PDA

View Full Version : Richards v Prieto - Amici - NRA & CRPAF


hoffmang
08-31-2011, 11:26 PM
The following two amici filed in support of Richards today:

NRA (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/NRA-Richards-Amicus-2011-08-31.pdf)

CRPA-F (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/CRPA-F-Richards-Amicus-2011-08-31.pdf)

-Gene

Anchors
08-31-2011, 11:48 PM
CRPA's second argument is awesome. I never thought about attacking it from that angle. If the right didn't exist, there wouldn't be outlined limitations to such a right...

stix213
09-01-2011, 1:07 AM
I'm glad researching/navigating school zones and 12031(e) as conditions of UOC were mentioned as further proof UOC isn't actually bearing arms.

Funtimes
09-01-2011, 2:31 AM
Me and this NRA guy must have been in the same books over the last weekend.

sighere
09-01-2011, 4:13 AM
An excellent addition to an already great job by Alan Gura et. Al.

HowardW56
09-01-2011, 5:03 AM
Both are very good............

Maestro Pistolero
09-01-2011, 6:56 AM
Nice pair of briefs. :eek: They compliment each other nicely.

Psy Crow
09-01-2011, 7:01 AM
Nice pair of briefs. :eek: They compliment each other nicely.

More nice briefs. (http://www.cafepress.com/+gun+boxers)

stix213
09-01-2011, 7:13 AM
If we get a win at this level, does that mean it will apply for the entire 9th circuit? Meaning statewide, and a few of our neighbors?

bwiese
09-01-2011, 8:17 AM
Woot! and nicely done.

Big Ben
09-01-2011, 8:46 AM
"The research merely confirms the common-sense expectation that criminals prefer their victims unarmed and defenseless – which is precisely how Yolo County’s policy leaves them."

Unfortunately, common-sense is remarkably uncommon in the world in general, and in the anti-crowd in particular.

Big Ben
09-01-2011, 9:21 AM
Just finished reading the CRPA brief. Interesting how the NRA and CRPA briefs attack from two completely different directions.

In my mind, the NRA's brief seemed to focus too much on attacking current "anti-gun" rhetoric, trying to point out the inaccuracies and fallacies of those arguments. The CRPA brief really focused on the historical aspects of the 2A, and attacked the opposition arguments from the perspective of "you can't suppress a civil right."

I found myself liking the arguments in the CRPA brief much more, but that probably has to do with my personal biases towards the basic "civil rights" approach to defending the 2A, rather than getting in the mud to sling statistics and studies back and forth with the antis.

Glock22Fan
09-01-2011, 9:49 AM
"The research merely confirms the common-sense expectation that criminals prefer their victims unarmed and defenseless – which is precisely how Yolo County’s policy leaves them."

Unfortunately, common-sense is remarkably uncommon in the world in general, and in the anti-crowd in particular.

The problem is that their idea of common sense and ours are two completely opposing viewpoints.

However, I think we need to plug away with our viewpoint that our position is the simple common sense concept. As in, "It's simple common sense that bad guys won't target armed victims."

Crom
09-01-2011, 10:17 AM
Educate the court from all angles! I enjoyed reading them. :cool2:

Big Ben
09-01-2011, 10:30 AM
The problem is that their idea of common sense and ours are two completely opposing viewpoints.

However, I think we need to plug away with our viewpoint that our position is the simple common sense concept. As in, "It's simple common sense that bad guys won't target armed victims."

Couldn't agree more. We've all got to keep fighting the good fight.

Maestro Pistolero
09-01-2011, 10:54 AM
The NRA brief spends most it's time making arguments it first says are unnecessary . . . for a good reason, in my opinion. We all know that rational basis is off the table, and that regardless of the risks that may be associated with the exercise of the right, that the right must nevertheless be upheld and protected.

But the reality is that judges who are steeped in decades of propping up unconstitutional policies are using everything in their tool-kits to wiggle out of 2A protection, precisely because they believe it really is a right too dangerous to insist upon.

The NRA brief argues very convincingly, using the most credible data from our own government, that the opposite is probably more true, i.e. that arming law-abiding folks is indeed a public safety issue, but for all the opposite reasons that conventional wisdom (or lack thereof) holds.

The NRA brief will (hopefully) give the judge the emotional leave to pursue avenues to protect the right more vigorously with fewer false fears that they are unleashing mayhem on their countrymen.

Big Ben
09-01-2011, 11:37 AM
The NRA brief will (hopefully) give the judge the emotional leave to pursue avenues to protect the right more vigorously with fewer false fears that they are unleashing mayhem on their countrymen.

We can hope so. And I agree that there is a need to address the issues (wonder if there was any coordination between NRA and CRPA on their briefs).

I think my dislike/frustration with this line of reasoning (i.e. quoting statistics and studies to support either side of the gun control fight) is the fact that there are so many conflicting studies and reports available that the net effect is confusion for both the population at large, as well as the judiciary. For every study that the pro 2A side identifies in support of our position, the anti 2A crowd can point to another (albeit flawed) study supporting theirs.

In my mind, it is much easier/clearer to talk about the fundamental right to protect ourselves, and the fact that the founding fathers understood this civil right to be so basic and essential to freedom that they enumerated it in the bill of rights -- just as they did freedom of the press, speech, religion, etc.

Once someone understands that basic concept, it undermines all of the "but what about the children" arguments and bogus statistics that the antis throw out to demonize guns.

BigDogatPlay
09-01-2011, 11:54 AM
This little nugget at the bottom of page 16 of the CRPA-F brief caught my eye..... emphasis is mine:

See also State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 418, 422-23 (1843) (“[I]t is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence. For any lawful purpose . . . the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun. It is the wicked purpose – and the mischievous result – which essentially constitute the crime.”).

Common sense gun law on display right there........ brilliant brief by Mr. Michel and his associates.

IGOTDIRT4U
09-01-2011, 11:58 AM
This little nugget at the bottom of page 16 of the CRPA-F brief caught my eye..... emphasis is mine:



Common sense gun law on display right there........ brilliant brief by Mr. Michel and his associates.

And all so true, as to the quoteed 'nugget'. The modern police don't need to play "thought" police. I am not a criminal with a gun, until I use the gun criminally.

Kharn
09-01-2011, 1:45 PM
I think the NRA brief will be useful to head off the usual suspects' briefs, the CRPA brief was a very good read and I especially liked the attention paid to unloaded carry not being viable.

MatrixCPA
09-01-2011, 1:58 PM
I am not a criminal with a gun, until I use the gun criminally in a future timeline.

Fixed it for you.

http://www.goldismoney2.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8718&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1309730101

hoffmang
09-01-2011, 3:01 PM
I posted these and then got on a plane which gave me time to read them. These are very well done and are a great addition to the opening brief.

Remember that all these things should be read together as a whole. No one argument is enough.

I want to join SAF's Thank You (http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=373).

-Gene

Skullster
09-01-2011, 4:09 PM
Thanks Gene. These briefs are the best arguments for abolishing "may" carry in favor of "shall" carry in this state that I have ever read.

CHS
09-01-2011, 5:01 PM
I'm so happy to see someone FINALLY refuting all these "feel-good" nonsense laws IN COURT with actual verifiable NUMBERS to back their claims up.

The NRA was a dry but extremely well-done brief. Their use of real-world numbers to demolish the opponents arguments were just beautiful.

ddestruel
09-01-2011, 9:22 PM
Wow finally the points that seemed to be missing in several amic. briefs filed in the SD Puerta case as well as others were pointedly challenged here. In some ways i wish these two cases were joined.... it feels like Patton and Montgomery sometimes both racing towards the same objective with different approaches and both wanting to lead.

I hope Richards makes it first since it started before and so far seems to be more pointed