PDA

View Full Version : Richards v Prieto - (Carry) Yolo Amicus In


hoffmang
10-01-2011, 8:35 PM
Both the Brady Campaign and LCAV have filed their amicus briefs in Richards v. Prieto.

The Brady brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Brady-Amicus-Brief-2011-09-30.pdf) is the usual mediocrity.

The LCAV brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/LCAV-Amicus-Brief-2011-09-30.pdf) has an amusing error. LCAV cites a Brady poll (http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/bcam/legislation/open_carry/polling-overview-slides.ppt)(PPT) on public attitudes about Open Carry as a poll on concealed carry. ETA - Ah... I had not flipped enough slides - there is some concealed carry polling at the end.

Tip of the hat to HowardW56 for grabbing these from CA-9 PACER.

-Gene

freonr22
10-01-2011, 8:42 PM
Your (our) team never gets enough sleep

Connor P Price
10-01-2011, 8:46 PM
I always read these things to make sure I'm well versed on the anti arguments, but lord is it tough to choke down all that bs in one sitting sometimes.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

wildhawker
10-01-2011, 9:02 PM
What is sleep?

ke6guj
10-01-2011, 9:03 PM
have they mentioned LUCC as being legal before?

Similarly, Californians may carry an unloaded firearm in a locked
container. Cal. Pen. Code 12026.1.

Rossi357
10-01-2011, 9:50 PM
I found myself trying not to :puke:

Connor P Price
10-01-2011, 10:23 PM
have they mentioned LUCC as being legal before?

Not that I recall, but with heller taken into consideration that's an even weaker argument for them then uoc being legal.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

nick
10-01-2011, 10:26 PM
Both the Brady Campaign and LCAV have filed their amicus briefs in Richards v. Prieto.

The Brady brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Brady-Amicus-Brief-2011-09-30.pdf) is the usual mediocrity.

The LCAV brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/LCAV-Amicus-Brief-2011-09-30.pdf) has an amusing error. LCAV cites a Brady poll (http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/bcam/legislation/open_carry/polling-overview-slides.ppt)(PPT) on public attitudes about Open Carry as a poll on concealed carry. ETA - Ah... I had not flipped enough slides - there is some concealed carry polling at the end.

Tip of the hat to HowardW56 for grabbing these from CA-9 PACER.

-Gene

Hilarious, as usual. Even assuming the data and methodology were acceptable (which, knowing the Brady Bunch, I'll bet a nice evil BCM middy they were not. Any takers? :p), what relevance do some 300 people's feelings have when it comes to deciding on the fundamental civil rights questions?

Crom
10-01-2011, 10:49 PM
Lol at the LCAV poll logic error. :) what is this sleep you speak of?

hoffmang
10-01-2011, 10:58 PM
have they mentioned LUCC as being legal before?

Nope. I think they're worried AB-144 passess which is wildly amusing as one thinks about it. However, Parker/Heller made "locked and unloaded" clearly outside the right.

-Gene

Maestro Pistolero
10-01-2011, 11:37 PM
I usually have the patience of Job reading these briefs. But tonight I just couldn't get past:

CALIFORNIA’S CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITTING
PROCESS DOES NOT IMPLICATE PROTECTED SECOND
AMENDMENT ACTIVITY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
IMPACT THE RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS IN THE
HOME

I'm starting to think they really believe that. I suppose they have to argue something.

Like: The second amendment only protects a collective right to arm indoor militias with weapons having inferior capacity, so they will be unlikely to be useful for resisting tyranny. Or something.

7x57
10-02-2011, 7:08 AM
I'm starting to think they really believe that. I suppose they have to argue something.


A very, very cynical person would suggest that the Brady people are professional gun-control advocates, and as such indeed the must argue something regardless of reason or whether even they believe it because their rice-bowl is at stake. And as the law, being administered by men, can be affected by common wisdom, simply repeating one's position as often as possible may move the ultimate result closer to that position. And even if the law can't ultimately be swayed, the repetition may at least sway donors to continue to fund you.

Or, in rough paraphrase of a famous line, "if the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If both are against you, bang on the table."

Since we have both the law and the facts on our side, that is precisely applicable. At this stage pounding on the table doesn't seem like a horse I want to bet on, but perhaps the Joyce foundation is still willing to venture cash money on it.

ETA: have some sympathy for the kind of desperation that must be haunting certain people. Far worse than guns everywhere, the final result of the gun-rights movement threatens to make them get *actual jobs*. :chris:

7x57

sighere
10-02-2011, 7:14 AM
Boy, it took the Brady people til the very end to get to the "blood in the streets" part of their argument. Same stuff, different case as far as the meat goes. Heller and McDonald gave us all morsels to point to. Perhaps it's time the Supreme Court chimes in and "says thing more plainly"!

microwaveguy
10-02-2011, 7:29 AM
Both the Brady Campaign and LCAV have filed their amicus briefs in Richards v. Prieto.

The Brady brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Brady-Amicus-Brief-2011-09-30.pdf) is the usual mediocrity.



I only got half way before :ack2:
I find it amusing that the Brady's twist the truth into a pretzel.

I need some coffee before trying to read the LCAV amicus.

taperxz
10-02-2011, 8:15 AM
I have a hard time trying to wrap my head around the idea that LCAV is actually writing what they are writing in this brief.

TO DATE. No one seems to be Changing the actual LTC state law which allows LE to do a background check and actually find out who the person is and then license a non prohibited person. It almost seems like LCAV is challenging the law as it stands and simply does not want sheriffs to issue based on an individuals qualifications according to standing law.

You would think the LEGAL COMMUNITY AV, would understand equal protection under the law. Isn't some of the fight against sheriffs that won't issue a simple request that they issue to those who have the right, want to comply with current law and want to be treated equally?

RKV
10-02-2011, 8:28 AM
taper, You are making an unstated assumption - namely that LCAV is true to their name, and "against violence." That is not the case. Actually their constituency is their clients - aka the criminal class. Armed self-defense by law abiding citizens is not in the best interests of robbers, rapists, murderers, etc. Their view of the 2nd Amendment can be summarized as "guns are bad. mmmkay?" Except of course when used by government employees protecting "equally." That pesky 2nd Amendment? They'd ignore it if we'd let them. Not gonna happen. :chris:

Dreaded Claymore
10-02-2011, 1:01 PM
I opened the Brady brief, and as soon as I read "Second Amendment only protects right to keep handguns in the home," I stopped. That's all I needed to know. Their entire argument is destroyed by a single word: "bear."

taper, You are making an unstated assumption - namely that LCAV is true to their name, and "against violence." That is not the case. Actually their constituency is their clients - aka the criminal class. Armed self-defense by law abiding citizens is not in the best interests of robbers, rapists, murderers, etc. Their view of the 2nd Amendment can be summarized as "guns are bad. mmmkay?" Except of course when used by government employees protecting "equally." That pesky 2nd Amendment? They'd ignore it if we'd let them. Not gonna happen. :chris:

I hear this a lot, and it's an amusing thing to say. But does anyone actually believe it? I don't believe for a minute that LCAV is consciously trying to protect violent criminals and make it easier to commit violent crimes. Of course, that's an end result of their efforts, but I don't think that's what they think they're doing.

dawgcasa
10-02-2011, 1:47 PM
It's amazing how the Brady bunch continue to selectively twist and obfuscate the words in the Heller decision to forward their agenda, hoping the judges are either dumb enough or sympathetic to their cause enough to go along with the ruse. Heller never said the right to self defense is limited to solely in the home. The text of the decision actually said "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bare arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self defense within the home". The term "most notably" means "most worthy of note or notice", I.e., particularly worthy of note given the nature of Heller's complaint. Also notice that the decision said "lawful purposes", plural, meaning that self-defense in the home is but one 'notable' example of multiple lawful purposes covered as core to the right. Once a case reaches SCOTUS on carry outside the home I just don't see how the Supreme court can backtrack on where their own decision in Heller was leading given their own specific use of language, and SCOTUS is very careful in that. At some point the Brady bunch's obfuscation and selective re-writing of decision language has to be exposed for what it is.

HowardW56
10-02-2011, 2:05 PM
Both the Brady Campaign and LCAV have filed their amicus briefs in Richards v. Prieto.

The Brady brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/Brady-Amicus-Brief-2011-09-30.pdf) is the usual mediocrity.

The LCAV brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/richards-v-prieto/LCAV-Amicus-Brief-2011-09-30.pdf) has an amusing error. LCAV cites a Brady poll (http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/bcam/legislation/open_carry/polling-overview-slides.ppt)(PPT) on public attitudes about Open Carry as a poll on concealed carry. ETA - Ah... I had not flipped enough slides - there is some concealed carry polling at the end.

-Gene

Since when do poll results, which can be manipulated to provide the desired result, have any bearing on law or belong in a legal brief?

hoffmang
10-02-2011, 2:15 PM
Since when do poll results, which can be manipulated to provide the desired result, have any bearing on law or belong in a legal brief?



That's the second time in 12 hours I've heard exactly those words :43:

-Gene

Rossi357
10-02-2011, 2:48 PM
Probably polled their own members and then a few random people to make it a landslide in their favor.

dantodd
10-02-2011, 4:29 PM
If the Brady"s want to play the meaningless numbers game I'm pretty sure the NRA has more board members than the Brady's have members period.

CapS
10-02-2011, 4:53 PM
I couldn't get past the table of contents in this one, knowing in advance it would just make me angry.
No point in getting mad at it. As my nephew says, 'You can't fix stupid.'