PDA

View Full Version : Peruta: SAF/CGF Amicus filed


hoffmang
05-31-2011, 3:21 PM
Today SAF and CGF filed an amicus (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/SAF-CGF-Peruta-Amicus-2011-0531.pdf) in Peruta as it is a closely related case to Richards v. Prieto.

We are making the court aware of an alternative, and we think superior, means of reviewing the constitutionality of "good cause" and "good moral character" as those requirements currently exist in California's carry licensing scheme.

-Gene

Foulball
05-31-2011, 3:27 PM
Thank you!

This is getting good!

Librarian
05-31-2011, 3:30 PM
This looks like the main point: the idea of an official dispensing permission to exercise a “right” is inherently incongruent with the concept of rights.

bden
05-31-2011, 3:33 PM
You guys must be buying your 5-Hour Energy at Costco at this rate. Keep up the awesome work! :thumbsup:

r1 man
05-31-2011, 3:36 PM
THANK YOU!!!!

corrupt
05-31-2011, 3:40 PM
CGF + SAF = Powerhouse of great people that deserve all the support.

It's like a litigious MCSOCOM Det 1 backed up by a MEU.

Woohoo!

andrewj
05-31-2011, 3:43 PM
:rockon:

Paladin
05-31-2011, 3:48 PM
http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo100/badboybucket/24805BPThe-Simpsons-Mr-Burns-Excell.jpg

safewaysecurity
05-31-2011, 3:48 PM
LEETA also filed yesterday I believe. Lots about how UOC is not adequate for immediate self defense. And they provided lots of reference videos which you can see here. I have tow are you though. They are really boring lol.

dantodd
05-31-2011, 3:55 PM
I like this part so far... And that's just the first paragraph...

"A motion to have Richards argued before this panel on the same day is concurrently filed today."

smogcity
05-31-2011, 4:00 PM
Hell yeah!!!

Paladin
05-31-2011, 4:07 PM
Edit on page 7, "All subjective, freefloating
licensing “standards” are barred from application against the
exercise of constitutional rights. And the standards most readily
identifiable as improper are those of the type present in California
Penal Code § 12050 . . . ."
Remove the "And" at the beginning of the 2nd sentence.

Edit on page 15, "The government thus bears the burden of proving that the an applicant may not have a permit."
Remove the "an".

Untamed1972
05-31-2011, 4:08 PM
Very nice read. Just based on that argument alone I dont see how the court could rule that "may issue" is constitutionally permissive.

I love how this thing is getting kicked into the corner from all directions!

Great job!

Bigtime1
05-31-2011, 4:09 PM
"But they must not be in the business of judging people’s character, or forcing individuals to prove a sufficiently good reason for wanting to exercise something that is their right."

“Rules that grant licensing officials undue discretion are not constitutional.”


Sweet music to my ears. So blindingly obvious. Kudos!

Paladin
05-31-2011, 4:10 PM
I like this part so far... And that's just the first paragraph...

"A motion to have Richards argued before this panel on the same day is concurrently filed today."
Yep, hitching a ride on Peruta's coattails into the 9th. If granted, that will sure speed things up! :D

This morning I was reading about that Asian gal nursing student who went missing a couple of days ago while at work in Hayward's Kaiser Hospital. She left the building to briefly go to her car in the garage, but never returned. :mad:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/05/31/reward-offered-in-case-of-missing-nursing-student/
http://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/missingstudent.jpg?w=400

It reminded me of all the nurses, esp women, who have to go to their cars parked in garages at all hours of the night.

CA NEEDS SHALL ISSUE CCWS NOW ! ! !

safewaysecurity
05-31-2011, 4:28 PM
If we honestly had an impartial judiciary that cared about the constitution and read all of these briefs then I would say there is absolutely NO WAY that we can lose this. This case looks WAY more solid than it was before and I'm going to speculate that we have a winner here but after all this is the 9th circuit we are talking about..

OleCuss
05-31-2011, 4:28 PM
Curious. Is there a particular reason for the timing of the various times for submission of the amici - other than when they are completed?

If it is at all damaging to answer the question - I'll happily accept being ignored.

Paladin
05-31-2011, 4:34 PM
If we honestly had an impartial judiciary that cared about the constitution and read all of these briefs then I would say there is absolutely NO WAY that we can lose this. This case looks WAY more solid than it was before and I'm going to speculate that we have a winner here but after all this is the 9th circuit we are talking about..Unless the 9th chooses to hear Richards at the same time, not sure if they're under any obligation to hear/consider the alternative issues/arguments raised by SAF/CGF. They might just ignore them and decide against Peruta in order to "kick the can down the road" to SCOTUS.

Crom
05-31-2011, 4:50 PM
Looks good. I like it. I hope it works. :)

BigDogatPlay
05-31-2011, 5:03 PM
Page 14 of the brief......

Accordingly, when the exercise of a right is licensed—subjected, in
constitutional parlance, to a “prior restraint”—that prior restraint must
be permitted only pursuant to objective, well-defined standards that
eliminate the exercise of personal discretion. All subjective, freefloating
licensing “standards” are barred from application against the
exercise of constitutional rights.

When someone says "common sense" concealed carry laws, there it is. No need to look further. And 12050 does not, as currently constructed, pass over that bar.

Brilliant.

hoffmang
05-31-2011, 5:07 PM
Edit on page 7, "All subjective, freefloating
licensing “standards” are barred from application against the
exercise of constitutional rights. And the standards most readily
identifiable as improper are those of the type present in California
Penal Code § 12050 . . . ."
Remove the "And" at the beginning of the 2nd sentence.

That's not a typo but is instead a style choice. Your other item was a typo.

Curious. Is there a particular reason for the timing of the various times for submission of the amici - other than when they are completed?

If it is at all damaging to answer the question - I'll happily accept being ignored.

Amicus briefs are due today by midnight so you're seeing them roll in when completed.

I also hope this brief helps explain why Richards was delayed a short time. The explanation is in a footnote, but one needs to read between some lines.

-Gene

NoJoke
05-31-2011, 5:24 PM
Yep, hitching a ride on Peruta's coattails into the 9th. If granted, that will sure speed things up! :D

This morning I was reading about that Asian gal nursing student who went missing a couple of days ago while at work in Hayward's Kaiser Hospital. She left the building to briefly go to her car in the garage, but never returned. :mad:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/05/31/reward-offered-in-case-of-missing-nursing-student/
http://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/missingstudent.jpg?w=400

It reminded me of all the nurses, esp women, who have to go to their cars parked in garages at all hours of the night.

CA NEEDS SHALL ISSUE CCWS NOW ! ! !

Any updates?? :(:(:(

Paladin
05-31-2011, 6:31 PM
Any updates?? :(:(:(Nope. Still missing. :(

Family is offering a $20,000 reward for her return. If you ck out the link I posted, you'll see there are similarities between her case and nurse Phuong Le's of Fairfield about a year ago. Phuong's body was found 12 days later in Napa Co.

Best to start a new thread about this case in Off Topic forum if you want to discuss it further.

wash
05-31-2011, 6:39 PM
As usual, a very good read even for non-lawyer types.

It doesn't make sense that either of these cases lost in the first place but Alan has presented a very succinct argument against law enforcement discretion in CCW permit issuance.

Thanks CGF!

randian
05-31-2011, 7:07 PM
Unfortunately, eliminating discretion is not the same thing as shall-issue. If you want to see the hell "no discretion" can deliver you to, look at "zero tolerance" weapons and drugs rules in K-12 schools. I call them "zero intelligence" rules, because you get stupid things like athsmatic students not being permitted to carry epi pens on their person and kids getting expelled for possessing 1/2" miniature plastic knives. The administrators who defend this stupidity argue, among other things, that using intelligence can lead to lawsuits and charges of favoritism, ergo everybody must suffer equally no matter the actuality of their circumstances.

unusedusername
05-31-2011, 7:30 PM
randian:

The point of this is to change the law like this:

SECTION 1. Section 12050 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the
person applying is of good moral character , that good cause
exists for the issuance, and that the person applying
satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and
has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E),
may shall issue to that person a
license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of
being concealed upon the person in either one of the following
formats:
(i) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(ii) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000
persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, a
license to carry loaded and exposed in that county a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.

I don't speak for calguns or anyone else here, but my opinion of the intent here is to remove the discretion based on denials for the reason for carry, not the discretion based on the type of person doing the carrying. If this suit succeeds then issuing authorities in CA can still deny people that have documented and justifiable "bad" moral character.

This is not the wild west (har har)

yellowfin
05-31-2011, 7:45 PM
^ The problem is that they can just as easily abuse "moral character" if they want to, like denying permit for a parking ticket or overdue library book. Massachusetts has been known to pull sleazy stuff like that every day.

Nor-Cal
05-31-2011, 7:52 PM
Thanks SAF/CGF!

unusedusername
05-31-2011, 8:01 PM
^ The problem is that they can just as easily abuse "moral character" if they want to, like denying permit for a parking ticket or overdue library book. Massachusetts has been known to pull sleazy stuff like that every day.

I was under the impression that there was a case here in CA that defined "good moral character" used elsewhere in the PC as being "not having committed a felony".

I can't find the link now, or maybe I'm just not right :confused:

FreshTapCoke
05-31-2011, 8:10 PM
^ The problem is that they can just as easily abuse "moral character" if they want to, like denying permit for a parking ticket or overdue library book. Massachusetts has been known to pull sleazy stuff like that every day.

They kindly address the "moral character" portion of the code as well in the brief. :)

The days seem much brighter, now.

Librarian
05-31-2011, 8:14 PM
And also the following additional modification SECTION 1. Section 12050 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
12050. (a) (1) (A) The sheriff of a county,
upon proof that the person applying is not a person prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code
of good moral character , that good cause exists for the issuance,
and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E),
may shall issue to that person a
license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of
being concealed upon the person in either one of the following
formats: since moving the discretion from 'good cause' to 'good moral character' still leaves an arbitrary decision in the hands of some official.

2Bear
05-31-2011, 8:25 PM
C.D. Michel with the NRA on SD CCW...

y2MxlwU9Pq4

Chuck, hook up the Skype!

CCWFacts
05-31-2011, 8:28 PM
I like this one. My simple non-lawyer understanding of the argument is this:

Level of scrutiny doesn't matter, because it is a license which applies to a fundamental right, and any cases like that the license must be shall-issue, and not reliant on the personal feelings of some bozo. Not issuing the license is prior restraint, regardless of levels of scrutiny

I haven't even heard that argument before, but I like it! I think that's what Hoffmang was referring to in his posts where he says that the purpose of the litigation is to show that "may" means "shall" in the context of CCW and AW licenses?

This seems like great logic, much better than trying to persuade them which level of scrutiny they should apply. Of course I would like it to be strict scrutiny but convincing them of that could be quite difficult.

This story about the nursing student... I saw it a couple of days ago. I think we all know that she didn't voluntarily drop out of her school, career, friends, and family, and sooner or later we will find out the grim details of a tragedy. It makes me so angry. Another victim sacrificed on the altar of gun control. No petite female should be walking around that area of Hayward after dark. But I'm sure Sheriff Ahern will have no regrets about his CCW policies, no matter how many lives they may cost.

HowardW56
05-31-2011, 8:47 PM
I like Gura's style.... I sat here reading the Brief, and realized that I was smiling...

notme92069
05-31-2011, 8:49 PM
Maybe I'm a simpleton, but could someone explain to me why the court couldn't just rule that UOC is an acceptable alternative and therefore the right isn't restricted?

hoffmang
05-31-2011, 8:49 PM
I like Gura's style.... I sat here reading the Brief, and realized that I was smiling...

His writing and arguments are just pleasurable.

-Gene

hoffmang
05-31-2011, 8:50 PM
Maybe I'm a simpleton, but could someone explain to me why the court couldn't just rule that UOC is an acceptable alternative and therefore the right isn't restricted?

The right to bear arms is the right to bear operable arms. For example, Parker (which was affirmed as Heller) said that it was no answer to have an unloaded firearm which is simply a pile of metal and springs.

ETA: Because this comes up a lot, I want to quote Parker (http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E23F1D1340E39A99852574400045380B/$file/04-7041a.pdf) on the issue of unloaded firearms:

As appellants accurately point out, § 7-2507.02 would reduce a
pistol to a useless hunk of “metal and springs.” Heller does not
appear to challenge the requirement that a gun ordinarily be kept
unloaded or even that a trigger lock be attached under some
circumstances. He simply contends that he is entitled to the
possession of a “functional” firearm to be employed in case of
a threat to life or limb. The District responds that,
notwithstanding the broad language of the Code, a judge would
likely give the statute a narrowing construction when confronted
with a self-defense justification. That might be so, but judicial
lenity cannot make up for the unreasonable restriction of a
constitutional right. Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying
a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on
the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold
it unconstitutional.


Remember that this opinion was affirmed by Heller and remains good law of the DC Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.

-Gene

kcbrown
05-31-2011, 8:52 PM
Brilliant! Gura shines again:


It will not do to respond that prior restraint has never been applied to Second Amendment rights. Second Amendment law is in its infancy. Three years ago, municipal handgun bans had never been struck down under the Second Amendment, either. And until this Court’s opinion in Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009), no federal court had applied the Second Amendment to the States. Within a year of McDonald, many if not most Second Amendment cases will require unprecedented analysis. But while other emerging Second Amendment challenges require the development of new doctrines, this case can and should be resolved by the time-tested, straightforward logic of prior restraint law.


I just love how he anticipated where you know the court was going to go with this and slammed the door on it well before the court got there.

:43:

LadyShooter
05-31-2011, 9:00 PM
This is great news! Whichever way the 9th Circuit votes it sounds like we are moving forward. Hooray!

notme92069
05-31-2011, 9:01 PM
The right to bear arms is the right to bear operable arms. For example, Parker (which was affirmed as Heller) said that it was no answer to have an unloaded firearm which is simply a pile of metal and springs.

-Gene

You have convinced me but I was already convinced. I didn't see that discussed in the amicus. But I am slow sometimes

Rocket Man
05-31-2011, 9:01 PM
"But Section 12050 nonetheless remains subject to a facial attack,"
hahahaha "facial attack" hahhahaha
love it :p

wash
05-31-2011, 9:43 PM
Unfortunately, eliminating discretion is not the same thing as shall-issue. If you want to see the hell "no discretion" can deliver you to, look at "zero tolerance" weapons and drugs rules in K-12 schools. I call them "zero intelligence" rules, because you get stupid things like athsmatic students not being permitted to carry epi pens on their person and kids getting expelled for possessing 1/2" miniature plastic knives. The administrators who defend this stupidity argue, among other things, that using intelligence can lead to lawsuits and charges of favoritism, ergo everybody must suffer equally no matter the actuality of their circumstances.
"Discretion" is what allows Sherriffs to deny the CCW permit application of a law abiding resident who wants to carry a gun for self defense.

I don't want them to have that discretion.

You might have misunderstood my previous post. The language of our battle is confusing some times. Discretion sounds like a good thing but when the antis have discretion they pervert it in to a civil rights violation.

randian
05-31-2011, 10:40 PM
"Discretion" is what allows Sherriffs to deny the CCW permit application of a law abiding resident who wants to carry a gun for self defense. I don't want them to have that discretion.

Fair enough. My point was that it is foolish to believe that eliminating discretion will get you a reasonable shall-issue system out of California. As I pointed out in my school example, non-discretion can be used to create a system that's just as abusive as a discretionary one. In fact, I'd bet on the legislature responding to a loss from SCOTUS in exactly that way, forcing a new round of lawsuits. Pushing the day of reckoning off a few more years is just fine with them, especially since they don't personally pay the legal bills. The irony of taxing citizens to pay for defending your oppression of them is certainly not lost on California's legislators.

pitchbaby
05-31-2011, 11:48 PM
Fair enough. My point was that it is foolish to believe that eliminating discretion will get you a reasonable shall-issue system out of California. As I pointed out in my school example, non-discretion can be used to create a system that's just as abusive as a discretionary one. In fact, I'd bet on the legislature responding to a loss from SCOTUS in exactly that way, forcing a new round of lawsuits. Pushing the day of reckoning off a few more years is just fine with them, especially since they don't personally pay the legal bills. The irony of taxing citizens to pay for defending your oppression of them is certainly not lost on California's legislators.

First, let me just say... great read! So glad Mr. Gura is on the case.

Having said that... I want a ballot initiative that makes it mandatory for counties to get a majority consent of it's voters on which cases it will be allowed to pursue in defense of it's policies. That would really show them what the priorities are.

Maestro Pistolero
05-31-2011, 11:51 PM
Instead of "discretion" or "moral character" why not just use "prohibited by law from possessing a firearm" or "not-prohibited by law from possessing a firearm"?

Unless one is a felon, or one of 5 or so certain categories of prohibited persons, one is not prohibited, therefore a license must be issued. Simple. No discretion.

wildhawker
06-01-2011, 12:43 AM
Instead of "discretion" or "moral character" why not just use "prohibited by law from possessing a firearm" or "not-prohibited by law from possessing a firearm"?

Unless one is a felon, or one of 5 or so certain categories of prohibited persons, one is not prohibited, therefore a license must be issued. Simple. No discretion.

That is the intent of our Richards case, and other Gura/SAF cases.

ErikTheRed
06-01-2011, 1:11 AM
If one can satisfy the legal prerequisites to purchase and own a firearm, then one should also be legally permitted to carry it. Simple as that. Period. End of story. No more debate. Now, the trouble begins when we expect the California government and courts to understand this fundamental simplicity. "Unalienable Rights", as described by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independance, are those granted only by God. But according to California, the government and the county sheriff are God.

2Bear
06-01-2011, 2:34 AM
We need one of these here too: :gura:

Untamed1972
06-01-2011, 7:34 AM
Fair enough. My point was that it is foolish to believe that eliminating discretion will get you a reasonable shall-issue system out of California. As I pointed out in my school example, non-discretion can be used to create a system that's just as abusive as a discretionary one. In fact, I'd bet on the legislature responding to a loss from SCOTUS in exactly that way, forcing a new round of lawsuits. Pushing the day of reckoning off a few more years is just fine with them, especially since they don't personally pay the legal bills. The irony of taxing citizens to pay for defending your oppression of them is certainly not lost on California's legislators.


I dont doubt that either. I mean in a time when all the states bordering CA are shall-issue, or going no permit CCW, passing campus carry bills, etc, CA is going the opposite way, trying to ban ammo and even the carry of unloaded guns.

But I think we all expected that, but with more wins the less it will possible for them to do that. Once 2A gets a little more fleshed out, the state .leg may try to pass more anti-gun bills, but there will be enough court precedent to get them stopped with injuctions before they even take effect and eventually they will just stop. and those that continue to push the issue can have that used against them come election time.

Once the 2A gets more defined, in court the burden would be on the state to justify why any burdensome or ornerous restrictions and requirements are nessecary, and how they are narrowly tailored to address a specific, compelling state interest, and SCOTUS has already stated the broad concern of "public safety" is not an acceptable compelling state interest when it comes to the exercise a fundamental right.

So with many years of shall-issue, permitless CCW, campus carry and so on all around us to point to with no apparant detriment to public safety, CA will have a tough battle to try and justify stacking onerous requirements onto the already existing CCW system, when for decades those onerous requirements didn't seem nessecary.

In a way.....the decades of cronyism in the CCW system will now work against them.

wash
06-01-2011, 9:43 AM
You're worried that after we win and get shall issue (remove discretion) we will get new laws infringing our rights?

Of course!

The fun part will be the injunction we get before those laws go in to effect.

Nationally gun rights lawsuits are going our way. SCOTUS wants to get involved to ***** slap the courts that interpret Heller and McDonald as only protecting guns in the home.

If we win shall issue I think we will have to fight bad legislation over CCW maybe once. We might never see a law that restricts it very much.

The fight will certainly move to open carry rights for people who choose not to acquire a permit.

It will become a political issue and the fight will be over OC and ammo restrictions in the future. There are enough campaign donors who only donated for a CCW permit that will let our politicians know they shouldn't mess with CCW after it goes shall issue. Once that happens, the antis will spend their political capital on laws that they think they can get to stick or appeal to soccer moms (ammo bans and OC bans).

Miclip
06-01-2011, 10:19 AM
Is there somewhere that outlines an expected timeframe for all of this?

Is it months, years or just a complete unknown

dantodd
06-01-2011, 10:35 AM
Is there somewhere that outlines an expected timeframe for all of this?

Is it months, years or just a complete unknown

Gene has said June 2012 or June 2013. These are the dates the Supreme Court end their sessions and 2a suits in the past were released at the end of the session

kcbrown
06-01-2011, 4:56 PM
Gene has said June 2012 or June 2013. These are the dates the Supreme Court end their sessions and 2a suits in the past were released at the end of the session

And now, at long last, I finally believe he's right (see? Trust! :) ).



You realize, of course, that the fact that I now believe the timeline above to be accurate means it can't possibly be accurate anymore, until I stop believing it. :D :D

hoffmang
06-01-2011, 10:02 PM
You realize, of course, that the fact that I now believe the timeline above to be accurate means it can't possibly be accurate anymore, until I stop believing it. :D :D

:smilielol5:

-Gene

KylaGWolf
06-01-2011, 10:25 PM
Yep, hitching a ride on Peruta's coattails into the 9th. If granted, that will sure speed things up! :D

This morning I was reading about that Asian gal nursing student who went missing a couple of days ago while at work in Hayward's Kaiser Hospital. She left the building to briefly go to her car in the garage, but never returned. :mad:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/05/31/reward-offered-in-case-of-missing-nursing-student/
http://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/missingstudent.jpg?w=400

It reminded me of all the nurses, esp women, who have to go to their cars parked in garages at all hours of the night.

CA NEEDS SHALL ISSUE CCWS NOW ! ! !

Why do only nurses need it why not anyone that has to go to a garage alone at night or anywhere else for that matter. Should not matter if the person is male or female or what their profession is as long as they are law abiding citizens.

Yes this story is sad she is from down here in San Diego.

Paladin
06-02-2011, 11:14 PM
That's not a typo but is instead a style choice.

Actually, I think it is a question of basic grammar, not style. "And" is a conjunctive used to connect words, phrases, or clauses within a sentence, not to join sentences. But since I wasn't an English major and don't have a text on basic grammar handy, I won't push it (esp since I'm not getting paid for this). ;)

Paladin
06-02-2011, 11:21 PM
Why do only nurses need it why not anyone that has to go to a garage alone at night or anywhere else for that matter. I'd appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth. I NEVER said "only nurses" need CCWs.

Should not matter if the person is male or female or what their profession is as long as they are law abiding citizens.I said "esp women" need CCWs, not that "exclusively women" need CCWs.

Reality is women are esp vulnerable, due to their -- generally-- smaller size than men (who carry out most violent crimes); and due to the fact that there are far more male heterosexual rapist than male homosexual ones, therefore women are far more often the targets of rapist, incl abduction/kidnapping, than men. If you disagree w/my assessment of reality, let's agree to disagree.

Paladin
06-02-2011, 11:23 PM
"A motion to have Richards argued before this panel on the same day is concurrently filed today."Is there a fixed time, or does a Right Person have a guess, when the 9th will decide whether to grant this motion?

Glock22Fan
06-03-2011, 8:17 AM
That's not a typo but is instead a style choice. Your other item was a typo.

snip
-Gene

Using "And" at the front of a sentence is often thought to be wrong. Yet it is merely an older construction, as can be seen frequently in the Bible (seen in sentences of the form "And Moses went forth and . . . ."). These days it is used far less than in biblical times, but it can be effectively used to give a sort of emphasis to one's prose.

And there, I rest my case.

Paladin
06-03-2011, 8:33 AM
Using "And" at the front of a sentence is often thought to be wrong. Yet it is merely an older construction, as can be seen frequently in the Bible (seen in sentences of the form "And Moses went forth and . . . ."). These days it is used far less than in biblical times, but it can be effectively used to give a sort of emphasis to one's prose.

And there, I rest my case.I was just about to log off for the day . . . .

I wasn't going to bring up that archaic exception because when "and" is used that way, it is being used to mean "then". That is not the case in how Alan used it. If you remove the period before the "And", and switch to a lower case "a", you'll see it appears it is being used as a quick & dirty fix to break up a long run-on sentence.

Outta here 'til the weekend!

FatalKitty
06-03-2011, 9:25 AM
So from what I have gathered in the past few weeks... is that we really are
SUING EVERY MOTHER F*CKER IN THE ROOM

lol AWESOME! Donation inbound :p