-2011-11-17.mp3

-Gene

Gray Peterson
12-10-2011, 9:15 PM
Something to think about: Before making commentary, I recommend listening to the ENTIRE argument, not just the one with my lawyer at the beginning.

safewaysecurity
12-10-2011, 9:45 PM
Oral argument is now available here: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson/11-1149-2011-11-17.mp3

-Gene

Defendant Lawyer: "The City and County of Denver did waive their opportunity to participate in this proceeding"

Judge: "WHAT!!?????"

lol.

How did they not know this don't they read the briefs and all of that? The Judges seemed very confused and uninformed on the case.

Also why didn't Gray take the advise of the district court judge and amend his complaint to include the sheriff as a defendant on the reciprocity issue? Is it because the law in unclear on who is actually responsible for issuing permits and recognizing reciprocity agreements?

Gray Peterson
12-10-2011, 9:57 PM
Defendant Lawyer: "The City and County of Denver did waive their opportunity to participate in this proceeding"

Judge: "WHAT!!?????"

lol.

How did they not know this don't they read the briefs and all of that? The Judges seemed very confused and uninformed on the case.

Also why didn't Gray take the advise of the district court judge and amend his complaint to include the sheriff as a defendant on the reciprocity issue? Is it because the law in unclear on who is actually responsible for issuing permits and recognizing reciprocity agreements?

Because that's not what the district court judge actually advised here. If we had the opportunity to get into the substantive matters of the case, we would have went over that, but we didn't.

Keep in mind that because of the nature of this case, I will not discuss the future plans of how we'll presenting ourselves in the next argument. Others can speculate all they want because they are not direct parties to the case.

I do, however, believe that they are in fact taking it seriously, and I'm hopeful at the end we'll get a good ruling.

SoCal Bob
12-10-2011, 10:33 PM
Interesting. When I closed my eyes I could swear I was hearing a Mel Brooks movie dialogue. The State said reciprocity is up to the Sheriff, the sheriff/county said the sheriff has nothing to do with it, its up to the state.

hoffmang
12-10-2011, 11:41 PM
Interesting. When I closed my eyes I could swear I was hearing a Mel Brooks movie dialogue. The State said reciprocity is up to the Sheriff, the sheriff/county said the sheriff has nothing to do with it, its up to the state.

This.

-Gene

press1280
12-11-2011, 5:32 AM
Did I hear that correctly that the state's attorney is claiming Denver(and any other CO county) can accept/not accept whatever out of state permits they want?????
It seems the state and Denver are really pointing the fingers at each other, and the law is so vague that the judges are trying just to figure out who needs to be sued.

Also, it seems the courts(and state defendants) are taking the Robertson v. Baldwin line about concealed carry much too literally. At least the 10th Circuit did recognize open carry as distinct from concealed carry, and didn't try to lump them together in an attempt to dispose of both like other courts have done.
Any word on when oral arguments are to be continued?

Gray Peterson
12-11-2011, 1:51 PM
Did I hear that correctly that the state's attorney is claiming Denver(and any other CO county) can accept/not accept whatever out of state permits they want?????
It seems the state and Denver are really pointing the fingers at each other, and the law is so vague that the judges are trying just to figure out who needs to be sued.

At least we're going to be given the opportunity to reargue the case, if we are to take what they said to the state's counsel in a literal fashion.

Also, it seems the courts(and state defendants) are taking the Robertson v. Baldwin line about concealed carry much too literally. At least the 10th Circuit did recognize open carry as distinct from concealed carry, and didn't try to lump them together in an attempt to dispose of both like other courts have done.
Any word on when oral arguments are to be continued?

Not yet. We expect a notice from the court soon.

Al Norris
12-11-2011, 2:33 PM
I understand that in all this litigation, our stance is not that the right protects open or concealed carry as a form, but that the right protects carry in some form, period.

What I don't understand is why the courts refuse to meet this head-on but continue to think only in terms of concealed carry.

AAR, I congratulate the panel on thinking that this whole thing deserves a second bout at orals and/or supplemental briefing. Those Judges were a very tough audience.

Gray Peterson
12-11-2011, 3:05 PM
AAR, I congratulate the panel on thinking that this whole thing deserves a second bout at orals and/or supplemental briefing. Those Judges were a very tough audience.

They were fair in that sense. If you want read the potential "genesis" of their confusion over "Denver open carry ban", I would read the NRA Civil Rights Defense Funds Amicus Curiae brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson/Peterson-NRA-Amicus-Curiae-2011-06-10.pdf) which may have started all of this. As much as some people think I'm potentially "annoyed" by this slight delay, I'm actually not.

Connor P Price
12-11-2011, 6:10 PM
Any guess as to how much time this adds to the clock for this case?

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Window_Seat
12-11-2011, 7:17 PM
It's on my iPod, and listening now! :thumbsup:

Edit: The panel was Lucero, Baldock & Hartz?

Erik.

Gray Peterson
12-11-2011, 7:36 PM
It's on my iPod, and listening now! :thumbsup:

Edit: The panel was Lucero, Baldock & Hartz?

Erik.

Correct.

Connor P Price
12-12-2011, 12:23 AM
Finally got around to listening to the rest of it... very interesting. Poor Mr. Monroe couldn't get a word in edgewise in the beginning, I was starting to feel bad for him.

The panel seemed very intent on discussing the Denver law banning open carry and the reciprocity issue. They really didn't seem to want to discuss the issue of whether Gray should be issued a permit. It will be interesting to see how the arguments develop next time.

Gray Peterson
12-12-2011, 8:27 AM
Finally got around to listening to the rest of it... very interesting. Poor Mr. Monroe couldn't get a word in edgewise in the beginning, I was starting to feel bad for him.

The panel seemed very intent on discussing the Denver law banning open carry and the reciprocity issue. They really didn't seem to want to discuss the issue of whether Gray should be issued a permit. It will be interesting to see how the arguments develop next time.

I'm greatly awaiting the next oral argument.

HowardW56
12-12-2011, 8:56 AM
I'm greatly awaiting the next oral argument.

Gray

I think all of us, who are paying attention, are anxious too...

Window_Seat
12-12-2011, 9:24 AM
Maybe some of us will be in a better position to go, and they will be good because the panel should be better prepared, no?

Erik.

Gray Peterson
12-12-2011, 10:24 AM
Maybe some of us will be in a better position to go, and they will be good because the panel should be better prepared, no?

Erik.

Agreed.:thumbup:




Gray

I think all of us, who are paying attention, are anxious too...

You have no idea....:eek:

Connor P Price
12-12-2011, 10:44 AM
I'm greatly awaiting the next oral argument.

I can only imagine, its been quite a wait.

Maybe some of us will be in a better position to go, and they will be good because the panel should be better prepared, no?

Erik.

I don't have plans to be out there until April, but it would definitely be neat to get a group there to show support. I would certainly expect the panel to be better prepared, it was a bit surprising to hear how little familiarity they had with the arguments going into this.

Gray Peterson
12-18-2011, 12:17 AM
All pertinent Appellate Files are now uploaded to the following location to save you money looking at PACER. Also, for your convenience, the MP3 file of the oral argument is uploaded there for your listening.

Peterson Appeals Folder (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson)

Also, I took a few hours tonight to do an unofficial transcription, for the folks here who are more readers than listeners. It is attached to the first post of the thread as "Peterson v. Martinez Unofficial Transcript" in pdf format...

Connor P Price
12-18-2011, 1:35 AM
Thanks for taking the time to put all that together.

I'm anxiously awaiting the scheduling of the next arguments.

press1280
12-18-2011, 4:01 AM
I'm curious about something. If Gray wins, what are the possibilities CO/Denver appeals to SCOTUS? From oral arguments, I got the gist that neither is too interested in putting forth much of an effort and will just let this be binding in the circuit only.

Window_Seat
12-18-2011, 11:49 AM
I'm curious about something. If Gray wins, what are the possibilities CO/Denver appeals to SCOTUS? From oral arguments, I got the gist that neither is too interested in putting forth much of an effort and will just let this be binding in the circuit only.

I'm inclined to believe that this case (as well as the others below in my sig line) is designed & destined to be heard by the Heller five. I just won't predict which one will.

Erik.

MindBuilder
12-18-2011, 2:54 PM
There is a free program called "Transcriber" on Sourceforge that makes doing transcriptions vastly more efficient than just using play and stop on standard computer audio software. The main advantage is that the tab key is used to start and stop the audio, without having to remove your hands from the keyboard. Another huge advantage is that if you go into the settings you can modify the tab key so that when you restart playing, it will restart from a half second or so before where you stopped. This is important because you often inadvertently stop in the middle of a word and have to rewind a bit to understand it. Also, if you press the tab key several times very quickly, it allows you to easily and quickly go back a few seconds to hear something over again. Finally, if you are reading the finished transcript in the transcriber program, you can instantly jump to the part of the audio file where you are reading, without having to fast forward and rewind a bunch to find the spot.

Transcriber makes it so easy to stop and start that you can stop and start every few words and thereby increase your accuracy. If you try to listen to a whole sentence and then type it from memory, your accuracy may be poor, because when you hear a sentence, your brain may sometimes remember what it thinks is the meaning of what it heard rather than what it actually heard. For good accuracy, it is important after typing your transcription, to read it as you listen to it to verify accuracy.

Dreaded Claymore
12-18-2011, 3:47 PM
There is a free program called "Transcriber" on Sourceforge that makes doing transcriptions vastly more efficient...

This sounds astoundingly useful. Thank you!

hoffmang
12-18-2011, 7:02 PM
I'm curious about something. If Gray wins, what are the possibilities CO/Denver appeals to SCOTUS? From oral arguments, I got the gist that neither is too interested in putting forth much of an effort and will just let this be binding in the circuit only.

Denver has basically stopped defending this. As such it might not go up. However, Circuit Court of Appeals precedent is VERY useful.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
12-18-2011, 11:33 PM
MSJ's are not issued by appellate courts. They are a court of reversal of legal and factual errors, essentially. What would happen is an order of reversal, essentially directing the lower court to issue an MSJ after coming to their legal conclusions of the proceedings.

As for "10 months to a hearing". Try "4 to 6 months" (oral argument will occur either in September 12th week or November 14th week).

Thinking about the scenarios here, the potential of a Williams v. State of Maryland cert grant might hold things up at some point. We will, however, proceed as normal and assume an upward trajectory. I am not actually hopeful for a Tenth Circuit win because not one lower court in the federal system has gotten the carry issue correct. I think really think that either as a first civil SCOTUS case for carry, or the map up for non-residency, both issues will be a "5 of 9" situation.

The above underlined is no longer my current belief. Also, now that Williams and Masciandaro have been denied certiorari, there is nothing holding up my case except for the 10th Circuit's rehearing. I also think that because they'll have to specially convene the panel, a decision will actually come quite quickly after rehearing.

Apocalypsenerd
12-19-2011, 12:20 AM
Gray: What would the time frame be?

If you win the 10th Circuit, how likely is that to affect the 9th? Would we be waiting for a split or would they cave?

Connor P Price
12-19-2011, 1:10 AM
Gray: What would the time frame be?

If you win the 10th Circuit, how likely is that to affect the 9th? Would we be waiting for a split or would they cave?

The 9th has been reversed so many times they don't know East from West anymore. I don't think the court is concerned with whether they got shot down for splitting with the 10th on this issue. It certainly wouldn't be decided in our favor below that, so I'd say this issue is bound for scotus regardless of a win in the 10th. It'll just take longer to make it to scotus that way. Unless its mooted by legislation first of course.

I know you're addressing Gray here, just throwing in my two cents, which of course is worth what you paid for it.

Gray Peterson
12-19-2011, 1:40 AM
Gray: What would the time frame be?

If the panel reschedules oral argument on a "regular calendar", it would be the week of March 19th. That would be the latest I believe they would schedule it. They might, however, call for a Special Term (http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/calendar.php) sooner. Funnily enough, this is the same week Nordyke is scheduled to be reheard en banc.

Next time around, I believe the court will be much better prepared and be able to properly understand the case in a way it wasn't before. It does speak to their good sense of fairness that they rescheduled when they basically took up my counsel's time solely asking questions about jurisdictional issues rather than the underlying case of second amendment, right to travel/p&i issues, and equal protection. It speaks to their willingness to get to the facts of the matter.

If you win the 10th Circuit, how likely is that to affect the 9th? Would we be waiting for a split or would they cave?

As always, it depends on A) What the circuit panel decision actually says in the "win", B) How willing the particular panel for Richards is willing to listen to said "win" when it's reported to them via a FRAP 28(j) motion. Richards post-AB144 is now much closer to the situation that's occurring in Denver than before....

I do not believe, however, that it would be appropriate for me to read tea-leaves in carry cases any further. Everyone reads these forums, even Supreme Court justices and circuit judges. Though some on this forum may continually whine about the 9th Circuit in general, say that they "cannot get the ruling right", and already throwing in the towel of defeat for Richards, I cannot say the same. In fact, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to do so from here on out.

Gray Peterson
12-19-2011, 1:49 AM
The 9th has been reversed so many times they don't know East from West anymore. I don't think the court is concerned with whether they got shot down for splitting with the 10th on this issue. It certainly wouldn't be decided in our favor below that, so I'd say this issue is bound for scotus regardless of a win in the 10th. It'll just take longer to make it to scotus that way. Unless its mooted by legislation first of course.

I know you're addressing Gray here, just throwing in my two cents, which of course is worth what you paid for it.

The 9th circuit is not a monolithic entity.

Connor P Price
12-19-2011, 10:18 AM
The 9th circuit is not a monolithic entity.

Certainly not, and I could very well be wrong. If a similar case is necessary outside of the 10th I'll be very interested to see who the defendant would be. I think that would be a more likely indicator of how things would progress than just knowing its bound for the 9th.

Gray Peterson
12-19-2011, 11:38 AM
Certainly not, and I could very well be wrong. If a similar case is necessary outside of the 10th I'll be very interested to see who the defendant would be. I think that would be a more likely indicator of how things would progress than just knowing its bound for the 9th.

A similar case would be filed against a sheriff in California. Which sheriff it would be? Well..there's 58 of them.....

Connor P Price
12-19-2011, 11:43 AM
A similar case would be filed against a sheriff in California. Which sheriff it would be? Well..there's 58 of them.....

My point exactly, I imagine different counties would have different levels of interest in pursuing the matter.

Gray Peterson
12-19-2011, 1:03 PM
My point exactly, I imagine different counties would have different levels of interest in pursuing the matter.

I cannot comment here on potential future litigation angles. :sly:

nicki
12-19-2011, 2:36 PM
You could go two ways:

1. Find a sheriff that won't put up a "real fight" for numerous reasons.

2. Find a sheriff who will fight tooth and nail even though their own policies and issuance of CCWs is questionable. Maybe we can find a sheriff who the press has already outed with questionable policies.:eek:

Could you imagine if we found a no issue sheriff that was issuing to crony friends no matter where they really are and if those cronies were "high profile" people.:43:

Maybe we do a combo of 1 and 2 in different districts in the 9th, we could call this our "Smith and Jones" cases.;)

Nicki

Connor P Price
12-19-2011, 4:26 PM
You could go two ways:

1. Find a sheriff that won't put up a "real fight" for numerous reasons.

2. Find a sheriff who will fight tooth and nail even though their own policies and issuance of CCWs is questionable. Maybe we can find a sheriff who the press has already outed with questionable policies.:eek:

Could you imagine if we found a no issue sheriff that was issuing to crony friends no matter where they really are and if those cronies were "high profile" people.:43:

Maybe we do a combo of 1 and 2 in different districts in the 9th, we could call this our "Smith and Jones" cases.;)

Nicki

That's where legal strategy gets fun. I can see benefits to both sides. Thank goodness we've got people smarter than me to figure out these subtleties.

yellowfin
12-20-2011, 6:21 PM
The ideal state to hit for nonresident carry is New York b/c of Bach v Pataki, the nonresident carry case our side was declared the loser ONLY and EXPLICITLY because SCOTUS hadn't then yet declared an individual 2A right.

Gray Peterson
12-20-2011, 7:00 PM
The ideal state to hit for nonresident carry is New York b/c of Bach v Pataki, the nonresident carry case our side was declared the loser ONLY and EXPLICITLY because SCOTUS hadn't then yet declared an individual 2A right.

Already being done in Osterweil v. Bartlett, though it's not a carry case, it's a "possession of a firearm in a secondary residence" case. The district court basically said "It is not a Heller home".

It is currently in CA2 now. Mr. Osterweil did it pro-se in district, but NRA-ILA kicked in money and hired a lawyer out of New Jersey named Daniel Schmutter, who is also doing the one gun a month litigation in Jersey for the ARPCNJ (the state org for the NRA there) to represent him.

With the recent news of Richards and Peruta being stayed by Nordyke en banc, and the fact that CA2 tends to be VERY slow with appeals (12-18 months is my understanding), it appears that Peterson will be the first carry case considered on the merits....

Apocalypsenerd
12-20-2011, 10:46 PM
Go get 'em Gray.

press1280
12-21-2011, 2:35 AM
The ideal state to hit for nonresident carry is New York b/c of Bach v Pataki, the nonresident carry case our side was declared the loser ONLY and EXPLICITLY because SCOTUS hadn't then yet declared an individual 2A right.

There was also an element of Bach that appeared in Gray's loss at the district court. It was because the state was claiming it couldn't adequately "monitor" any disqualifying actions by the permit holder when in another state, so it was OK to deny to OOS residents.

Window_Seat
12-29-2011, 6:10 PM
Order filed by the Clerk at the direction of the Court - To set oral argument for Monday, March 19, 2012
at 2:00 P.M. at Denver, CO. Amici curiae is granted ten minutes of argument time. Served on 12/28/2011.

Hmmmm... Interesting, I guess we'll find out which Amicus Council later? How often does this sort of thing happen?

Erik.

HowardW56
12-29-2011, 7:05 PM
Hmmmm... Interesting, I guess we'll find out which Amicus Council later? How often does this sort of thing happen?

Erik.

Well, if Peruta & Richards are calendared in March also it should be a very interesting month...

Gray Peterson
12-29-2011, 7:07 PM
Hmmmm... Interesting, I guess we'll find out which Amicus Council later? How often does this sort of thing happen?

Erik.

Amicus arguing is extremely rare. We're seeking clarification & will update once we find out which amicus they are talking about.

HowardW56
12-29-2011, 7:09 PM
Hmmmm... Interesting, I guess we'll find out which Amicus Council later? How often does this sort of thing happen?

Erik.

Amicus arguing is extremely rare. We're seeking clarification & will update once we find out which amicus they are talking about.

The order specifically listed the NRA...

Who does John Monroe represent?

Window_Seat
12-29-2011, 7:15 PM
The order specifically listed the NRA...

Who does John Monroe represent?

Calguns Wiki (on Peterson):
The attorney for this case is John Monroe, who is the Vice President of GeorgiaCarry.org (http://www.georgiacarry.org/)

(Edit)

And Amici is a different counsel from a different organization, unless it's Amici of the organization that is funding the case? Could that even be possible?

Erik.

Gray Peterson
12-29-2011, 8:03 PM
Calguns Wiki (on Peterson):


(Edit)

And Amici is a different counsel from a different organization, unless it's Amici of the organization that is funding the case? Could that even be possible?

Erik.

Georgia carry.org was not an amicus party to the case. CO recognizes GA licenses so there was no conflict for GCO to get in the middle of. This was by design.

yellowfin
12-29-2011, 8:28 PM
The order specifically listed the NRA...
I really hope this isn't sabotage...

Gray Peterson
12-29-2011, 8:47 PM
Calguns Wiki (on Peterson):


(Edit)

And Amici is a different counsel from a different organization, unless it's Amici of the organization that is funding the case? Could that even be possible?

Erik.

John Monroe is representing me. GCO is not an amicus party to the proceeding.

I really hope this isn't sabotage...

No, I do not believe this to be the case. If I commented as to why, I would be giving away argument strategy. You'll just have to trust me on this one.

yellowfin
12-29-2011, 9:00 PM
Few (like fewer than 5) people other than you do I trust enough to believe that and be relieved.

yellowfin
12-29-2011, 9:02 PM
Other than and including, I should specify.

Rossi357
12-29-2011, 9:10 PM
Well, if Peruta & Richards are calendared in March also it should be a very interesting month...

I thought these two were stayed pending Nordyke?

Gray Peterson
12-29-2011, 9:14 PM
I thought these two were stayed pending Nordyke?

Correct, he probably meant Nordyke, which is scheduled the same week...

Hoo boy, I might be burning some vacation days for you guys. :p

Gray Peterson
12-29-2011, 9:19 PM
Few (like fewer than 5) people other than you do I trust enough to believe that and be relieved.

Glad to be part of that elite club. :eek: :facepalm:

Connor P Price
12-29-2011, 10:03 PM
Very much looking forward to seeing how this develops.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

hoffmang
12-29-2011, 10:21 PM
Absent more data, Amicus counsel will mean 1 from Brady, 1 from SAF/CGF, and 1 from NRA-CDF.

I expect SAF/CGF counsel to be Alan Gura, but it's early and everyone is gently confused by the court's order. What we can say is that this is unusual and means the court is taking the case very seriously which makes me cautiously optimistic.

I will be amused if this case, which CGF is covering the costs of and helped pull together, ends up being the first one up as it isn't directly in California but is part of the California permit strategy.

-Gene

Connor P Price
12-29-2011, 11:03 PM
Arguments from all 3 amici would make this a very interesting day in court. Time to start shopping for airline tickets.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Gray Peterson
12-30-2011, 12:58 AM
Absent more data, Amicus counsel will mean 1 from Brady, 1 from SAF/CGF, and 1 from NRA-CDF.

I expect SAF/CGF counsel to be Alan Gura, but it's early and everyone is gently confused by the court's order. What we can say is that this is unusual and means the court is taking the case very seriously which makes me cautiously optimistic.

Agreed here. There's the question of whether or not it's just the NRA-CRDF or it's all three sets of amicus. I expect will find out the answer soon.

I will be amused if this case, which CGF is covering the costs of and helped pull together, ends up being the first one up as it isn't directly in California but is part of the California permit strategy.

-Gene

Cautious optimism is a good thing. I won't count chickens, but the fact that they're asking for amicus participation is exceptionally rare I believe is good news for 2A and RKBA.

oaklander
12-30-2011, 1:30 AM
Gray: yes.

;-)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

oaklander
12-30-2011, 1:31 AM
Glad to be part of that elite club. :eek: :facepalm:

There is an elite club inside the elite club. ;-)

Kind of like Merry Pranksters.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gray Peterson
12-30-2011, 1:37 AM
There is an elite club inside the elite club. ;-)

Kind of like Merry Pranksters.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First rule of Merry Pranksters is, you don't talk about Merry Pranksters.

oaklander
12-30-2011, 1:41 AM
First rule of Merry Pranksters is, you don't talk about Merry Pranksters.

That reminds me that I will have to show you some of my homemade soap!

It is scented with patchouli.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Knuckle Dragger
12-30-2011, 8:13 AM
I will be amused if this case, which CGF is covering the costs of and helped pull together, ends up being the first one up as it isn't directly in California but is part of the California permit strategy.

-Gene
That's well within the scope of possibilities. However, if Peterson wins in the 10th circuit I would not be surprised if CO chose not to petition SCOTUS.

Gray Peterson
12-30-2011, 8:25 AM
That's well within the scope of possibilities. However, if Peterson wins in the 10th circuit I would not be surprised if CO chose not to petition SCOTUS.

Colorado isn't the only party to the case. The other party may have given up their right to argue in front of the panel, they haven't lost their ability to file motions and petitions...

Window_Seat
12-30-2011, 9:10 AM
Arguments from all 3 amici would make this a very interesting day in court. Time to start shopping for airline tickets.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

OAK-DEN is quite a hefty price, but the Denver market has always been one of those that is quite expen$$$ive... :( I may consider going, but it also depends on exactly when the Nordyke en banc orals are going to be held.

Erik.

Connor P Price
12-30-2011, 10:38 AM
OAK-DEN is quite a hefty price, but the Denver market has always been one of those that is quite expen$$$ive... :( I may consider going, but it also depends on exactly when the Nordyke en banc orals are going to be held.

Erik.

I am going out there with the girlfriend to see the area and try to sell her on moving there in a few months. It'd be to rich for my blood to make the trip just to see the case but since I'm headed out there around that time anyway I might as well try to kill two birds with one stone. I'm still waiting on approval to see if that weekend works...

J.D.Allen
12-30-2011, 10:53 AM
Absent more data, Amicus counsel will mean 1 from Brady, 1 from SAF/CGF, and 1 from NRA-CDF.

I expect SAF/CGF counsel to be Alan Gura, but it's early and everyone is gently confused by the court's order. What we can say is that this is unusual and means the court is taking the case very seriously which makes me cautiously optimistic.

I will be amused if this case, which CGF is covering the costs of and helped pull together, ends up being the first one up as it isn't directly in California but is part of the California permit strategy.

-Gene
I love it when a plan comes together. :43:

hoffmang
12-30-2011, 9:15 PM
I love it when a plan comes together. :43:

There are lots of reasons we fight on multiple fronts.

-Gene

Gray Peterson
12-30-2011, 10:28 PM
Absent more data, Amicus counsel will mean 1 from Brady, 1 from SAF/CGF, and 1 from NRA-CDF.

I expect SAF/CGF counsel to be Alan Gura, but it's early and everyone is gently confused by the court's order. What we can say is that this is unusual and means the court is taking the case very seriously which makes me cautiously optimistic.

I will be amused if this case, which CGF is covering the costs of and helped pull together, ends up being the first one up as it isn't directly in California but is part of the California permit strategy.

-Gene

I love it when a plan comes together. :43:

y7C3037GqsI

Us=The A Team. Denver, Colorado, and Brady/LCAV anti-gun crowd=General Tucco's crew. 10th Circuit Panel=Fighter Jet...

oaklander
12-31-2011, 12:52 AM
y7C3037GqsI

Us=The A Team. Denver, Colorado, and Brady/LCAV anti-gun crowd=General Tucco's crew. 10th Circuit Panel=Fighter Jet...

I seem to recall that once the black civil rights movement in the 1960's hit stride, you had a few race baiting white politicians who decried progress. Then they eventually lost office.

This is what you will see with our movement. And that is not conjecture - that is based on polling.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

yellowfin
01-09-2012, 7:40 AM
^ That cannot come soon enough.

Gray Peterson
01-27-2012, 12:16 AM
Late yesterday, Alan Gura has sent an acknowledgement form to the 10th Circuit Clerk. He will be arguing on behalf of SAF, CGF, and other state organizations amici in Peterson v. Martinez.

01/26/2012 [9937594] Notice of appearance submitted by Alan Gura for Amici Curiae Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Inc., Citizens Rights Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Hawaii Defense Foundation, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Maine Open Carry Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Scope Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Stillwater Firearms Association, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc., West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc. and Wisconsin Carry Inc. for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 01/26/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.--[Edited 01/26/2012 by SDS to remove pdf from entry as the pleading has been filed] AG

01/26/2012 [9937605] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Alan Gura for Wisconsin Carry Inc., West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc., Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc., Stillwater Firearms Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Scope Inc., Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, Maine Open Carry Association, Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry, Hawaii Defense Foundation, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Citizens Rights Action League, Calguns Foundation, Inc. and Buckeye Firearms Foundation. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 01/26/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.

I'm looking forward to the "real argument" that will occur on March 19....

Connor P Price
01-27-2012, 12:51 AM
I've already got the time off work to be there. Of course the girlfriend took to long and couldn't get the time off though!!! Now everyone and their mother is involved! Just my luck.

hoffmang
01-27-2012, 1:15 AM
I'm likely flying there as well. That week is going to be action packed as the Nordyke oral arguments are that week as well.

-Gene

freonr22
01-27-2012, 1:20 AM
Politely, is this watching history unfolding before us? There is an amazing amount of orgs in those notifications..

press1280
01-27-2012, 1:28 AM
Politely, is this watching history unfolding before us? There is an amazing amount of orgs in those notifications..

Getting a substantial number of amicus briefs helps for a certiorari grant......

Connor P Price
01-27-2012, 1:29 AM
Politely, is this watching history unfolding before us? There is an amazing amount of orgs in those notifications..

I'm just some schmoe on the internet, but IMHO... yes. History in the making indeed. More importantly, this seems to be just a precursor to the best part which is yet to come.

OleCuss
01-27-2012, 4:38 AM
I think it entirely possible that in future years the top three 2A cases cited will be Heller, McDonald, and Peterson v. Martinez.

And as to why so many organizations? People like Gray - he's an impressive guy!

markm
01-27-2012, 5:34 AM
Late yesterday, Alan Gura has sent an acknowledgement form to the 10th Circuit Clerk. He will be arguing on behalf of SAF, CGF, and other state organizations amici in Peterson v. Martinez.

01/26/2012 [9937594] Notice of appearance submitted by Alan Gura for Amici Curiae Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Inc., Citizens Rights Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Hawaii Defense Foundation, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Maine Open Carry Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Scope Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Stillwater Firearms Association, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc., West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc. and Wisconsin Carry Inc. for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 01/26/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.--[Edited 01/26/2012 by SDS to remove pdf from entry as the pleading has been filed] AG

01/26/2012 [9937605] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Alan Gura for Wisconsin Carry Inc., West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc., Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc., Stillwater Firearms Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Scope Inc., Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, Maine Open Carry Association, Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry, Hawaii Defense Foundation, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Citizens Rights Action League, Calguns Foundation, Inc. and Buckeye Firearms Foundation. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 01/26/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.

I'm looking forward to the "real argument" that will occur on March 19....

Congratulations Grey!!!

Good Luck and I hope you win big...for all of us!

markm

Gray Peterson
01-27-2012, 6:32 AM
I think it entirely possible that in future years the top three 2A cases cited will be Heller, McDonald, and Peterson v. Martinez.

And as to why so many organizations? People like Gray - he's an impressive guy!

Reason is that SAF is in my backyard, and look at the states in the list...all of them are orgs from states where CO doesn't recognize their licenses....

OleCuss
01-27-2012, 7:37 AM
I like my reason better.

Your reason may be more rooted in fact - but I still like mine.

Gray Peterson
01-27-2012, 8:09 AM
I think it entirely possible that in future years the top three 2A cases cited will be Heller, McDonald, and Peterson v. Martinez.

That's a little scary.....

And as to why so many organizations? People like Gray - he's an impressive guy!

Read the brief which will show why....

HowardW56
01-27-2012, 8:21 AM
Late yesterday, Alan Gura has sent an acknowledgement form to the 10th Circuit Clerk. He will be arguing on behalf of SAF, CGF, and other state organizations amici in Peterson v. Martinez.

01/26/2012 [9937594] Notice of appearance submitted by Alan Gura for Amici Curiae Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Inc., Citizens Rights Action League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Hawaii Defense Foundation, Illinois Carry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Maine Open Carry Association, Maryland Shall Issue, Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Scope Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Stillwater Firearms Association, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc., West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc. and Wisconsin Carry Inc. for court review. Certificate of Interested Parties: No. Served on 01/26/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.--[Edited 01/26/2012 by SDS to remove pdf from entry as the pleading has been filed] AG

01/26/2012 [9937605] Notice of appearance filed by Mr. Alan Gura for Wisconsin Carry Inc., West Virginia Citizens Defense League Inc., Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc., Stillwater Firearms Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., Scope Inc., Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, Maine Open Carry Association, Illinois State Rifle Association, Illinois Carry, Hawaii Defense Foundation, Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Commonwealth Second Amendment, Citizens Rights Action League, Calguns Foundation, Inc. and Buckeye Firearms Foundation. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES: n. Served on 01/26/2012. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.

I'm looking forward to the "real argument" that will occur on March 19....

This will be good........

terraformer
01-27-2012, 8:43 AM
Read the brief which will show why....

That doesn't preclude you being a nice and impressive guy... :whistling: :43:

Rossi357
01-27-2012, 10:29 AM
I was wondering why this case wasn't stayed pending Nordyke. Is it because it's in the 10th circuit and not the 9th?

Gray Peterson
01-27-2012, 10:38 AM
I was wondering why this case wasn't stayed pending Nordyke. Is it because it's in the 10th circuit and not the 9th?

That is correct. No Nordyke hold up....

Window_Seat
01-27-2012, 11:19 AM
I'm likely flying there as well. That week is going to be action packed as the Nordyke oral arguments are that week as well.

-Gene

If the arguments are on the same day, will the Court(s) accommodate for a different date?

I will ask for time off for Nordyke

Erik.

J.D.Allen
01-27-2012, 11:34 AM
:gura: :King: :90: :party: :twoweeks:

Stonewalker
01-27-2012, 11:48 AM
Go team!

goldrush
01-27-2012, 12:17 PM
Cool. Shop for the cheapest CCW, and every state has to accept it, if they grant reciprocity to any other state.

If forced to accept permits from states with lesser/different/other standards, states might very well drop their reciprocity schemes and get in the business of selling non-resident permits. They might even impose requirements to visit their state for issuance.

Gray Peterson
01-27-2012, 1:00 PM
Cool. Shop for the cheapest CCW, and every state has to accept it, if they grant reciprocity to any other state.

If forced to accept permits from states with lesser/different/other standards, states might very well drop their reciprocity schemes and get in the business of selling non-resident permits. They might even impose requirements to visit their state for issuance.

I already visited the state to apply for the carry license in the first place. That is not at issue in this litigation particularly.

Also, the only "standard" being challenged here, at least on the reciprocity claim, is the home state resident reciprocity requirement as applied by Colorado. Home state requirements done by Florida and New Hampshire are constitutional because they offer non resident licenses.

South Carolina is the only other problem state (though their legislature may fix that this year) because they ban OC, require concealed carry, don't issue non resident licenses except to those who own land there, and the residents of 33 states are SOL.

one more thing: at CA10 level we're arguing about the appropriate ness the judges dismissal of the state party on the reciprocity claim. We're arguing the merits on the non resident license issuance. If CA10 orders issuance of the license....

How that translates into a future scenario you speak of, I have no idea.....

kcbrown
01-27-2012, 1:02 PM
That is correct. No Nordyke hold up....

If Nordyke were in the 10th and Peterson were in the 9th, I'm sure the 9th would find some reason to stay the case pending Nordyke...

:D

HowardW56
01-27-2012, 1:16 PM
If Nordyke were in the 10th and Peterson were in the 9th, I'm sure the 9th would find some reason to stay the case pending Nordyke...

:D

That is humorous but doubtful…
The 9th doesn’t seem to care how other circuits have ruled, they craft their own bizarre logic to provide the Supreme Court with additional material to disregard.

Gray Peterson
01-27-2012, 1:18 PM
If Nordyke were in the 10th and Peterson were in the 9th, I'm sure the 9th would find some reason to stay the case pending Nordyke...

:D

If the 9th circuit was just trying to stall out gun cases, it may find the ground being shifted underneath them...

emcon5
01-27-2012, 1:43 PM
Here is hoping the 10th come back first, and favorably. It will be interesting to see how the 9th would wordsmith to try and avoid a circuit split. :D

Drivedabizness
01-27-2012, 2:35 PM
CA9 doesn't care about circuit splits...

Gray Peterson
01-27-2012, 2:40 PM
CA9 doesn't care about circuit splits...

Yes, but SCOTUS does....

hoffmang
01-27-2012, 11:43 PM
CA9 doesn't care about circuit splits...

But they do understand thier implications :43:

-Gene

wildhawker
01-28-2012, 12:04 AM
I happen to have a round-trip ticket to Denver. Whatever shall I do with it?

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6262/coinu.jpg
http://store.calgunsfoundation.org/product-p/coin-001.htm

Bingham!

-Brandon

freonr22
01-28-2012, 12:29 AM
I happen to have a round-trip ticket to Denver. Whatever shall I do with it?



-Brandon

Keep waiting for the lapel pins to ship?

Connor P Price
01-28-2012, 12:31 AM
^That challenge coin looks awesome!

krucam
01-28-2012, 4:42 AM
The NRA CRDF is pushing for more argument time...

01/27/2012 Open Document [9937898] Motion filed by Amici Curiae NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, et al., to enlarge time for oral argument. Served on: 01/27/2012. Manner of service: ECF/NDA. MB

press1280
01-28-2012, 5:55 AM
The NRA CRDF is pushing for more argument time...

So they want to hitch themselves onto the case so they can claim victory just like McDonald.....

hoffmang
01-28-2012, 11:23 AM
So they want to hitch themselves onto the case so they can claim victory just like McDonald.....

No No! This is not ILA, but Civil Rights Defense Fund (http://www.nradefensefund.org/) and this is a joint motion of all the Amici.

You can now read the motion (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson/NRA-CRDF-Joint-Amicus-Enlarge-Time-2012-01-27.pdf) here: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson/NRA-CRDF-Joint-Amicus-Enlarge-Time-2012-01-27.pdf

-Gene

Gray Peterson
01-28-2012, 11:45 AM
So they want to hitch themselves onto the case so they can claim victory just like McDonald.....

This isn't ILA. This is the Civil Rights Defense Fund. Different org. Look them up...

press1280
01-29-2012, 3:22 AM
OK good. The more argument time, the better. I'd like to see how CO's scheme is defended. IMO, it's easier to defend "good cause" than it is to defend a system that doesn't allow carry in Denver because they happen to live in a non-reciprocal state.

I was curious about something on this case. CO/Denver says a visitor can possess/carry a firearm in someone else's home or hotel room. The CO statute is somewhat vague on this. Is this just the AG's opinion, or is there actual CO caselaw on this?

emcon5
01-29-2012, 8:36 AM
You can now read the motion (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson/NRA-CRDF-Joint-Amicus-Enlarge-Time-2012-01-27.pdf) here: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson/NRA-CRDF-Joint-Amicus-Enlarge-Time-2012-01-27.pdf

-Gene

Wow. That is essentially a joint motion from NRA, SAF and the Brady bunch.

I think it is BS that Brady gets 50% of the time, three Amici, split the time in thirds. Also, why would they give them more time, and let them go last?

OleCuss
01-29-2012, 9:34 AM
Wow. That is essentially a joint motion from NRA, SAF and the Brady bunch.

I think it is BS that Brady gets 50% of the time, three Amici, split the time in thirds. Also, why would they give them more time, and let them go last?

I'm pretty much guessing that if there were not an agreement on the time split that the judge would mandate that the time be split 50/50 between both sides anyway.

Knuckle Dragger
01-29-2012, 9:37 AM
They get half time because half of the time goes to amici supporting the appellant and half goes to the amici supporting appelee.

Joint procedural motions are common as, in most cases, the parties try to cooperate on logistical and procedural issues. It's kind of bad form to do otherwise.

Connor P Price
01-29-2012, 11:51 AM
Does anyone have a link to the Brady Campaign Amicus for this case? I found an article on their site about it, but no actual pdf.

Excerpt from the article from a while back:
The case, Peterson v. LaCabe, claims that out-of-state residents have a right to carry loaded, concealed firearms in Colorado even if they do not meet Colorado’s requirements to carry concealed weapons.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1418

Of course its disingenuous at best to say that's what is being claimed in the case. The only requirement not met is residency. Is that really going to be the crux of their argument?

Gray Peterson
01-29-2012, 2:31 PM
Does anyone have a link to the Brady Campaign Amicus for this case? I found an article on their site about it, but no actual pdf.

Excerpt from the article from a while back:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1418

Of course its disingenuous at best to say that's what is being claimed in the case. The only requirement not met is residency. Is that really going to be the crux of their argument?

Funny how they claim this:

“This lawsuit is the gun lobby’s latest effort to weaken the ability of the people, their elected representatives, and law enforcement to keep guns from their streets. But the courts have wisely rejected the gun lobby argument that the Second Amendment mandates their agenda of any gun, for anybody, anywhere,” said Dennis Henigan, Acting President of the Brady Center. "The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that common sense gun laws, such as reasonable restrictions on carrying loaded, hidden firearms in public, are allowed by the Second Amendment."

Funny how that A) I'm the sole plaintiff, SAF, CGF, and NRA are not co-plaintiffs and B) they make hay out of "hidden guns" when I'm asking for the general right to carry. Considering I'm consenting to being background checked, fingerprinted, and being required training by Colorado law, not sure what they mean by "any gun, for anybody, anywhere". Can't be a felon, DV misdemeanant, found incompetent by a judge, be less than 18, etc....

Simply flat out, they lie. You're surprised by this?

Gray Peterson
01-29-2012, 2:33 PM
They get half time because half of the time goes to amici supporting the appellant and half goes to the amici supporting appelee.

Joint procedural motions are common as, in most cases, the parties try to cooperate on logistical and procedural issues. It's kind of bad form to do otherwise.

That's right, and when it comes to times procedural issues, if you want agreement from all amici, you have to divvy up. The NRA CRDF (not the folks who filed NRA v. City of Chicago, btw) is helping me. "Our side" really means them, too, so our side gets 10, theirs gets tens. It's fair.

Connor P Price
01-29-2012, 2:49 PM
Funny how they claim this:

“This lawsuit is the gun lobby’s latest effort to weaken the ability of the people, their elected representatives, and law enforcement to keep guns from their streets. But the courts have wisely rejected the gun lobby argument that the Second Amendment mandates their agenda of any gun, for anybody, anywhere,” said Dennis Henigan, Acting President of the Brady Center. "The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that common sense gun laws, such as reasonable restrictions on carrying loaded, hidden firearms in public, are allowed by the Second Amendment."

Funny how that A) I'm the sole plaintiff, SAF, CGF, and NRA are not co-plaintiffs and B) they make hay out of "hidden guns" when I'm asking for the general right to carry. Considering I'm consenting to being background checked, fingerprinted, and being required training by Colorado law, not sure what they mean by "any gun, for anybody, anywhere". Can't be a felon, DV misdemeanant, found incompetent by a judge, be less than 18, etc....

Simply flat out, they lie. You're surprised by this?

Surprised? Of course not. Lies, half truths, and deceit are the name of the game for them. "The gun lobby" is especially funny since your the sole plaintiff. It'll be funny to hear them flounder around with specious arguments based nearly entirely on lies and then listen to NRA-CRDF and SAF etc. arguments in favor of your position.

I suppose it was a bit silly of me to think that there might be another aspect to their argument. Even Denver couldn't come up with one.

hoffmang
01-29-2012, 3:00 PM
I've added the Brady Amicus to my archive - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson/Brady-Amicus-2011-07-18.pdf

-Gene

Connor P Price
01-29-2012, 3:03 PM
Thanks Gene!

Of course, the usual. "Keep and Bear" means in the home. Vocabulary never has been their strong suit.

Gray Peterson
01-29-2012, 3:31 PM
"There is no constitutional requirement that the public, when walking to school, driving to work, or going about daily life, subject itself to the risks of unregulated gun carrying. And there never has been."

Unregulated, eh?

randomBytes
01-29-2012, 3:49 PM
I've added the Brady Amicus to my archive - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/peterson/Brady-Amicus-2011-07-18.pdf

-Gene

I feel for you guys who have to actually read such drivel.

Connor P Price
01-29-2012, 3:57 PM
I feel for you guys who have to actually read such drivel.

I love reading their briefs. It's fun to go through and pick apart.

Librarian
01-29-2012, 3:58 PM
They're going to sail that 'in the home' chant 'round and 'round as the ship sinks.

OleCuss
01-29-2012, 4:45 PM
Honestly, I don't think we should impugn their intelligence. I mean, how would you argue their position?

When you have a legal position which is ultimately not constitutionally viable and you are hired to advocate for that position, you are going to have to make arguments which do not appear to be tenable in the long run.

And then again, at this time they still win in the lower courts, so maybe the arguments aren't as bad as I typically find them to be.

Connor P Price
01-29-2012, 5:37 PM
Honestly, I don't think we should impugn their intelligence. I mean, how would you argue their position?


I've sometimes thought the same thing about government lawyers who have an obligation to defend the laws we challenge. I recognize its an uphill battle for them and I certainly don't envy the attorneys who are put in a position where the very best argument available to them is still pretty foolish. They make foolish arguments not because they are fools but because the legislators who wrote the laws are.

When it comes to the Brady Bunch I feel no need to hold back my opinion of them as fools. They submit their amicus briefs not because they have any obligation to defend the laws but because they want to. They make themselves look dumb all on their own, they didn't get stuck there by the government.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

HowardW56
01-29-2012, 6:20 PM
Honestly, I don't think we should impugn their intelligence. I mean, how would you argue their position?

When you have a legal position which is ultimately not constitutionally viable and you are hired to advocate for that position, you are going to have to make arguments which do not appear to be tenable in the long run.

And then again, at this time they still win in the lower courts, so maybe the arguments aren't as bad as I typically find them to be.

So you believe that the Brady’s attorneys subscribe to the adage that, for every fee there is a remedy…

Their client (Brady’s) wants a brief submitted so they do their best to earn their fee….

dawgcasa
01-29-2012, 7:32 PM
It continues to amaze me how the Brady bunch continue to twist the language of the SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald to their own world view. In their world "most notable in the home" means "only in the home". And they refuse to recognize that the court answered a narrow question in Heller regarding gun permits in the home because that was the topic and scope of the specific regulation being argued, not that SCOTUS specifically stated that was the true limit of the scope of the 2nd amendment right. But surprised? No. They aren't dumb, just disingenuous and willing to use any subtrafuge because they know what the court actually ruled (favorable to the 2nd ammendment as a fundamental enumerated right with all that entails) and they're hoping to yet prevail despite that 'setback' through misdirection and obfuscation in the lower courts with the hope they are able to build sufficient case 'precedent' thru sympathetic circuit judges before the question of what bare outside the home represents will be ultimately reviewed by SCOTUS.

Rossi357
01-29-2012, 8:31 PM
I firmly believe that SCOTUS will never rule that the 2nd amentment ends at your door step.

Gray Peterson
01-29-2012, 8:47 PM
I firmly believe that SCOTUS will never rule that the 2nd amentment ends at your door step.

They never did in Heller/McDonald either. Hunting doesn't tend to happen in the home.

OleCuss
01-29-2012, 8:48 PM
So you believe that the Brady’s attorneys subscribe to the adage that, for every fee there is a remedy…

Their client (Brady’s) wants a brief submitted so they do their best to earn their fee….

This comes pretty close to what I think.

And I'd not have much disagreement with what Connor P Price said as well. But I think that many of the Brady/LCAV type truly believe that they are doing a great service to mankind. The fact that my opinions are pretty close to diametrically opposed to theirs doesn't necessarily mean that I think them stupid.

One of the brightest people I know believes in the "Living Constitution". Now I know that there are variations of that which might be livable, but that's not what he believes in. He is still brilliant, just wrong.

But then, I had great respect for Osama Bin Ladin as well. Smart and capable with scruples. But if you'd given me a shot at him I'd have taken it.

You don't have to hate or belittle your opponent. You have to defeat them in the manner which also yields a recognizable victory for yourself.

Drivedabizness
01-29-2012, 10:48 PM
"But then, I had great respect for Osama Bin Ladin as well. Smart and capable with scruples. [REALLY????] But if you'd given me a shot at him I'd have taken it."

"You don't have to hate or belittle your opponent. You have to defeat them in the manner which also yields a recognizable victory for yourself."

Maybe, but given the dire state of events at this point in time, I feel better about the "Conan the Barbarian" definition:

To defeat our opponents, to drive them before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Okay, Okay - maybe not quite to that level. But usually you gotta land at least one really good punch on the person getting their arse kicked so that they will realize it and give up. Then, because these people do lack basic scruples, you have to remain eternally vigilant.

I bet a lot of Californians thought they had set the proper tone after they defeated Prop 15 (CA handgun ban) back in the day. The other side got smart and decided to take small (and sometimes big, like the AWB), insidious bites at the gun control apple - hoping the frog in the pot wouldn't realize the water was becoming toxic to life/freedom.

hoffmang
01-30-2012, 1:02 AM
Okay, Okay - maybe not quite to that level. But usually you gotta land at least one really good punch on the person getting their arse kicked so that they will realize it and give up.

Punch (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Non_detachable_magazines).

Punch (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr).

Punch (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5141154246897960488&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr).

Punch (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/F61FFUCR.pdf).

Though I don't disagree with your overall point, the best strategy is to figure out what the smartest on the other side would be doing and search for those actors. Amusingly, those are hard to find and the "smartest on the other side" are increasingly sounding like us as they abandon the zealots who wish to undermine the bill of rights...

-Gene

press1280
01-30-2012, 1:48 AM
I see the Bradys are citing cases like State v. Fife which were upholding carry bans on pistols at a time when cheaper, smaller, concealable pistols were considered gangster/choice of minority weapons. These cases were probably also cited to defend the DC/Chicago handgun bans. So again, they're strategy is to try and re-argue Heller all over again.
There's also that 1876 WY carry law, which to my knowledge never even was challenged in court and was obviously overturned by the legislature at some point. It seems to be of little value since you could pass any law and it'll stand if no one challenges it.
And, like the folks above mentioned, it's all about concealed carry, which it's not. The Bradys don't seem to grasp the concept that if Gray were simply a FL resident, he could carry evil, hidden guns in public!

Connor P Price
01-31-2012, 7:53 PM
Just booked my flight hotel and rental car. See you guys there.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Gray Peterson
01-31-2012, 10:20 PM
Just booked my flight hotel and rental car. See you guys there.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

See you there! :)

Gray Peterson
02-08-2012, 10:02 PM
CA10 Panel approves request to enlarge argument time.

[9940638] Order filed by the Clerk at the direction of the Court - Granting Amicus motion to enlarge time for argument. Amici will have ten minutes Per Side to argue; (20 minutes total) at argumens set for March 19, 2012 in Denver, Colorado. Served on 02/07/2012.

hoffmang
02-08-2012, 10:51 PM
Excellent news.

-Gene

Connor P Price
02-08-2012, 11:05 PM
Wonderful.

press1280
02-09-2012, 1:34 AM
CA10 Panel approves request to enlarge argument time.

[9940638] Order filed by the Clerk at the direction of the Court - Granting Amicus motion to enlarge time for argument. Amici will have ten minutes Per Side to argue; (20 minutes total) at argumens set for March 19, 2012 in Denver, Colorado. Served on 02/07/2012.

So 10 minutes for each side's amici, and then 10 minutes each for counsel?

OleCuss
02-09-2012, 4:31 AM
Ten minutes for the Brady bunch. Five minutes each for the two pro-RKBA amici arguers.

Not what we'd prefer, but that's what we'll get.

Gray Peterson
02-09-2012, 10:23 AM
So 10 minutes for each side's amici, and then 10 minutes each for counsel?

15 for each counsel.

hoffmang
02-10-2012, 1:18 AM
Ten minutes for the Brady bunch. Five minutes each for the two pro-RKBA amici arguers.

Not what we'd prefer, but that's what we'll get.

That's a bit incorrect. It may be "not what we'd prefer" but it is what is considered just and fair by the courts as both sides of the argument are getting equal time.

-Gene

goldrush
02-10-2012, 6:04 AM
That's a bit incorrect. It may be "not what we'd prefer" but it is what is considered just and fair by the courts as both sides of the argument are getting equal time.

-Gene

Gene, listen up.

The court will have made up its mind long before oral argument comes around. Use oral argument as a means to remind the court of the implications of its decision, rather than thinking it's an opportunity for you to win the case on its merits.

Keep the questions at issue narrow, though it seems a bit late in the day for that.

When a judge opens his mouth with some attack disguised as a question, ask the judge, simply and bluntly: "Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" And shut up. This is the case. To hell with all that other stuff you pleaded. Every new question from the bench should be met with some slight variation of: "Well, your Honor, this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" When pressed further, ask the judge: "Does a resident of Washington have the right to carry his Bible with him when he visits Colorado?"

Don't do things your way. Do things my way, and you'll awaken that court to just what is at stake. If you want a win, you'll need to understand what oral argument really is, and you'll need to stiffen your backbone. Every attempt by the bench to divert the oral argument to some collateral point should be met with a restatement of the issue. "Yes, your Honor, I can see the implications of that case/issue/doctrine, but this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?"

If you want to win, you'll need to up the ante. Loudly picket the courthouse steps. You'll need at least 100 protesters with pickets. These are easy and relatively cheap to make. The same guys who make campaign signs can whip these up for you and give you the wooden stakes.

Mine the Colorado gun forums for volunteers.

Here's the slogan:

All Citizens
All Rights
All States

If you're good or just aggressive, slyly incorporate the protesters into your oral argument. "Well, your Honor, it's like what those demonstrators in front of the courthouse are chanting: "All Citizens, All Rights, All States." Do we still believe that in America, or not?" Then, immediately say: "Remember, your Honor, this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?"

This is how you win, Gene.

P.S. I'd be very tempted to embarrass the court. I'd find one of their rulings on an issue not mentioned in the Constitution but for which they nevertheless found a full constitutional right. I'd be tempted to hit them with this argument: "Your Honor, remember, this very court has an expansive view of rights. In Mussolini v. Hitler, this court found that Mussolini had a full constitutional right to do x, though x is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, or the writings of either Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Paine. If the court can find a full right to do something nowhere contemplated by the drafters of the Constitution, certainly, a fuller respect must be extended to an issue which was near and dear to their hearts and upon which they regularly spoke and wrote so earnestly, clearly and reverently."

Gray Peterson
02-10-2012, 6:36 AM
Gene, listen up.

The court will have made up its mind long before oral argument comes around. Use oral argument as a means to remind the court of the implications of its decision, rather than thinking it's an opportunity for you to win the case on its merits.

Keep the questions at issue narrow, though it seems a bit late in the day for that.

I think if you listen to November oral arguments, "We feel pretty bound by Robertson v. Baldwin", and they were wondering if they could, as a jurisdictional matter, strike down the general carry ban in Denver. They were apparently confused as to interplay between the state and the city/county.

When a judge opens his mouth with some attack disguised as a question, ask the judge, simply and bluntly: "Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" And shut up. This is the case. To hell with all that other stuff you pleaded. Every new question from the bench should be met with some slight variation of: "Well, your Honor, this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" When pressed further, ask the judge: "Does a resident of Washington have the right to be a Methodist when he visits Colorado?"

Don't do things your way. Do things my way, and you'll awaken that court to just what is at stake. If you want a win, you'll need to understand what oral argument really is, and you'll need to stiffen your backbone. Every attempt by the bench to divert the oral argument to some collateral point should be met with a restatement of the issue. "Yes, your Honor, I can see the implications of that case/issue/doctrine, but this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?"

If you want to win, you'll need to up the ante. Loudly picket the courthouse steps. You'll need at least 100 protesters with pickets. These are easy and relatively cheap to make. The same guys who make campaign signs can whip these up for you and give you the wooden stakes.

Mine the Colorado gun forums for volunteers.

Here's the slogan:

All Citizens
All Rights
All States

If you're good or just aggressive, slyly incorporate the protesters into your oral argument. "Well, your Honor, it's like what those demonstrators in front of the courthouse are chanting: "All Citizens, All Rights, All States." Do we still believe that in America, or not?" Then, immediately say: "Remember, your Honor, this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?"

This is how you win, Gene.

None of the questions asked in November of my attorney had anything to do with that. Their questions were pretty much "Was the OC issue plead" and "What sort of prayer for relief can and should we give?". They were not quibbling about whether or not a Washingtonian has a right to carry in Colorado. It was the prayer for relief that they were struggling with.

Also, can you give situations where this exact method works? Have you yourself argued cases in front of a court, where this exact method succeeded for you? You speak with such authority on the matter and you supposedly know how this works.

Before we should consider go down your path, the question should be asked: How do you know this works, and what is your professional credentials as a litigator which speaks to your assertion of authority on matters such as these, that this method works? If you're not willing to back it up with names, case cites, and actual situations which can be verified, how do I know that you don't have some form of ulterior motive?

goldrush
02-10-2012, 6:53 AM
Before we should consider go down your path, the question should be asked:

Gray, the comments weren't directed at you, because you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of getting it. I yet have some hope for Gene, and perhaps counsel may check in here. Unless you're terminating your counsel and appearing pro se, be a good plaintiff; do your case a favor, and keep silent.

As for probabilities, back at ya. All other gun cases are being tried your way, and they're all losing. If you know one thing, thus far, you know what doesn't work.

Gray Peterson
02-10-2012, 7:10 AM
Gray, the comments weren't directed at you, because you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of getting it. I yet have some hope for Gene, and perhaps counsel may check in here. Unless you're terminating your counsel and appearing pro se, be a good plaintiff; do your case a favor, and keep silent.

And if you demonstrated actual success of this method, I can direct my counsel to go down your path...

Alas, your directing your comment to Gene, who isn't counsel in any case. What makes you think Gene can put your "plan" into motion?

As for probabilities, back at ya. All other gun cases are being tried your way, and they're all losing. If you know one thing, thus far, you know what doesn't work.

Then speak to your credentials as an authority on civil rights litigation. You can't assert authority & knowledge with a pseudonym.

Gura has won two SCOTUS decisions, after both lost in district.

You're just "goldrush".

OleCuss
02-10-2012, 7:52 AM
Gene, listen up.
.
.
.
. . .clearly and reverently."

I'm really confused as to where you are going with things at this time:

1. Gene is certainly not going to be arguing any part of the case. That would seem to be clear in so many ways.
2. It's Gray's case. If anyone is going to be giving direction to the attorney in the case, it would be Gray.
3. If it is directed at the amici oral arguers? I'm pretty sure one is Gura - and I think he has a pretty good handle on things. I'm not sure who the other pro-RKBA amici oral attorney is, but I'm pretty sure neither Gene nor Gray are going to be able to tell them how to handle it - and I'm guessing that they are also qualified before SCOTUS so they probably understand how to handle an appellate court?

Perhaps you could clue me in a bit further on where you are going with this one? It probably makes sense, but I can't make sense of it.

One other thing. I'm pretty sure that arranging for picketers outside the court and then trying to use them to buttress an argument would be considered something of an insult to the court. I happily proclaim I'm not an attorney, but I'm having trouble seeing how that would be looked upon favorably by the court in such a case.

Gray Peterson
02-10-2012, 7:55 AM
I'm really confused as to where you are going with things at this time:

1. Gene is certainly not going to be arguing any part of the case. That would seem to be clear in so many ways.
2. It's Gray's case. If anyone is going to be giving direction to the attorney in the case, it would be Gray.
3. If it is directed at the amici oral arguers? I'm pretty sure one is Gura - and I think he has a pretty good handle on things. I'm not sure who the other pro-RKBA amici oral attorney is, but I'm pretty sure neither Gene nor Gray are going to be able to tell them how to handle it - and I'm guessing that they are also qualified before SCOTUS so they probably understand how to handle an appellate court?

Perhaps you could clue me in a bit further on where you are going with this one? It probably makes sense, but I can't make sense of it.

Unless he speaks as to who he really is & his authority, he has the hallmarks of a "concern troll".

2009_gunner
02-10-2012, 8:34 AM
If anything, GoldRush, the self-diagnosed genius, is always entertaining.

OleCuss
02-10-2012, 9:10 AM
Unless he speaks as to who he really is & his authority, he has the hallmarks of a "concern troll".

You may very well be correct.

But the post I quoted was unusually interesting. Forget about any disagreement philosophically or legally, to me that post seemed so far off-base procedurally (and probably factually) as to really make me wonder if I'm missing something really big.

I don't think I'm missing anything quite that big so I'm wondering if he has a major misunderstanding of the case, the procedures, the facts, etc.

I mean, one might think from his post that he doesn't understand that it is your case! I have trouble believing that he could be that clueless.

goldrush
02-10-2012, 10:00 AM
I'm really confused as to where you are going with things at this time:


You usually are. You're more interested in puffing yourself on this website and preserving what you think your rank is here than you are in advancing gun rights.

Your posts evidence a stunning and dangerous ignorance of how the law and the world works.

Just send the checks to Gene and holds the signs when and where he tells you. That's how you'll best help this movement.

Kestryll
02-10-2012, 10:09 AM
You usually are. You're more interested in puffing yourself on this website and preserving what you think your rank is here than you are in advancing gun rights.

Your posts evidence a stunning and dangerous ignorance of how the law and the world works.

Just send the checks to Gene and holds the signs when and where he tells you. That's how you'll best help this movement.

And your post is evidence of you being a rude, insulting AND violating the rules.

Go sit in the corner until you learn to play politely with the grown ups.

OleCuss
02-10-2012, 10:20 AM
You usually are. You're more interested in puffing yourself on this website and preserving what you think your rank is here than you are in advancing gun rights.

Your posts evidence a stunning and dangerous ignorance of how the law and the world works.

Just send the checks to Gene and holds the signs when and where he tells you. That's how you'll best help this movement.

Fascinating!

You do realize that I have no rank here? Gene, Brandon, and some of the other CGF board members may have seen me, but we've not met and I'd be very surprised if they knew who I am. . .

I'm happy to claim significant ignorance of the law. I have no legal training.

So far as ignorance of how the world works? I'd be very interested in learning how you figured that one out. I'm pretty sure there are at least several thousand people who would disagree with you - so your ability to determine that I have dangerous and stunning ignorance of how the world works really intrigues me. Would you be so kind as to explain to me how you determined that I have this "stunning and dangerous" ignorance when you do not know who I am, where I am, my experiences, my credentials, my family, etc.? It is, of course, entirely possible that you know someone who knows or knew me (I've had serious conversations with at least tens of thousands of people), but I'm betting that you would not know that they have known me.

And I really appreciate your attempt to tell me how to interact with Gene and how to behave in the RKBA movement. But I think I'll choose my own path on this one.

I'm sorry to disappoint you so badly. Perhaps you could help me by explaining how you came to know so much about me and the law and the world and give some additional pointers about how to improve myself?

Edit: Oops! Too late. The ban is in so you likely won't be able to help me on this one.

Kestryll: If you would prefer to delete this post I will have no objection. And if it helps at all, I wasn't offended by his post - but was quite amused.

HowardW56
02-10-2012, 2:16 PM
If anything, GoldRush, the self-diagnosed genius, is always entertaining.


I don't find him entertaining at all, I think he is annoying, similar to a rash...

Now if you consider a rash, located somewhere I wouldn't mention in polite company, entertaining then Gold rush is entertaining.....

Gray Peterson
02-10-2012, 7:43 PM
Gray, the comments weren't directed at you, because you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of getting it. I yet have some hope for Gene, and perhaps counsel may check in here. Unless you're terminating your counsel and appearing pro se, be a good plaintiff; do your case a favor, and keep silent.

As for probabilities, back at ya. All other gun cases are being tried your way, and they're all losing. If you know one thing, thus far, you know what doesn't work.

You usually are. You're more interested in puffing yourself on this website and preserving what you think your rank is here than you are in advancing gun rights.

Your posts evidence a stunning and dangerous ignorance of how the law and the world works.

Just send the checks to Gene and holds the signs when and where he tells you. That's how you'll best help this movement.

And your post is evidence of you being a rude, insulting AND violating the rules.

Go sit in the corner until you learn to play politely with the grown ups.

1ytCEuuW2_A

Al Norris
02-10-2012, 8:12 PM
I wouldn't worry too much, Gray. I have considered goldrush's methods and they seem strikingly like that of Adml. David Farragut.

While that method can work as a last ditch effort in war, it tends not to work in Court.

sreiter
02-10-2012, 8:49 PM
Does anyone have a link to the Brady Campaign Amicus for this case? I found an article on their site about it, but no actual pdf.

Excerpt from the article from a while back:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1418

Of course its disingenuous at best to say that's what is being claimed in the case. The only requirement not met is residency. Is that really going to be the crux of their argument?

LMMFAO - pretty much, if you have a face, you can get a CCW in Denver (as long as you're a resident)..They're REALLY saying this will increase "guns on the street in direct opposition to the people of Denver) ???

How do they argue this stuff and keep a straight face?????

sreiter
02-10-2012, 8:56 PM
Thanks Gene!

Of course, the usual. "Keep and Bear" means in the home. Vocabulary never has been their strong suit.

I lived in Denver for years and was very active in the gun world there.

Seriously, I can't over state how easy it is get a CCW (their term). Take Class, be otherwise not prohibited, and you get it, provided you live in Denver. No "good cause" BS. All you need do is apply. It's totally shall issue. And Co in general is very pro-gun, to the point that i would guess more people have guns then don't (or at least it seems that way).

Gray Peterson
02-10-2012, 9:47 PM
I lived in Denver for years and was very active in the gun world there.

Seriously, I can't over state how easy it is get a CCW (their term). Take Class, be otherwise not prohibited, and you get it, provided you live in Denver. No "good cause" BS. All you need do is apply. It's totally shall issue. And Co in general is very pro-gun, to the point that i would guess more people have guns then don't (or at least it seems that way).

Unfortunately, the Colorado Attorney General's Office attempted to claim the law wasn't really "must-issue". It's actually not "totally shall-issue". They have a dangerous persons clause in their statute.