PDA

View Full Version : Cal-FFL, CGF, SAF suffer loss in Teixeira v. County of Alameda


Pages : [1] 2

Tincon
02-26-2013, 2:11 PM
An opinion was filed today in Teixeira v. County of Alameda (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=588439). The court granted the county's motion to dismiss plaintiff's 2A claims as plaintiffs failed to state sufficient factual allegations to support a claim. As such the case did not survive the pleadings stage. I believe this is the 11th such dismissal based on insufficient pleadings thus far on CGF's illustrious litigation record.

edwardm
02-26-2013, 2:12 PM
And?

dunndeal
02-26-2013, 2:14 PM
An opinion was filed today in Teixeira v. County of Alameda (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=588439). The court granted the county's motion to dismiss plaintiff's 2A claims as plaintiffs failed to state sufficient factual allegations to support a claim. As such the case did not survive the pleadings stage. I believe this is the 11th such dismissal based on insufficient pleadings thus far on CGF's illustrious litigation record.

If you're so unimpressed with CGF's litigation record why are you here? You've only been a member for 3 months and somehow we're supposed to give a **** what you think?

Tincon
02-26-2013, 2:16 PM
If you're so unimpressed with CGF's litigation record why are you here? You've only been a member for 3 months and somehow we're supposed to give a **** what you think?

Why to inform you of said record, of course! Oh, and I do post on other topics, believe it or not. Also, I didn't give much of my personal opinion in that post. That's something a federal judge said, not me. And the 11 losses, also not my opinion.

stix213
02-26-2013, 2:16 PM
Link to the opinion? Cause I'm not seeing it

http://ia600408.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.docket.html

Also, losing cases at the district level is not in itself a setback or an actual "loss."

Tincon
02-26-2013, 2:23 PM
Link to the opinion? Cause I'm not seeing it

http://ia600408.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.docket.html

Also, losing cases at the district level is not in itself a setback or an actual "loss."

See attached.

bwiese
02-26-2013, 2:28 PM
Thanks for your support, Matt Corwin.

Sometimes you DO have to try things (that won't harm).

Tincon
02-26-2013, 2:29 PM
Also, losing cases at the district level is not in itself a setback or an actual "loss."

That is an awfully optimistic way of looking at a judge granting your opponent's motion to dismiss your case for failure to plead sufficient facts. Please explain how there is any value in this whatsoever.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 2:33 PM
If you're so unimpressed with CGF's litigation record why are you here? You've only been a member for 3 months and somehow we're supposed to give a **** what you think?

Being "here" has nothing to do with anything. "here" is on Calguns.net.

This is not CGF's site.

Cal-ffl, Calguns Foundation and SAF are complete and total different entities.

Blaming someone for posting here about CGF and not being welcome is akin to having someone read an article in the newspaper to you and then you getting mad that they read you the article from that paper.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 2:34 PM
It is to bad this suit went down like that but, maybe they will push it up.

mag360
02-26-2013, 2:35 PM
Man I must have missed something. I thought Matt Corwin was helped by cgf in the end to help with his ridiculous charges by LAPD.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-26-2013, 2:44 PM
Judge Illston seems like a nice judge. She has been good about giving CGF the chance to fix its pleadings. :laugh:

JimWest
02-26-2013, 2:44 PM
And?

Or rather. What you would you suggest should have been done tincon? Different legal argument? Different representation?

stix213
02-26-2013, 2:46 PM
See attached.


In particular, the Court explained that all these places – schools, government buildings, and now open public spaces – are considered “sensitive places” by the Supreme Court because “possessing firearms in such places risks harm to great numbers of defenseless people (e.g., children).”


So it looks like we lost because all "open public spaces" are supposedly "sensitive places" where the 2A doesn't apply.... Yeah that is exactly what Heller intended :facepalm: I smell an appeal.

jrr
02-26-2013, 2:46 PM
Yeah, I'm confused as well. Sigh. Nothing hurts like gun rights advocates eating each other.

Anyways, Tincon whomever he may be, has every right to post it up. This is factual and relevant. OTOH, digs like the "illustrious litigation record" are unnecessary. Frankly, in a state like CA I'd expect to lose more than win, especially at the lower courts. More than one case has been dismissed only to go up on appeal and become a win.

Furthermore, I don't see the NRA or SAF having any better luck with the majority of their suits. I just don't get the hostility, nobody ever said CGF would win every case, or even most of them. I have read too many threads about people who ran into trouble with LEO and had CalGuns get things straightened out BEFORE anything went to court to simply dismiss the whole organization because they lose cases. Any case in CA is an uphill battle, and being an attorney I am well aware that what a judge says in their opinion and what actually transpired in court are two very different things, especially with a hostile judge.

Anyways, people have their opinions. Don't feed the trolls though.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 2:48 PM
The first thing that surprises me here with this case is that instead of actually taking a measurement from closest part of the building to the nearest residence, they decided to fudge it and measure from the front door to front door.

It don't work that way!

You then subject yourself to a variance, where others can fight that.

Then you claim a 2A infringement?

If it was this easy, maybe we can all get variances from the GFSZ.

It would have been easier to find a building that was in compliance with the county code and not fudge the measurements. NO? I'll re read that.

Tincon
02-26-2013, 2:54 PM
Or rather. What you would you suggest should have been done tincon? Different legal argument? Different representation?

Well for starters, I'd say maybe they should have pled sufficient "factual allegations in the complaint that this presumptively lawful Ordinance burdens, even slightly, plaintiffs’ right to sell or purchase guns in Alameda County." Since that is what they were suing about. If they could not, then perhaps the suit should not have been filed.

stix213
02-26-2013, 2:55 PM
That is an awfully optimistic way of looking at a judge granting your opponent's motion to dismiss your case for failure to plead sufficient facts. Please explain how there is any value in this whatsoever.

The court found the 2A didn't apply largely because the core right of the 2A doesn't apply to public spaces.... That is a dubious argument to say the least. I wonder how the 9th would rule on that given Moore and Kachalsky.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-26-2013, 2:56 PM
The hat tip to Nordyke was a nice touch as well. :laugh:

Tincon
02-26-2013, 2:58 PM
The court found the 2A didn't apply largely because the core right of the 2A doesn't apply to public spaces.... That is a dubious argument to say the least. I wonder how the 9th would rule on that given Moore and Kachalsky.

The court found 2A didn't apply to public spaces in this case because plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to show the ordinance infringed in any practical way on their rights.

Tincon
02-26-2013, 3:00 PM
Now why create a separate thread when iit would be better to post on the original thread as an update? Unless the point is to bash...


Received via PM from a moderator:


please start your own thread for CGF content

I have come to agree that this discussion is polluting threads that were intended for other content.

You will note that none of the posts that have stayed even marginally civil have been deleted. That will continue.

If you care to do so, you may repost this PM in its entirety.

stix213
02-26-2013, 3:06 PM
The court found 2A didn't apply to public spaces in this case because plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to show the ordinance infringed in any practical way on their rights.

Yes but they also defined virtually all public spaces as 'sensitive places' no different than the grounds of a school, and basically that their 2A rights didn't apply there in the same way as in non-sensitive places, so there was little possibility of showing infringement under that assumption.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 3:16 PM
Yes but they also defined virtually all public spaces as 'sensitive places' no different than the grounds of a school, and basically that their 2A rights didn't apply there in the same way as in non-sensitive places, so there was little possibility of showing infringement under that assumption.

First of all there are all kinds of zoning issues for all different types of business. The county never said they could not open up a gun store in the AC. When variances are granted, they are subject to scrutiny. The homeowners association pushed hard enough to not allow the variance (a special exception to the zoning laws)

If the measurements of the building they wanted were 500 ft or more from the residential area, they would have a functional gun store operating. Regardless of what the homeowners association said, liked or didn't like.

All businesses in this state deal with stuff when it comes to zoning issues. Even residences that add on need to jump through hoops just to build on their own home.

eville
02-26-2013, 3:17 PM
To be clear here, I think this was actually a SAF case. CGF "found" the case and SAF took the lead.
Either way, the sad thing is Texiera was ****ed by the County and hopefully this is not the end...

Tincon
02-26-2013, 3:20 PM
Yes but they also defined virtually all public spaces as 'sensitive places' no different than the grounds of a school, and basically that their 2A rights didn't apply there in the same way as in non-sensitive places, so there was little possibility of showing infringement under that assumption.

Please show me in the opinion where it said all public spaces are "'sensitive places' no different than the grounds of a school." I believe that is a misrepresentation of the holding. The court suggests that public spaces are more sensitive than a home, which is probably true. That does not mean that you cannot show an undue burden on 2A rights through an ordinance that affects public spaces. You do however, still need to plead sufficient facts.

Tincon
02-26-2013, 3:24 PM
To be clear here, I think this was actually a SAF case. CGF "found" the case and SAF took the lead.
Either way, the sad thing is Texiera was ****ed by the County and hopefully this is not the end...

Seems like they were pretty much equally involved:

For Immediate Release: June 26, 2012

Cal-FFL, CGF, SAF SUE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Businessmen John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga and Gary Gamaza are joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, and California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees as plaintiffs in the case. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer of San Jose and Jason Davis of Rancho Santa Margarita.

stix213
02-26-2013, 3:39 PM
Please show me in the opinion where it said all public spaces are "'sensitive places' no different than the grounds of a school." I believe that is a misrepresentation of the holding. The court suggests that public spaces are more sensitive than a home, which is probably true. That does not mean that you cannot show an undue burden on 2A rights through an ordinance that affects public spaces. You do however, still need to plead sufficient facts.

Yes my apologies, you are correct that they are not defining public spaces as sensitive places like schools. After rereading they are defining all residences as sensitive places similar to schools, not all public places.

Here, plaintiffs allege that Alameda’s zoning Ordinance violates the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied to them. The zoning Ordinance places limited “qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” by restricting their sale within 500 feet of “sensitive places such as schools” and residences. The Ordinance is precisely the kind of presumptively valid restriction envisioned by Heller – it is a restriction on gun sales and purchases in or near sensitive places.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 3:46 PM
Yes my apologies, you are correct that they are not defining public spaces as sensitive places like schools. After rereading they are defining all residences as sensitive places similar to schools, not all public places.

No they're not. They are saying conducting business of selling firearms can not be done within 500 ft of a residence. They are not prohibiting firearms in that area. It would not have affected UOC when it was legal, it doesn't affect anyone with a CCW or anyone needing it for self defense or transporting for all lawful purposes. Its a zoning issue.

Put it this way, the zoning issue is to prevent lets say someone from "building" right next to your house with the intent of making money. They do this to prevent your property value of your residence from going down due to traffic of vehicles, foot traffic, parking issues, noise issues. 500 ft is a pretty small area.

stix213
02-26-2013, 3:47 PM
First of all there are all kinds of zoning issues for all different types of business. The county never said they could not open up a gun store in the AC. When variances are granted, they are subject to scrutiny. The homeowners association pushed hard enough to not allow the variance (a special exception to the zoning laws)

If the measurements of the building they wanted were 500 ft or more from the residential area, they would have a functional gun store operating. Regardless of what the homeowners association said, liked or didn't like.

All businesses in this state deal with stuff when it comes to zoning issues. Even residences that add on need to jump through hoops just to build on their own home.

Of course, but I suspect 500 ft from a residential area is not as easy as it sounds in the east bay.

stix213
02-26-2013, 3:48 PM
No they're not. They are saying conducting business of selling firearms can not be done within 500 ft of a residence. They are not prohibiting firearms in that area. It would not have affected UOC when it was legal, it doesn't affect anyone with a CCW or anyone needing it for self defense or transporting for all lawful purposes. Its a zoning issue.

I said nothing about prohibiting firearms in that area, CCW, or OC, I was just talking about it being discussed as a sensitive place where 2A rights could be curtailed in some fashion, where away from the sensitive place they could not (like schools, which is the judge's example, not mine). I'm talking about their justification for allowing it, not the result of it.

Tincon
02-26-2013, 3:52 PM
Yes my apologies, you are correct that they are not defining public spaces as sensitive places like schools. After rereading they are defining all residences as sensitive places similar to schools, not all public places.

Yes, the court is saying residences are sensitive places for the purposes of commercial zoning ordinances related to firearms retailers, citing Heller for the prospect that: “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on . . . laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Note that the court also states that the prohibition on gun sales in this "sensitive space" may be overcome by a showing that the regulation nonetheless places a substantial burden the “core protection of the Second Amendment,” which is the ability to defend
“hearth and home.”

This has nothing to do with carry or CCW. Basically the problem was that the plaintiff could not show that preventing one gun store from opening in a specific place was a significant infringement on the second amendment. Could they have pled more facts to make this a viable case? I don't know. But as filed, the pleading was fatally defective.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 3:52 PM
I said nothing about prohibiting firearms in that area, CCW, or OC, I was just talking about it being discussed as a sensitive place where 2A rights could be curtailed in some fashion, where away from the sensitive place they could not (like schools, which is their example, not mine). I'm talking about their justification for allowing it, not the result of it.

OH OK, but sometimes when you use the phrase "sensitive places" for guns, it sounds like a gun prohibition area.

anthonyca
02-26-2013, 3:57 PM
Why to inform you of said record, of course! Oh, and I do post on other topics, believe it or not. Also, I didn't give much of my personal opinion in that post. That's something a federal judge said, not me. And the 11 losses, also not my opinion.

A lot of judges ruled that blacks were not citizens and for a long time that was precedent.

stix213
02-26-2013, 3:58 PM
Yes, the court is saying residences are sensitive places for the purposes of commercial zoning ordinances related to firearms retailers, citing Heller for the prospect that:
Note that the court also states that the prohibition on gun sales in this "sensitive space"

Basically the problem was that the plaintiff could not show that preventing one gun store from opening in a specific place was a significant infringement on the second amendment. Could they have pled more facts to make this a viable case? I don't know. But as filed, the pleading was fatally defective.

We're actually in more agreement than disagreement.

My point that I believe you may disagree on is just defining residential areas as sensitive spaces at all, and using that as part of the justification for the ruling. Yes this time it is for just a zoning law, next time they will use this for something else.... I don't believe the Heller 5 meant for "sensitive spaces" to cover 500 feet in every direction of any residence, which would be nearly every square foot of any city, when they mentioned sensitive places like schools in their original decision.

stix213
02-26-2013, 3:59 PM
OH OK, but sometimes when you use the phrase "sensitive places" for guns, it sounds like a gun prohibition area.

That's where I fear the anti's will try to take this next, but obviously this case isn't about anything more than zoning.

YoungKee
02-26-2013, 3:59 PM
Did I miss something here? How is a dismissal with leave to amend a loss? It is certainly a setback, but it is not the end of the game. The case is only over if the plaintiffs decide it's over. The Court was skeptical that they could state a Second Amendment claim in large part because the plaintiffs had previously operated a business in the same jurisdiction settling firearms, and it was undisputed that there were other stores in the jurisdiction settling firearms that were compliant with the zoning laws. Nonetheless, the Court granted leave to amend on both the 14th amendment claims and the 2d amendment claims.

Also, how does this reflect badly in any way on any of the litigants, CGF, SAf or anyone else? They applied for a permit to operate the business, they had a good faith argument they were in compliance with all zoning regs, they were conditionally granted the permit, then the decision was overturned. They may still lose, but under the circumstances the plaintiffs were justified in pursuing the litigation and it is appropriate for gun rights organizations to get involved in this type of case.

What exactly is the OP's bi**h here?

Edit: should be "selling firearms," not "settling firearms."

taperxz
02-26-2013, 4:02 PM
We're actually in more agreement than disagreement.

My point that I believe you may disagree on is just defining residential areas as sensitive spaces at all, and using that as part of the justification for the ruling. Yes this time it is for just a zoning law, next time they will use this for something else.... I don't believe the Heller 5 meant for "sensitive spaces" to cover 500 feet in every direction of any residence, which would be nearly every square foot of any city, when they mentioned sensitive places like schools in their original decision.

The zoning law is the zoning law. As noted, the plaintiffs never even challenged the zoning law. And remember, they were actually granted a variance until the homeowner association injected themselves into the conversation. (they have that right when it comes to variances of all types, not just gun stores)

taperxz
02-26-2013, 4:07 PM
That's where I fear the anti's will try to take this next, but obviously this case isn't about anything more than zoning.

It really isn't. Due process was served when the "variance" was granted and the people affected by the variance were heard. Its a bummer for the gun store but they knew going in 'and measuring wrong' that a variance was needed and what could happen.

Bad business decision, happens all the time.

Librarian
02-26-2013, 4:09 PM
Now why create a separate thread when iit would be better to post on the original thread as an update? Unless the point is to bash...

In the current environment, deserves a new thread.

And, with minor diversions, it's staying on the topic of the case.

moleculo
02-26-2013, 4:52 PM
The hat tip to Nordyke was a nice touch as well. :laugh:

You didn't miss that, either? Nordyke bites us again :TFH:

highbrass
02-26-2013, 5:39 PM
This has nothing to do with carry or CCW. Basically the problem was that the plaintiff could not show that preventing one gun store from opening in a specific place was a significant infringement on the second amendment.

I think CGF got screwed on this one. If that's the ruling, and I haven't read it, then bad judge. At a motion to dismiss, all facts are to be construed in favor of the non-moving party. If true, is there a case? That is, if a gun store in Alameda County were prevented from opening, could there, under any set of facts, be a triable question for a jury? If at all possibly so, then the case proceeds.

There is rampant summary judgment abuse by judges in America, but this takes it one higher. Whether an inability to open a gun store is a question of fact or law, requiring a jury trial or a judge's opinion is to be reserved, at least, until summary judgment.

This Motion to Dismiss abuse is a favor granted by judges to defendants to save them from having to file an answer and put various facts and theories in the record.

Could they have pled more facts to make this a viable case? I don't know. But as filed, the pleading was fatally defective.

I disagree. A complaint doesn't have to lay out the entire case and every piece of evidence. That's for trial. Further, California usually has the lowest bar of all states for surviving a motion to dismiss. In any other subject, it's well known as a plaintiff's state, yet here they act like a complaint is every stage of a case rolled into one form and that the greatest legal harm to be found is accidentally opening the courthouse doors. Elsewhere, California courts eagerly say that it is better that an imperfect complaint be heard than to require such meticulous pleading as to bar justice to those who seek it.

If Barstow banned homosexuals from eating lunch in city parks, the complaint could be written in crayon, citing to Canadian law, with misspellings, and the court would eagerly help it along its way.

Let's say CGF is the worst bunch of civil rights advocates known to man, they should still occasionally win a case. Their attorneys have all graduated law schools and passed the Bar. Occasionally, probability says that they should get a case right. That they pull an o-fer says more about the courts than it does the lawyers.

Sorry, FGG, this is a bad judge with a thumb on the scale. CGF can't be wrong, every time.

BigPimping
02-26-2013, 5:49 PM
Well, just keep up the fight through the proper channels. What else can you do?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
02-26-2013, 5:49 PM
Sorry, FGG, this is a bad judge with a thumb on the scale. CGF can't be wrong, every time.

You might want to read the opinion first.

highbrass
02-26-2013, 6:06 PM
You might want to read the opinion first.

But they're soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo boring, logically shallow and disingenuous. One literally becomes dumber for having read a judge's word processed belch. This is true. Reading court cases makes you less intelligent, as Judges use non-linear and illogical methods of argument that aren't even consistent throughout the entire document.

Taken as a group, it looks like there's no law California can pass negatively affecting guns that doesn't go too far.

If churches or political party headquarters were subject to such harangues, it's doubtful EVERY harassing law would be allowed to stand.

But, fine, I'll read it, but who the hell is that in your picture?

OleCuss
02-26-2013, 6:08 PM
I think this one is very interesting. I'm glad the topic was brought up.

Let me see if I've got this right? There are ordinance/zoning regs which mean that the firearms dealer couldn't open in the preferred location and a variance was requested?

So the judge sort of said, look, if you can demonstrate that you can't find another location to serve the 2A needs of the community - then you can refile the case. But until then I'm dismissing the case?

If I'm sort of reading this one right, then there might be interesting parallels between this case and Ezell? And I'm not sure of the exact status on Ezell and associated litigation at this time.

Gunlawyer
02-26-2013, 6:11 PM
Judge Illston seems like a nice judge. She has been good about giving CGF the chance to fix its pleadings. :laugh:

Im sure you have never filed a pleading that has been struck down by a demurrer or MTD. :rolleyes::rolleyes: Sure. lol.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 6:18 PM
I think this one is very interesting. I'm glad the topic was brought up.

Let me see if I've got this right? There are ordinance/zoning regs which mean that the firearms dealer couldn't open in the preferred location and a variance was requested?

So the judge sort of said, look, if you can demonstrate that you can't find another location to serve the 2A needs of the community - then you can refile the case. But until then I'm dismissing the case?

If I'm sort of reading this one right, then there might be interesting parallels between this case and Ezell? And I'm not sure of the exact status on Ezell and associated litigation at this time.

NO. They picked a building that that was not originally in compliance with county zoning. They thought it was but measured wrong. It was then remeasured and found to be out of compliance.

A variance (exception) was granted. A variance has rules and procedures that allows the public to speak up on the variance. The homeowners association objected to the variance. The supervisors agreed with the homeowner association. Instead of CGF challenging the sups and the local zoning law, they went straight to the 14th, and the 2A. This was about a zoning law pure and simple.

OleCuss
02-26-2013, 6:27 PM
NO. They picked a building that that was not originally in compliance with county zoning. They thought it was but measured wrong. It was then remeasured and found to be out of compliance.

A variance (exception) was granted. A variance has rules and procedures that allows the public to speak up on the variance. The homeowners association objected to the variance. The supervisors agreed with the homeowner association. Instead of CGF challenging the sups and the local zoning law, they went straight to the 14th, and the 2A. This was about a zoning law pure and simple.

Thank you for the clarification.

d_c_mar
02-26-2013, 6:53 PM
So I pose this question:
What other businesses would be prohibited from operating within 500 feet of the edge of a zone? All areas zoned residential have edges. They almost always border a commercial or retail zone somewhere. At that edge, would I be prohibited from operating a liquor store, or a convenience store that sells those evil "Big Gulp" sodas? The residents adjacent would likely be at more risk from a liquor store. Those get knocked all the time. The idiots that will rob a gun store, while ever-present, are few and far between. So, framed as an equal protection argument, how can a zoning ordinance that would not prohibit other, more dangerous retail establishments from operating within 500 feet of the edge of a zone, prohibit me from operating my legal business there.

My $0.02 for what it's worth
Dan

taperxz
02-26-2013, 7:01 PM
So I pose this question:
What other businesses would be prohibited from operating within 500 feet of the edge of a zone? All areas zoned residential have edges. They almost always border a commercial or retail zone somewhere. At that edge, would I be prohibited from operating a liquor store, or a convenience store that sells those evil "Big Gulp" sodas? The residents adjacent would likely be at more risk from a liquor store. Those get knocked all the time. The idiots that will rob a gun store, while ever-present, are few and far between. So, framed as an equal protection argument, how can a zoning ordinance that would not prohibit other, more dangerous retail establishments from operating within 500 feet of the edge of a zone, prohibit me from operating my legal business there.

My $0.02 for what it's worth
Dan

Other types of businesses may very well have the same restrictions. The problem here is that CGF never looked into this to challenge the ordinance.

Put it this way, If a private company wanted to put in clean energy producing nuclear power 500 feet from your house, would you want to give them a variance? Keep in mind, San Leandro is right next to Oakland. Think Politics!! Do you think a bunch of homeowners want to grant a variance for a gun store right next to their house knowing what happens with guns in Oakland?

Funny thing is, if you challenge a variance hearing and do as little as promise to plant trees, you will generally get approved as a good neighbor. CGF didn't go there. They went straight for the jugular on the 14th and the 2A

curtisfong
02-26-2013, 7:46 PM
So now is your chance to fix the pleading. I look forward to your rewrite.

postal
02-26-2013, 7:50 PM
Oh... common now......

You're **all*** pretty, Ladies....

Stop your bickering.

Sheesh....

Tincon
02-26-2013, 7:57 PM
So now is your chance to fix the pleading. I look forward to your rewrite.

You seem to be assuming that the plaintiff has sufficient facts to plead. I'm not sure that is the case.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 8:00 PM
One question i would like to ask, specifically of Brandon of CAL-FFL is, me knowing that you were in the construction field, were you familiar with planning and zoning?

I only ask because if you were not, you certainly had the resources to find out how this zoning stuff works. If you didn't, why?

Doesn't the law take many crossroads into each other in order to come to an outcome?

tcrpe
02-26-2013, 8:04 PM
Taper, I can answer that. I spoke with Brandon on this very subject. He was very well versed on the subject of planning and zoning.

I would know, and that was the precise subject of our conversation.

I am an expert on planning and zoning ordinace application. Are you?

curtisfong
02-26-2013, 8:06 PM
You seem to be assuming that the plaintiff has sufficient facts to plead. I'm not sure that is the case.

Perhaps it would be a valuable exercise to do due diligence and find out for yourself. Even if there are not sufficient facts, some sort of analysis of what to look for in a subsequent plaintiff would be very helpful.

Especially if such an analysis were provided by a competent lawyer.

SFgiants105
02-26-2013, 8:15 PM
Yeah, I'm confused as well. Sigh. Nothing hurts like gun rights advocates eating each other.

Anyways, Tincon whomever he may be, has every right to post it up. This is factual and relevant. OTOH, digs like the "illustrious litigation record" are unnecessary. Frankly, in a state like CA I'd expect to lose more than win, especially at the lower courts. More than one case has been dismissed only to go up on appeal and become a win.

Furthermore, I don't see the NRA or SAF having any better luck with the majority of their suits. I just don't get the hostility, nobody ever said CGF would win every case, or even most of them. I have read too many threads about people who ran into trouble with LEO and had CalGuns get things straightened out BEFORE anything went to court to simply dismiss the whole organization because they lose cases. Any case in CA is an uphill battle, and being an attorney I am well aware that what a judge says in their opinion and what actually transpired in court are two very different things, especially with a hostile judge.

Anyways, people have their opinions. Don't feed the trolls though.

:stupid:

Tincon
02-26-2013, 8:17 PM
Perhaps it would be a valuable exercise to do due diligence and find out for yourself. Even if there are not sufficient facts, some sort of analysis of what to look for in a subsequent plaintiff would be very helpful.

Especially if such an analysis were provided by a competent lawyer.

It's not a mystery what facts would need to be pled, the court gives a clear guide in the opinion. I'm reasonably sure the court is competent to conduct the analysis.

moleculo
02-26-2013, 8:18 PM
Taper, I can answer that. I spoke with Brandon on this very subject. He was very well versed on the subject of planning and zoning.

I would know, and that was the precise subject of our conversation.

I am an expert on planning and zoning ordinace application. Are you?

I was under the impression that Brandon's previous employment had more to do with advising clients on the avoidance of construction defect litigation, especially as it relates to the homebuilding industry (10 year statute of limitations on construction defects in CA - and it's a complex field) I could very well be wrong, but if not - that is very different than expertise in the field of community planning / development type issues like zoning, variances, easements, etc.

I read the ruling (only) and came away with the same impression as Taperxz. I'm not an expert on community planning issues, but I work closely with many experts in the field and at least can carry on an intelligent conversation on the subject.

tcrpe
02-26-2013, 8:22 PM
I was under the impression that Brandon's previous employment had more to do with advising clients on the avoidance of construction defect litigation, especially as it relates to the homebuilding industry (10 year statute of limitations on construction defects in CA - and it's a complex field) I could very well be wrong, but if not - that is very different than expertise in the field of community planning / development type issues like zoning, variances, easements, etc.

I read the ruling (only) and came away with the same impression as Taperxz. I'm not an expert on community planning issues, but I work closely with many experts in the field and at least can carry on an intelligent conversation on the subject.

Interesting dialog, but not the question that was asked and answered.

Curiously and coincidentally, though, I'm also an expert in construction defects, but from an engineering perspective. Not necessarily home building, rather heavy engineering construction.

moleculo
02-26-2013, 8:23 PM
Obviously you don't understand zoning laws either then.

Move on? Buwahahahaha

A simple knowledge of zoning laws would have those 3 gentlemen in a gun shop up and running right now.

Not to mention, not a single dollar of donor money to CGF wasted on a lame lawsuit.


Look, Taperxz & I used to go at it vehemently with each other in this section. I have even publicly questioned his reading comprehension skills - but for all those that want to hate on him right now...

...he is spot on about this particular issue. The fact is that if that client really wanted a gun shop in that city, they would have one right now. This case wasn't about that at all, though...this was about trying to figure out how to work a 14A and 2A claim to avoid zoning laws and the judge saw right through that and ruled in the only way she could.

Tmckinney
02-26-2013, 8:30 PM
Since it was granted with leave to amend, it's not a loss, yet. They will likely file an amended complaint that meets the requirements.

It's far from over, nor should it be fuel for criticism of the lawyers involved.

moleculo
02-26-2013, 8:32 PM
Since it was granted with leave to amend, it's not a loss, yet. They will likely file an amended complaint that meets the requirements.

It's far from over, nor should it be fuel for criticism of the lawyers involved.

Did you read the part in the judgement where the judge explains that they are basically required to leave to amend at this court level? This fact alone doesn't really mean anything special in this case or any other.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 8:33 PM
Since it was granted with leave to amend, it's not a loss, yet. They will likely file an amended complaint that meets the requirements.

It's far from over, nor should it be fuel for criticism of the lawyers involved.

REALLY? and what requirement will they meet? They didn't challenge the county on the ordinance/zoning issue. The zoning issue has to be resolved before they can get to the 2A and the 14th.

Tincon
02-26-2013, 8:39 PM
Since it was granted with leave to amend, it's not a loss, yet. They will likely file an amended complaint that meets the requirements.


I predict they will not.

curtisfong
02-26-2013, 8:44 PM
We are discussing the merits of this case and the intricacies of the ruling. Do you have something to add to the discussion, or are you just now realizing that your Kool-Aid is turning sour?

So now is your chance to fix the pleading. I look forward to your rewrite.

Tincon
02-26-2013, 8:45 PM
So now is your chance to fix the pleading. I look forward to your rewrite.

Some things are beyond fixing.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 8:47 PM
So now is your chance to fix the pleading. I look forward to your rewrite.

YOU CAN"T! the judge made it clear that they failed to bring in the county supervisors and question the zoning ordinance.

Get the ordinance struck and then if all else fails the 2A and the 14thA

READ the document

tcrpe
02-26-2013, 8:49 PM
What else are we talking about here? Only pertinent facts of the case.

Do you have a credible rebuttal to say different or are you only going to talk about an ax to grind with nothing to back it up?

You asked a simple question, I provided a complete answer.

You did not like the answer.

That does not make it inaccurate.

Keep grinding that axe.

moleculo
02-26-2013, 8:50 PM
We are?

So now is your chance to fix the pleading. I look forward to your rewrite.


Some of us were. You guys are now doing the exact thing that you complain about in every thread where losses are dissected.

Tincon
02-26-2013, 9:14 PM
Anything else to add about the case?

Librarian
02-26-2013, 9:20 PM
I'm sure I read the thread title correctly - this thread is about the Alameda County suit briefly called Teixiera, yes?

Librarian
02-26-2013, 9:24 PM
One question i would like to ask, specifically of Brandon of CAL-FFL is, me knowing that you were in the construction field, were you familiar with planning and zoning?

I only ask because if you were not, you certainly had the resources to find out how this zoning stuff works. If you didn't, why?

Doesn't the law take many crossroads into each other in order to come to an outcome?

If one addresses a question to a particular member, it would seem rational to wait for an answer before proceeding on the point.

taperxz
02-26-2013, 9:26 PM
You asked a simple question, I provided a complete answer.

You did not like the answer.

That does not make it inaccurate.

Keep grinding that axe.

I would really like to hear your answer on why you think CGF did well in this case or why they were wronged by the judge when she said, "the plaintiffs failed to bring issue on the county ordinance/code. Which gave them no standing to bring a 2A 14A case.. I'm all ears.

Malmon
02-26-2013, 9:27 PM
Looks like a few people here are relishing the loss in court of a gunstore to open. Why is that? We know who our enemies are, they are coming up with more laws that trample our rights. Why not go after them, channel your energies in stopping them and stop these poisonous posts.

jdberger
02-26-2013, 9:55 PM
So now is your chance to fix the pleading. I look forward to your rewrite.

Some things are beyond fixing.

I would also be practicing law without a license, no?

Looks like a few people here are relishing the loss in court of a gunstore to open. Why is that? We know who our enemies are, they are coming up with more laws that trample our rights. Why not go after them, channel your energies in stopping them and stop these poisonous posts.

No. It's much more important to exercise old vendettas. The good of the movement be damned....

moleculo
02-26-2013, 10:01 PM
Looks like a few people here are relishing the loss in court of a gunstore to open. Why is that? We know who our enemies are, they are coming up with more laws that trample our rights. Why not go after them, channel your energies in stopping them and stop these poisonous posts.

Relishing? Not at all. We are at a critical juncture in the effort toward 2A rights advancement. Everyone needs to start being brutally honestly with each other about which tactics are producing the immediate desired results, and which strategies look like the most promising to deliver the ultimate win. The Kool-Aid drinking, patting on the back, feel-good about peeing in the wind days are over. Results matter. Effective use of limited funds matters. The ability to mobilize your base matters. Some of us no longer see any need or value in BS. It's time to put up or shut up with regard to the organizations that are asking for our money to win this fight.

stix213
02-26-2013, 10:01 PM
Looks like a few people here are relishing the loss in court of a gunstore to open. Why is that? We know who our enemies are, they are coming up with more laws that trample our rights. Why not go after them, channel your energies in stopping them and stop these poisonous posts.

People do what is most important to them at the time, regardless whether it is actually good or bad for them. To some people here, kicking dirt on CGF is at the top of their list, with winning gun rights somewhere further down.

curtisfong
02-26-2013, 10:03 PM
It's time to put up or shut up with regard to the organizations that are asking for our money to win this fight.

Will there will be a new and better organization forming in the future? Will its leaders be receptive to criticism where CGF was not?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=10651737#post10651737

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=10657526#post10657526

moleculo
02-26-2013, 10:05 PM
People do what is most important to them at the time, regardless whether it is actually good or bad for them. To some people here, kicking dirt on CGF is at the top of their list, with winning gun rights somewhere further down.

No, winning gun rights is at the top of the list and kicking dirt on 2A organizations is at the bottom.

CGF has not secured a single "gun right" despite all of their failed litigation. However, they have been exceedingly good at kicking dirt on a multitude of other gun rights organizations, including the NRA.

curtisfong
02-26-2013, 10:08 PM
However, they have been exceedingly good at kicking dirt on a multitude of other gun rights organizations, including the NRA.

If you ran such an organization, would you be receptive to criticism?

moleculo
02-26-2013, 10:08 PM
Will there will be a new and better organization forming in the future? Will its leaders be receptive to criticism where CGF was not?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=10651737#post10651737

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=10657526#post10657526

LMAO - Your rhetorical questions are starting to become the joke of the 2A section. Try some new material.

curtisfong
02-26-2013, 10:10 PM
IOW, no, you would not?

You'd rather viciously trash detractors?

moleculo
02-26-2013, 10:10 PM
If you ran such an organization, would you be receptive to criticism?

Wanna try some other logic fallacies on me with your retarded line of questioning?

curtisfong
02-26-2013, 10:12 PM
So in other words, you have no interest in open discussion. You're incapable of introspection. You are hostile to criticism. You openly deride detractors and are dismissive of people who point out your flaws.

I'm not seeing how you provide anybody with a superior alternative.

moleculo
02-26-2013, 10:23 PM
So in other words, you have no interest in open discussion. You're incapable of introspection. You are hostile to criticism. You openly deride detractors and dismissive of people who point out your flaws.

I'm not seeing how you provide anybody with a superior alternative.

You obviously have not spent enough time reading the history of my posts if you think that I have no interest in open discussion. Rather, it was the attempt at open discussion and the subsequent smack-down by CGF members that helped form my perspective. Actions and words have consequences. The accusations toward me about capabilities of introspection and hostilities toward criticism really have nothing to do with the questions you asked, my responses, nor the topic of this thread. So far, you have been incapable of pointing out the flaws of anything I've said, especially since the vast majority of your rants against me are either non-sequitor or are fatally flawed due to simplistic post hoc ergo propter hoc logic fallacies.

I am not going to further respond to your nonsense posts in this thread unless they are on-topic because I'm starting to feel bad about the job Librarian has before him.

Moonshine
02-26-2013, 10:47 PM
Keep in mind that many courts and especially those in urban areas in California are filled with activist judges who have their mind made up before a lawyer ever opens their mouth. Unless its a slam dunk case where a judge is basically forced to agree or risk their appointment, these cases take many appeals.

And don't forget Heller had to go all the way to the SCOTUS and it took years!

stix213
02-26-2013, 10:49 PM
No, winning gun rights is at the top of the list and kicking dirt on 2A organizations is at the bottom.


I'd actually believe you if your next sentence wasn't:


CGF has not secured a single "gun right" despite all of their failed litigation. However, they have been exceedingly good at kicking dirt on a multitude of other gun rights organizations, including the NRA.

:rolleyes: Yep, right back to kicking dirt after denying it is your priority, without even another sentence about anything else, anything at all, in between.

moleculo
02-26-2013, 10:54 PM
No, winning gun rights is at the top of the list and kicking dirt on 2A organizations is at the bottom.

CGF has not secured a single "gun right" despite all of their failed litigation. However, they have been exceedingly good at kicking dirt on a multitude of other gun rights organizations, including the NRA.

I'd actually believe you if your next sentence wasn't:



:rolleyes:

If you can show me a single "gun right" that CGF has secured as a result of their litigation, I will slow my roll on this subject.

AlexDD
02-26-2013, 10:55 PM
I don't see the harm in the case other than the expenses of the proceedings.

What is perplexing to me why would anyone want to take on zoning restrictions. If agencies can place all sorts of proximity restrictions on strip bars (1A) then why can't those same restrictions be placed on gun shops (2A)?

If a City wants to place heavy restrictions on a use across the board, they generally can unless the state passes legislation from doing so. Look at the recent legislation AB1616 regarding home based baked goods the legislature recently carved out that restricted cities from not prohibiting. Further, the massage industry also had legislation that prohibited requiring conditional use permits. These would never happen for us in the gun world!

I would expect more stringent land use regulation regarding establishment of gun shops in areas hostile to 2A with all sorts of conditions that would make it more expensive to operate.

Tincon
02-26-2013, 10:55 PM
Some of us actually take the litigation seriously, and want to see better cases filed. I'm not sure how that view is inconsistent with placing "winning gun rights at the top of the list".

Tincon
02-26-2013, 10:57 PM
I don't see the harm in the case other than the expenses of the proceedings.

What is perplexing to me why would anyone want to take on zoning restrictions.

If they appeal we can end up with another Silveira/Peterson type disaster. Other than that, and the expense, my only issue is the pointlessness of it, as you mention. And maybe also the constant attacks on more successful groups.

moleculo
02-26-2013, 11:01 PM
I don't see the harm in the case other than the expenses of the proceedings.

What is perplexing to me why would anyone want to take on zoning restrictions. If agencies can place all sorts of proximity restrictions on strip bars (1A) then why can't those same restrictions be placed on gun shops (2A)?

If a City wants to place heavy restrictions on a use across the board, they generally can unless the state passes legislation from doing so. Look at the recent legislation AB1616 regarding home based baked goods the legislature recently carved out that restricted cities from not prohibiting. Further, the massage industry also had legislation that prohibited requiring conditional use permits. These would never happen for us in the gun world!

I would expect more stringent land use regulation regarding establishment of gun shops in areas hostile to 2A with all sorts of conditions that would make it more expensive to operate.

AlexDD, I think that is a pretty balanced view on the whole subject. It doesn't appear that, on the 2A civil rights front, much damage was done. But it's clear that it was a poorly conceived attack on zoning restrictions and a waste of funds. If nothing else, hopefully it can be chalked up to lesson learned.

Reelemup
02-26-2013, 11:05 PM
If you're so unimpressed with CGF's litigation record why are you here? You've only been a member for 3 months and somehow we're supposed to give a **** what you think?

Hey Jon new members can be valuable too !

stix213
02-26-2013, 11:13 PM
If you can show me a single "gun right" that CGF has secured as a result of their litigation, I will slow my roll on this subject.

Can you show me a single "gun right" that Gura secured before Heller? That was a 5 year running case, while CGF has hardly even existed that long. You act like a losing case at district level is something to be ashamed of with anti-gun CA justices, even though of course Heller was a loser at district level. McDonald was even a loser at the 7th circuit.

To my knowledge there is no significant CGF litigation that has reached the end of the road yet, but you're calling the game now as if they have already failed.

Meplat
02-27-2013, 3:20 AM
Yeah, I'm confused as well. Sigh. Nothing hurts like gun rights advocates eating each other.



Which is exactly what that post was designed to promote. I doubt he is an actual gun rights advocate.

curtisfong
02-27-2013, 7:39 AM
You obviously have not spent enough time reading the history of my posts if you think that I have no interest in open discussion.

You may have an interest in open discussion, but from reading your posts you certainly aren't interested in criticism.

Let me offer some:

If you expect to make allies, it would be helpful if you didn't consistently display the same negative attributes you continually accuse others of having.

You need to work on your delivery. It really is that simple. You insist that it is CGF's fault that others are dismissive of your point of view, that you were censored. Well. You aren't being censored now. You've got carte blanche. And your wonderful personality isn't winning you any allies. Instead of blaming others for that, maybe it is time you tried a different approach, or found somebody else to speak for you.

moleculo
02-27-2013, 9:12 AM
You may have an interest in open discussion, but from reading your posts you certainly aren't interested in criticism.

Let me offer some:

If you expect to make allies, it would be helpful if you didn't consistently display the same negative attributes you continually accuse others of having.

You need to work on your delivery. It really is that simple. You insist that it is CGF's fault that others are dismissive of your point of view, that you were censored. Well. You aren't being censored now. You've got carte blanche. And your wonderful personality isn't winning you any allies. Instead of blaming others for that, maybe it is time you tried a different approach, or found somebody else to speak for you.


Wow, that's almost word for word what I wrote in a post quite some time ago about CGF's display of leadership in this forum section. So I think I have a pretty good understanding of yours and a few others position on this topic - It's OK for certain CGF individuals to act like that, but not others. I'm crystal clear on your position now and you're not going to get me to change my approach or my opinion. So stop trying. And stick to the topic of this thread...I keep trying to stay on topic, but you keep dragging it back to a personal disagreement with me.

ETA: I said once in this thread that I was not going to respond to you on off topic posts. I forgot I wrote that last night. This time I mean it.

jdberger
02-27-2013, 3:39 PM
ETA: I said once in this thread that I was not going to respond to you on off topic posts. I forgot I wrote that last night. This time I mean it.

/StompsFoot

rootuser
02-27-2013, 3:46 PM
It's just legal probing. Testing the edges. Not at all a defeat. I am usually gloomy about our CA outlook but this doesn't bother me one bit.

taperxz
02-27-2013, 4:37 PM
It's just legal probing. Testing the edges. Not at all a defeat. I am usually gloomy about our CA outlook but this doesn't bother me one bit.

What about the three people who put time and money into opening a gun store? How do you think they feel about this "legal probing"?

jdberger
02-27-2013, 5:28 PM
What about the three people who put time and money into opening a gun store? How do you think they feel about this "legal probing"?

I know exactly how they feel.

They didn't try to open the store because CGF asked them. CGF heard about their troubles and offered to assist, with no promises of outcome except that it would be a long hard slog.

So, where before all avenues were foreclosed, they had a second chance.

Of course, it's a shame that you, Moleculo and Tincon didn't get there before CGF. I'm sure that y'all would have won this lickety-split.

taperxz
02-27-2013, 5:33 PM
I know exactly how they feel.

They didn't try to open the store because CGF asked them. CGF heard about their troubles and offered to assist, with no promises of outcome except that it would be a long hard slog.

So, where before all avenues were foreclosed, they had a second chance.

Of course, it's a shame that you, Moleculo and Tincon didn't get there before CGF. I'm sure that y'all would have won this lickety-split.

See, the animosity? This ain't right^^ I was posting in regards to another post AND Keeping it on topic. My only point was that the post i responded to was saying that it was basically a "gomer bull"

My reply was to simply remind him that there were people involved!! An attorney could easily advised them of the risk of a variance hearing. (maybe CGF did, I don't know)

Point is, it was more than a test case to the people trying to open a legit gun store.

Why do you guys take everything in a negative way? I'm not a lawyer so no i could not help them.

Keep in mind, CGF is not a law firm either.

jdberger
02-27-2013, 6:00 PM
I saw who you were responding to.

The variance hearing happened months before CGF was involved or even had knowledge of the matter.

Why do you keep jumping to conclusions and blaming CGF?

Again, perhaps you, and Moleculo and Tincon should put your heads together and create some sort of organization that could get out in front of issues like this. Then you could avoid all this caterwauling about how CGF has screwed this up.

Honestly, it seems that y'all have the time.

taperxz
02-27-2013, 6:04 PM
I saw who you were responding to.

The variance hearing happened months before CGF was involved or even had knowledge of the matter.

Why do you keep jumping to conclusions and blaming CGF?

Again, perhaps you, and Moleculo and Tincon should put your heads together and create some sort of organization that could get out in front of issues like this. Then you could avoid all this caterwauling about how CGF has screwed this up.

Honestly, it seems that y'all have the time.

JD, this is more than that. This is OUR right people are PLAYING with.

Remember in the 70's and 80's when the SF Giants were just the complete laughing stock of the league? I was still a Giants fan!! I still critiqued their play however. I wanted to see better of the team i was rooting for.

Anyway, this is my best analogy. ONLY you guys are taking it personal.

Tincon
02-27-2013, 6:10 PM
Why do you keep jumping to conclusions and blaming CGF?

Again, perhaps you, and Moleculo and Tincon should put your heads together and create some sort of organization that could get out in front of issues like this.

Why do you keep dragging me into your comments?

taperxz
02-27-2013, 6:11 PM
Why do you keep dragging me into your comments?

Thats kinda how i feel too.

oldyeller
02-27-2013, 6:13 PM
Hey Laz, welcome to calguns

zvardan
02-27-2013, 6:26 PM
The question I have is, at what point do zoning restrictions impede on 2a rights? If every city effectively zones out gun stores (or makes it exceedingly cost prohibitive), and the nearest store to me is say, 3 hours, is that in itself not a case?

Tincon
02-27-2013, 6:29 PM
The question I have is, at what point do zoning restrictions impede on 2a rights? If every city effectively zones out gun stores (or makes it exceedingly cost prohibitive), and the nearest store to me is say, 3 hours, is that in itself not a case?

On those facts there absolutely would be a case.

Funtimes
02-27-2013, 6:38 PM
The question I have is, at what point do zoning restrictions impede on 2a rights? If every city effectively zones out gun stores (or makes it exceedingly cost prohibitive), and the nearest store to me is say, 3 hours, is that in itself not a case?

Ezell.

rootuser
02-27-2013, 7:12 PM
What about the three people who put time and money into opening a gun store? How do you think they feel about this "legal probing"?

I agree with you, it sucks to put that time/money/opportunity in to opening the store to have it yanked. The problem is the rule from the city seems valid (legally) but I'm pretty stupid so I could have missed something. I understand the measurement dispute, but it would seem that whoever the business manager of the partnership was should have recognized the marginality of what they were getting in to and should have not gone any further. It was clearly right on the edge of the 500 feet, so why would you take the risk??? I am not sure what was being thought.

When I look at these things, I think of it as: What if it was a slaughter house? Or a chemical plant? There are zoning rules for all of that, that local communities set, and should be allowed to set. No one, not the state or the federal government should be telling a local community how to zone their land as a basic principal. Now, clearly there are violations, such as "no American Indian owned shops in X zone" would clearly be a violation and thus invalidate the law. But in this case, I fail to see how the law is invalid OR how the measurement is invalid.

The probing I refer to is actually by the CGF etc. They should have known darn well there was a good chance of loosing this case. They have lost a few of these, so clearly if they gave the owners the wrong impression that is the real tragedy in my opinion.

I would have frequented the shop in San Leandro actually, so it's too bad for me but sad for the owners. I just don't see it as a 2A/14A issue, its really a zoning issue.

taperxz
02-27-2013, 7:38 PM
I agree with you, it sucks to put that time/money/opportunity in to opening the store to have it yanked. The problem is the rule from the city seems valid (legally) but I'm pretty stupid so I could have missed something. I understand the measurement dispute, but it would seem that whoever the business manager of the partnership was should have recognized the marginality of what they were getting in to and should have not gone any further. It was clearly right on the edge of the 500 feet, so why would you take the risk??? I am not sure what was being thought.

When I look at these things, I think of it as: What if it was a slaughter house? Or a chemical plant? There are zoning rules for all of that, that local communities set, and should be allowed to set. No one, not the state or the federal government should be telling a local community how to zone their land as a basic principal. Now, clearly there are violations, such as "no American Indian owned shops in X zone" would clearly be a violation and thus invalidate the law. But in this case, I fail to see how the law is invalid OR how the measurement is invalid.

The probing I refer to is actually by the CGF etc. They should have known darn well there was a good chance of loosing this case. They have lost a few of these, so clearly if they gave the owners the wrong impression that is the real tragedy in my opinion.

I would have frequented the shop in San Leandro actually, so it's too bad for me but sad for the owners. I just don't see it as a 2A/14A issue, its really a zoning issue.

Yep! I am glad you see the light on this case.

What i don't understand is WHY? CGF could not see the light and tell the clients that it would be best to find another store?

WHY? would CGF spend donated funds from people who trusted their judgement, looks to them to GAIN 2A rights and want to see results in the advancement of 2A rights? Especially now that we know CGF was not involved until after the variance hearing!!!

They are not lawyers, they are self proclaimed volunteers from right here on CGN who formed a Non profit called CGF and now claim they are experts at 2A litigation. Bottom line. They were all first time posters just like we all were here.

eaglemike
02-27-2013, 7:52 PM
Yep! I am glad you see the light on this case.

What i don't understand is WHY? CGF could not see the light and tell the clients that it would be best to find another store?

WHY? would CGF spend donated funds from people who trusted their judgement, looks to them to GAIN 2A rights and want to see results in the advancement of 2A rights? Especially now that we know CGF was not involved until after the variance hearing!!!

They are not lawyers, they are self proclaimed volunteers from right here on CGN who formed a Non profit called CGF and now claim they are experts at 2A litigation. Bottom line. They were all first time posters just like we all were here.
You really should set up an organization that can run as you think it should.
(and be as open to second-guessing as you think CGF should be) BTW - I almost NEVER tell people what they should do - but you make it clear you see these things far more clearly than the CGF crew.

I can see the issues with the case. Not sure it should be described as a loss - "suffer a setback" perhaps.
:)

jdberger
02-27-2013, 8:32 PM
Yep! I am glad you see the light on this case.

What i don't understand is WHY? CGF could not see the light and tell the clients that it would be best to find another store?

WHY? would CGF spend donated funds from people who trusted their judgement, looks to them to GAIN 2A rights and want to see results in the advancement of 2A rights? Especially now that we know CGF was not involved until after the variance hearing!!!

They are not lawyers, they are self proclaimed volunteers from right here on CGN who formed a Non profit called CGF and now claim they are experts at 2A litigation. Bottom line. They were all first time posters just like we all were here.

Remind me to invite you to the next meeting we have with potential plaintiffs. 'cause really, it's important to all of us to make sure that you have the opportunity to vet them, their story, the legal strategy and the potential outcomes.

wait - wait -wait....I have a better idea:

CGF will issue a press release, make a presentation and then have an online poll where everyone who has ever donated to the Foundation can vote on the Plaintiffs, strategy, etc....

I'm so bringing that up at the next Directors meeting.

*********

And Tincon, I keep referencing you because you've set yourself out as someone much more knowledgeable than all the pedestrian non-lawyers who make up the BoD of CGF. After all, it's you who have introduced yourself to us, we didn't seek you out.

odysseus
02-27-2013, 8:42 PM
These threads of late from some members all smell of personal vendetta more than they do normal conversations and inquiries.

taperxz
02-27-2013, 8:58 PM
Remind me to invite you to the next meeting we have with potential plaintiffs. 'cause really, it's important to all of us to make sure that you have the opportunity to vet them, their story, the legal strategy and the potential outcomes.

wait - wait -wait....I have a better idea:

CGF will issue a press release, make a presentation and then have an online poll where everyone who has ever donated to the Foundation can vote on the Plaintiffs, strategy, etc....

I'm so bringing that up at the next Directors meeting.

*********

And Tincon, I keep referencing you because you've set yourself out as someone much more knowledgeable than all the pedestrian non-lawyers who make up the BoD of CGF. After all, it's you who have introduced yourself to us, we didn't seek you out.

You certainly wouldn't have any worse results by doing that.

goober
02-27-2013, 8:59 PM
These threads of late from some members all smell of personal vendetta more than they do normal conversations and inquiries.

^this

Tincon
02-27-2013, 9:13 PM
Just so I'm clear where the line is, is any post that is not a worshipful acclamation of CGF evidence of a "personal vendetta"? I'm sorry CGF filed a bad case and had a loss but they did, and since they didn't post about I did. If that means I have a "personal vendetta", then I guess I do. That this was also the latest in a long string of losses also seems worth discussing. If that topic is verboten for some reason, I would like to know why.

odysseus
02-27-2013, 9:18 PM
Just so I'm clear where the line is, is any post that is not a worshipful acclamation of CGF evidence of a "personal vendetta"?

That's pretty much creating a false dilemma, and to paint yourself as more the heroic character that is being criticized for speaking. I did not say that in the least. Using words also like "worshipful" is really just disingenuous - unless you actually believe that unreasonable position you draw.

However I did say that it smells a certain way, and yes it does. So be it, it is just an opinion. If it is indeed a fact, then you should just come out with it clean who you are and why, since you have already eluded in other posts that you have a long knowledge and history of things on CGN, as well as CGF.

Tincon
02-27-2013, 9:28 PM
That's pretty much creating a false dilemma, and to paint yourself as more the heroic character that is being criticized for speaking. I did not say that in the least. Using words also like "worshipful" is really just disingenuous - unless you actually believe that unreasonable position you draw.


OK so where is the line? Is it not ok to reference a loss (or losses) by CGF when there are no other posts on the subject? Let's not be so dramatic, I'm no hero, but I'm also no villain with a "vendetta". I am suggesting that the whole story be told.

eaglemike
02-27-2013, 9:54 PM
OK so where is the line? Is it not ok to reference a loss (or losses) by CGF when there are no other posts on the subject? Let's not be so dramatic, I'm no hero, but I'm also no villain with a "vendetta". I am suggesting that the whole story be told.
Is your aim to criticize all pro-2A groups or organizations that err - or is it just the CGF?

Can you show a trend of objectivity?

I will make the same offer to you. You think you can do better than CGF, and pretty much everyone, so it seems. I have $500 to donate if you can get an effective organization started in the next 90 days. Show a record of success and there will be a much larger check.

Tincon
02-27-2013, 10:04 PM
Is your aim to criticize all pro-2A groups or organizations that err - or is it just the CGF? Can you show a trend of objectivity?

Certainly. Objectivity is exactly what I am asking for. If any other group gets a suit dismissed at the pleading stage and does not post about it here I absolutely will. I will also comment on it. And if they rack up a dozen of them, you can bet I will also comment on that. I have actually already commented on a recent Gorski mess. Unsurprisingly, there was no blow-back here from that post.


I will make the same offer to you. You think you can do better than CGF, and pretty much everyone, so it seems. I have $500 to donate if you can get an effective organization started in the next 90 days. Show a record of success and there will be a much larger check.

Believe it or not I have no financial stake in this, and I don't want your money. Right now the cases that need to be filed have been filed. There are at least four cases pending before the 9th right now. If and when I see a litigation opportunity that needs funding I will make it public, as well as the 501(c)(3) that is set up to receive the funds.

eaglemike
02-27-2013, 10:18 PM
Certainly. Objectivity is exactly what I am asking for. If any other group gets a suit dismissed at the pleading stage and does not post about it here I absolutely will. I will also comment on it. And if they rack up a dozen of them, you can bet I will also comment on that. I have actually already commented on a recent Gorski mess. Unsurprisingly, there was no blow-back here from that post.



Believe it or not I have no financial stake in this, and I don't want your money. Right now the cases that need to be filed have been filed. There are at least four cases pending before the 9th right now. If and when I see a litigation opportunity that needs funding I will make it public, as well as the 501(c)(3) that is set up to receive the funds.
I disagree - I don't think you can show a trend of objectivity. There is far too much personal animosity shown in some of your posts.

If Gorski was here, had a record of helping out a few people, and you had a few score of posts disparaging his efforts, there would be lash back. I know that the CGF has been successful in helping people with 2A related issues. That might be one reason you get some lash back. Another might be the overall trend of your posts.

I look forward to seeing how this particular case plays out. A setback such as this is not good. I've been able to look back and learn from my mistakes in the past. Perhaps the plaintiffs will end up with what they want - I certainly hope so.

Tincon
02-27-2013, 10:27 PM
There is far too much personal animosity shown in some of your posts.

I'll admit there were some posts after the Peterson case that had some animus. I was very frustrated by that case, the way it was mishandled, and the cavalier attitude about it on the part of Gray and the CGF. Peterson makes this case look like an downright victory.

But nothing I've said about CGF is in any way false. I have only pointed out what they have swept under the rug. If I see that from some other group (besides Gorski, who I have already called out for bad litigation) I will absolutely post about it. Does that seem fair?

rootuser
02-27-2013, 11:29 PM
Tincon- Post your self silly. I support it. Post all the false starts, dismissals and losses. Post it.

I support CGF and others like SAF being on the cutting edge of civil rights litigation. We wont like all the answers, but I aint getting any younger and neither is the 5-4 vote in SCOTUS.

so I support CGF suing the government and I support your posting about the realities of trailblazing litigation strategies.

We are living in historic times.

some will write history and some will have to content writing about the history makers.

I am with you on supporting CGF, SAF and others like them. Good call.

I DO understand the probing of cases to see just how far something can be taken. You DO have to take a loss sometimes or tilt at a windmill or two.

My concern goes only as far as to if CGF informed their client they are up a creek and they were most likely going to loose. If they were willing to give it a shot, then really that is up to the business to fight it or not. If any lawyer gave the impression they would (not COULD, but WOULD) actually win this case on some insane 14th amendment non-sense then I do worry a bit. Hopefully it wasn't a huge resource hog to make one hail mary pass to the end zone.

I do think it was a HUUUUUUUGE reach, but sometimes you do that. Look at our lawmakers trying to ban everything, same thing. Go for everything take what you get. It's like the titanic only full of bears!

jdberger
02-27-2013, 11:55 PM
rootuser - I'm sure that I've adequately responded to your concerns in post #102.

Tincon
02-28-2013, 12:04 AM
Careful rootuser, people might start to think you have a personal vendetta.

eaglemike
02-28-2013, 5:46 AM
Certainly. Objectivity is exactly what I am asking for. If any other group gets a suit dismissed at the pleading stage and does not post about it here I absolutely will. I will also comment on it. And if they rack up a dozen of them, you can bet I will also comment on that. I have actually already commented on a recent Gorski mess. Unsurprisingly, there was no blow-back here from that post.



Believe it or not I have no financial stake in this, and I don't want your money. Right now the cases that need to be filed have been filed. There are at least four cases pending before the 9th right now. If and when I see a litigation opportunity that needs funding I will make it public, as well as the 501(c)(3) that is set up to receive the funds.
I've highlighted part of the above. In reference:
Which cases?
Do you have any involvement in any of these cases? Litigation, research for the litigator, anything like that?
I'd like to see your forecast regarding these cases, and I'm sure others would also.

VAReact
02-28-2013, 7:36 AM
I've highlighted part of the above. In reference:
Which cases?
Do you have any involvement in any of these cases? Litigation, research for the litigator, anything like that?
I'd like to see your forecast regarding these cases, and I'm sure others would also.

Seconded.

Tincon
02-28-2013, 8:12 AM
I've highlighted part of the above. In reference:
Which cases?
Do you have any involvement in any of these cases? Litigation, research for the litigator, anything like that?
I'd like to see your forecast regarding these cases, and I'm sure others would also.

I've posted them several times. One is an CGF case. As these are high-profile and important active cases there are limits on what I will say on a public forum.

eaglemike
02-28-2013, 8:18 AM
I've posted them several times. One is an CGF case. As these are high-profile and important active cases there are limits on what I will say on a public forum.
Let's be clear, and get it all together.
What are the cases?
Do you have any involvement?
What is your forecast?
Are you involved and important enough that something you say here might (truly) adversely affect the RKBA.
Here is your chance to show that you are the best and the brightest. :)

Tincon
02-28-2013, 8:32 AM
Let's be clear, and get it all together.
What are the cases?
Do you have any involvement?
What is your forecast?
Are you involved and important enough that something you say here might (truly) adversely affect the RKBA.
Here is your chance to show that you are the best and the brightest. :)

There seems to be a double standard on thread-crapping among some people. None of this is related to Teixeira. In particular I don't know why you would need to know about my personal involvement.

I will however consider adding a separate thread with the current major cases, and my opinion of the prospects and procedural outcomes for each. That seems worthwhile. There will be limits however, not because I'm "important" but because the other side can read these forums just as you can, and I don't want to point out a weakness or line of argument that they missed.

rootuser
02-28-2013, 12:13 PM
Careful rootuser, people might start to think you have a personal vendetta.

:ack2: Don't know any of these people. Only sad to see a business shut down, even if it was their own risk they took and lost.

If I am to believe post #102 at face value then it would seem the CGFs lawyers were just throwing that hail mary pass to see what would happen. Trying to help with no guarantees. Seems on the up and up to me. It was a weak arguement, everyone involved seems to have understood that, and the business wanted to take the shot. Being a good business owner sometimes means taking a loss at the right time, and maybe they just didn't want to lose on principal which is always a bad reason to fight as a business. Still feel bad for those guys none the less.

jdberger
02-28-2013, 7:37 PM
:ack2: Don't know any of these people. Only sad to see a business shut down, even if it was their own risk they took and lost.

If I am to believe post #102 at face value then it would seem the CGFs lawyers were just throwing that hail mary pass to see what would happen. Trying to help with no guarantees. Seems on the up and up to me. It was a weak arguement, everyone involved seems to have understood that, and the business wanted to take the shot. Being a good business owner sometimes means taking a loss at the right time, and maybe they just didn't want to lose on principal which is always a bad reason to fight as a business. Still feel bad for those guys none the less.

The business never got off the ground.

Really, read the complaint. It's interesting.

That 500 feet? It measures from a back corner of the building that doesn't have an exit, over a concertina fence, up a 30 foot concrete wall, across 8 lanes of 880 freeway, down a 30 foot wall, across a busy thoroughfare, a canal and two other fences to the front door of the house.

The plaintiffs were fully informed.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 7:38 PM
The business never got off the ground.

Really, read the complaint. It's interesting.

That 500 feet? It measures from a back corner of the building that doesn't have an exit, over a concertina fence, up a 30 foot concrete wall, across 8 lanes of 880 freeway, down a 30 foot wall, across a busy thoroughfare, a canal and two other fences to the front door of the house.

The plaintiffs were fully informed.

If you knew all this, CGF wasted donors money

taperxz
02-28-2013, 7:59 PM
The business never got off the ground.

Really, read the complaint. It's interesting.

That 500 feet? It measures from a back corner of the building that doesn't have an exit, over a concertina fence, up a 30 foot concrete wall, across 8 lanes of 880 freeway, down a 30 foot wall, across a busy thoroughfare, a canal and two other fences to the front door of the house.

The plaintiffs were fully informed.

Fences, canals, and concrete walls don't matter when it comes to zoning. Neither does 8 lanes of freeway. The homeowners association retained that right in a variance hearing. What matters is 500ft. You can't go into court and fight for the 2A, the 14th, and equal protection based on fences, freeways, canals and corners of buildings.

jdberger
02-28-2013, 8:04 PM
<sigh>

Read the pleading....

Or, seriously, turn your anger at Brandon toward something positive. Start your own organization - or volunteer for another. It's starting to get a little ridiculous. And petty.

eville
02-28-2013, 8:08 PM
Part of the issue is no definition of how to measure the properties.
The plaintiffs hired a county approved surveyor who measured front door to front door. The distance was >500'.
The HOA measured closest corner to closest corner. The distance is <500'
This property is in unincorporated Alameda county. most adjoining cities will not permit a gun store to open. There aren't many, if any properties that are 500' from a residence in the unincorporated areas. All existing store sites have been 'grandfathered'.

jdberger
02-28-2013, 8:12 PM
Fences, canals, and concrete walls don't matter when it comes to zoning. Neither does 8 lanes of freeway. The homeowners association retained that right in a variance hearing. What matters is 500ft. You can't go into court and fight for the 2A, the 14th, and equal protection based on fences, freeways, canals and corners of buildings.

First, take a look at the map above.

So, a city government can say that no church can be within 500 feet of a residence? How about 1000 feet? How about restricting the number of churches in a city? Or how close they can be together?

None of those restrictions impact the core of the right, no?

But wait, if there's one church, your right isn't impacted - you can always go there.... unless you're a Jew, or a Lutheran or a Jehovahs Witness....

Still not impacting the core of the right?

But gun stores aren't like churches. You can buy any gun at a gun store.... But does Big 5 carry handguns? And don't Heller and McDonald point to the ownership of handguns as the core of the right?

So, please tell me how you would have avoided "wasting donors' money"?

Really, I'd be thrilled to know what percentage of your opposition to this case is because YOU think it could have been done better and what percentage is butt-hurt about how you feel you were treated by Brandon?

taperxz
02-28-2013, 8:20 PM
First, take a look at the map above.

So, a city government can say that no church can be within 500 feet of a residence? How about 1000 feet? How about restricting the number of churches in a city? Or how close they can be together?

None of those restrictions impact the core of the right, no?

But wait, if there's one church, your right isn't impacted - you can always go there.... unless you're a Jew, or a Lutheran or a Jehovahs Witness....

Still not impacting the core of the right?

But gun stores aren't like churches. You can buy any gun at a gun store.... But does Big 5 carry handguns? And don't Heller and McDonald point to the ownership of handguns as the core of the right?

So, please tell me how you would have avoided "wasting donors' money"?

Really, I'd be thrilled to know what percentage of your opposition to this case is because YOU think it could have been done better and what percentage is butt-hurt about how you feel you were treated by Brandon?

Bottom Line! the zoning ordinance was the zoning ordinance. I don't care about churches. The zoning was about gun stores.

Fight the ordinance first then go after the 2A, 14th and equal protection.

eville
02-28-2013, 8:22 PM
So, a city government can say that no church can be within 500 feet of a residence?

Speaking of churches and zoning.


http://sanleandro.patch.com/articles/city-to-pay-faith-fellowship-2-3-million-to-settle-suit

taperxz
02-28-2013, 8:22 PM
Part of the issue is no definition of how to measure the properties.
The plaintiffs hired a county approved surveyor who measured front door to front door. The distance was >500'.
The HOA measured closest corner to closest corner. The distance is <500'
This property is in unincorporated Alameda county. most adjoining cities will not permit a gun store to open. There aren't many, if any properties that are 500' from a residence in the unincorporated areas. All existing store sites have been 'grandfathered'.

No they didn't! they measured themselves and then the county approved entity said that the measurements didn't follow county zoning laws

eville
02-28-2013, 8:25 PM
Bottom Line! the zoning ordinance was the zoning ordinance. I don't care about churches. The zoning was about gun stores.

Fight the ordinance first then go after the 2A, 14th and equal protection.


Why should the 1st be more protected then the 2nd?

The goal was to get this shop opened.

eaglemike
02-28-2013, 8:26 PM
I have donated to CGF in the past,and will do so again. I do not resent the efforts in this case.

JD, thanks for making the comparison to churches, etc. Point well made.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 8:27 PM
Why should the 1st be more protected then the 2nd?

The goal was to get this shop opened.

It shouldn't be! Thats the way the 2nd gets treated though and CGF should know this.

Its sucks but the 2A needs to go to court with a different standard to win "at this time"

jdberger
02-28-2013, 8:29 PM
It shouldn't be! Thats the way the 2nd gets treated though and CGF should know this.

Its sucks but the 2A needs to go to court with a different standard to win "at this time"

Uh...no.

Expand your mind. (http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/civil-rights/civil-rights-litigation-and-social-reform/)

taperxz
02-28-2013, 8:30 PM
Uh...no.

UH... yes! Why do you think all the courts in the nation bring up "levels of scrutiny"?

taperxz
02-28-2013, 8:33 PM
JD, you can stick to your convictions and thats cool! The courts have not been playing by your convictions though. Thats why CGF has been losing at the pace of 0-11.

If the Niners were 0-11 it would make me sick. I still root for them though. Maybe this years draft of super stars will help though

No! I am not in the draft. I'm not qualified, but neither are some of the board members posting an 0-11 record

Librarian
02-28-2013, 8:40 PM
No they didn't! they measured themselves and then the county approved entity said that the measurements didn't follow county zoning laws

On what basis do you suggest the business owners 'measured themselves'? The order says ¶ 21. As part of their preliminary preparations, Teixeira, Nobriga, and Gamaza obtained a survey which 4 measured from the front door of their property to the front door of the nearest residential properties and 5 found that the distance was over 500 feet. Id. ¶ 26-27. on page 2. What other information are you using?

VW*Mike
02-28-2013, 8:43 PM
24 hours later this is going as planned, except I thought this would be locked.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 8:49 PM
On what basis do you suggest the business owners 'measured themselves'? The order says on page 2. What other information are you using?

They obtained a private survey (they are all county approved) and then West County Board of Zoning Adjustments, re surveyed at county standards.

goober
02-28-2013, 8:52 PM
Part of the issue is no definition of how to measure the properties.
The plaintiffs hired a county approved surveyor who measured front door to front door. The distance was >500'.
The HOA measured closest corner to closest corner. The distance is <500'
This property is in unincorporated Alameda county. most adjoining cities will not permit a gun store to open. There aren't many, if any properties that are 500' from a residence in the unincorporated areas. All existing store sites have been 'grandfathered'.
this.

On what basis do you suggest the business owners 'measured themselves'? The order says on page 2. What other information are you using?
and this.

taperxz, if you're going to argue a point, at least get the facts right.
better yet, do something useful with your time instead of continuing to post whiny anti-CGF rants. its getting tiresome.

jdberger
02-28-2013, 8:55 PM
Minutes of the Variance Hearing. (http://alamedacounty.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=alamedacounty_8f01d3e655cf 9ec3f853db463e354292.pdf&view=1)

taperxz
02-28-2013, 8:56 PM
It should be noted that West County Board of Zoning Adjustments were willing to grant the variance even after measurements.

Again, the problem with variance is it is subject to a variance hearing and the board of supervisors denied the variance.

As JDBerger noted, this all happened prior to CGF involvement.

AlexDD
02-28-2013, 8:56 PM
Why should the 1st be more protected then the 2nd?

The goal was to get this shop opened.


From a planning perspective it isn't. 1A biz are definitely regulated through zoning.

Ask yourself why in some communities you do not see many, if any at all, Strip Clubs or Adult Book stores.

The citites just need to make space for them and ensure they are not excluded them in totality. If the area they are allowed in by zoning are filled with other businesses or the landowner wont lease to them, then the City isn't violating anything.

If the 1A biz is a able to lease within those areas then the City will have to allow but they can impose conditions of approval if it is not allowed by right. They can also deny but have to make findings during the quasi judicial hearing.

The City has broad powers when it comes to zoning and it is often a tangled maze to establish an enterprise if the agency has no incentive to be business friendly for your endeavor. Add politics and community opposition to the equation, it can be even tougher.

FWIW, If I were establishing a gun shop, I would hire a planning consultant, the retired planning director type, that could guide me through the maze. I would do community outreach so I would know what I am up against before the hearing or subsequent appeal. Not all property sites are created equal. YMMV.

eville
02-28-2013, 8:57 PM
They obtained a private survey (they are all county approved) and then West County Board of Zoning Adjustments, re surveyed at county standards.


They hired a surveyor who has a contract with the county. Read the ordinance. It does not clearly state how to measure the distance. The surveyor stated that entrance point to entrance point is reasonable.

We're talking about a **** hair here being the difference.

you should spend your time finding an organization to support rather then spending your time complaining about one you don't believe in.

Donation to CGN tonight.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 8:59 PM
They hired a surveyor who has a contract with the county. Read the ordinance. It does not clearly state how to measure the distance. The surveyor stated that entrance point to entrance point is reasonable.

We're talking about a **** hair here being the difference.

you should spend your time finding an organization to support rather then spending your time complaining about one you don't believe in.

Donation to CGN tonight.

It doesn't matter if its a nats arese. The county used it against them because it was a gun store.

Tincon
02-28-2013, 9:09 PM
From a planning perspective it isn't. 1A biz are definitely regulated through zoning.

Ask yourself why in some communities you do not see many, if any at all, Strip Clubs or Adult Book stores.

The citites just need to make space for them and ensure they are not excluded them in totality. If the area they are allowed in by zoning are filled with other businesses or the landowner wont lease to them, then the City isn't violating anything.

If the 1A biz is a able to lease within those areas then the City will have to allow but they can impose conditions of approval if it is not allowed by right. They can also deny but have to make findings during the quasi judicial hearing.

The City has broad powers when it comes to zoning and it is often a tangled maze to establish an enterprise if the agency has no incentive to be business friendly for your endeavor. Add politics and community opposition to the equation, it can be even tougher.

FWIW, If I were establishing a gun shop, I would hire a planning consultant, the retired planning director type, that could guide me through the maze. I would do community outreach so I would know what I am up against before the hearing or subsequent appeal. Not all property sites are created equal. YMMV.

Good point and pragmatic advice. I would probably proceed in the same fashion. It might also be worth considering, from a PR perspective, how these communities might feel about having a gun store forced on them. Especially when a questionable suit like this is filed to enforce it.

I know how I would feel about and adult book store doing it. While I don't support those, I respect the rights of people to operate them, but I don't want one on my doorstep. I might feel a bit bullied if someone filed a federal lawsuit to try and force the issue after proper zoning procedures had been followed. As if they felt flexing their rights were more important than the ones I have in my property. Particularly if there were other reasonable options/places for them to open a store.

tcrpe
02-28-2013, 9:13 PM
They obtained a private survey (they are all county approved) and then West County Board of Zoning Adjustments, re surveyed at county standards.

Surveyors are licensed by BORPELS.

Not all surveys are "county approved". On fact, beyond Records of Survey and Parcel/Subdivision Maps very little is signed off by the County Surveyor.

Counties do not "approve" surveyors, they are licensed by the State.

Survey standards are set by BORPELS, not the county.

Why does the County Zoning Ordinance provide for variances?

Where do you get your facts? :shrug:

eaglemike
02-28-2013, 9:20 PM
Good point and pragmatic advice. I would probably proceed in the same fashion. It might also be worth considering, from a PR perspective, how these communities might feel about having a gun store forced on them. Especially when a questionable suit like this is filed to enforce it.

I know how I would feel about and adult book store doing it. While I don't support those, I respect the rights of people to operate them, but I don't want one on my doorstep. I might feel a bit bullied if someone filed a federal lawsuit to try and force the issue after proper zoning procedures had been followed. As if they felt flexing their rights were more important than the ones I have in my property. Particularly if there were other reasonable options/places for them to open a store.
Ummm, rights are not about feelings. It sounds as though you might be in the camp of the Chicago Police Chief Garry McCarthy. He's on the record as thinking popular opinion being more important than the US Constitution. So if popular opinion is against things like same sex marriage, your feelings (or someone else's) trump the Constitution?

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:20 PM
Surveyors are licensed by BORPELS.

Not all surveys are "county approved". On fact, beyond Records of Survey and Parcel/Subdivision Maps very little is signed off by the County Surveyor.

Counties do not "approve" surveyors, they are licensed by the State.

Survey standards are set by BORPELS, not the county.

Why does the County Zoning Ordinance provide for variances?

Where do you get your facts? :shrug:

Thats why i said they are "ALL county approved" as in they can work in ALL CA counties. And Libarian asked!

Why does the County Zoning Ordinance provide for variances?

They provide for variances to make exceptions. Those exceptions are subject to a hearing with public involvement. The public spoke in this case the supervisors listened and sided with the HOA.

What else do you need to know other than when this happens the next step is to challenge the zoning law in court before you start talking about the 2A, 14A and equal protection as the judge noted.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:22 PM
Ummm, rights are not about feelings. It sounds as though you might be in the camp of the Chicago Police Chief Garry McCarthy. He's on the record as thinking popular opinion being more important than the US Constitution. So if popular opinion is against things like same sex marriage, your feelings (or someone else's) trump the Constitution?



In this political environment... YES! It sucks but that is the state we are in right now.

Tincon
02-28-2013, 9:26 PM
Ummm, rights are not about feelings. It sounds as though you might be in the camp of the Chicago Police Chief Garry McCarthy. He's on the record as thinking popular opinion being more important than the US Constitution. So if popular opinion is against things like same sex marriage, your feelings (or someone else's) trump the Constitution?

People have rights in their property too. The exact feeling I'm suggesting the home owner's might have is that us gun owners feel our rights are more important than theirs. You seem to embody that pretty well.

Here the war a zoning ordinance. The gun shop requested a variance. Ultimately, a public hearing was held, and the HOA (representing the home owners) opposed it. The variance was denied. Then a federal lawsuit was filed to force the county to grant the variance and allow the gun shop.

Considering the rights of others as well as my own hardly makes me the same as Garry McCarthy. Quite frankly that is an unwarranted and unnecessary personal attack.

jdberger
02-28-2013, 9:31 PM
People have rights in their property too. The exact feeling I'm suggesting the home owner's might have is that us gun owners feel our rights are more important than theirs. You seem to embody that pretty well.

Here the war a zoning ordinance. The gun shop requested a variance. Ultimately, a public hearing was held, and the HOA (representing the home owners) opposed it. The variance was denied. Then a federal lawsuit was filed to force the county to grant the variance and allow the gun shop.

Considering the rights of others as well as my own hardly makes me the same as Garry McCarthy. Quite frankly that is an unwarranted and unnecessary personal attack.

You mean like the right of someone to prohibit blacks from eating at their lunch counter? Nice.

Let's say it all together...

Fundamental
Enumerated
Constitutional
Right

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:33 PM
You mean like the right of someone to prohibit blacks from eating at their lunch counter? Nice.

Let's say it all together...

Fundamental
Enumerated
Constitutional
Right

JD, we ALL believe in what you are saying here. No doubt! Its still not the political reality of today. YET

tcrpe
02-28-2013, 9:33 PM
Thats why i said they are "ALL county approved" as in they can work in ALL CA counties.

That is not what you said.


What you said was, "They obtained a private survey (they are all county approved) and then West County Board of Zoning Adjustments, re surveyed at county standards."

Surveys are not all county approved.


Re: variances, do you know why there is a variance procedure? That is, what types of issues are traditionally considered cause for a variance? If you don't know, just say so.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:35 PM
That is not what you said.

Sorry you mis understood me

eville
02-28-2013, 9:35 PM
JD, we ALL believe in what you are saying here. No doubt! Its still not the political reality of today. YET

Then we should all stand down and wait for your go?

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:36 PM
You are also getting off topic from the subject. Try to stay on topic instead of nit picking words.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:36 PM
Then we should all stand down and wait for your go?

I never said that

eaglemike
02-28-2013, 9:37 PM
People have rights in their property too. The exact feeling I'm suggesting the home owner's might have is that us gun owners feel our rights are more important than theirs. You seem to embody that pretty well.

Here the war a zoning ordinance. The gun shop requested a variance. Ultimately, a public hearing was held, and the HOA (representing the home owners) opposed it. The variance was denied. Then a federal lawsuit was filed to force the county to grant the variance and allow the gun shop.

Considering the rights of others as well as my own hardly makes me the same as Garry McCarthy. Quite frankly that is an unwarranted and unnecessary personal attack.
You wish to be able to debate, and point out things from an objective and alternate viewpoint. That is exactly what I have done. I said "you might" - is that correct? And now you are playing the victim? Please....

Please make clear where I've implied or said my rights are more important than anyone else's rights.

It's my position that rights are supposed to be equal. 1A has often been revered. 2A should be the same.

I don't think your rights are greater than my rights. I also don't think that owning property, or owning more property should give one more rights than another. I believe this in spite of the homeless infesting the some areas of San Diego, causing some of us inconvenience and difficulty. They still have rights.

Basing this suit on 2A might be a mistake, in retrospect. (hindsight is easy)

eville
02-28-2013, 9:37 PM
So you're drawing the line at arm chair quarterbacking. Got it.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:39 PM
So you're drawing the line at arm chair quarterbacking. Got it.

Pretty much. I sure as heck wouldn't put a 3rd string quarterback into the super bowl who has never won a game or thrown a pass into the game unless it was the very last resort.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:40 PM
So you're drawing the line at arm chair quarterbacking. Got it.

Are you not doing the same?

eville
02-28-2013, 9:45 PM
Are you not doing the same?

I'm a CGF donor, SAF and NRA member.
I've met most to the CGF board members, shared meals, listed to strategy discussions and been to the 9th circuit several times.

This case effects my neighborhood and my neighbors.

I don't complain. I act on my beliefs.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:46 PM
I'm a CGF donor, SAF and NRA member.
I've met most to the CGF board members, shared meals, listed to strategy discussions and been to the 9th circuit several times.

This case effects my neighborhood and my neighbors.

I don't complain. I act on my beliefs.

Same here on all accounts

tcrpe
02-28-2013, 9:48 PM
Sorry you mis understood me

No, I did not "mis understand" you.

I understand you quite well.

moleculo
02-28-2013, 9:49 PM
With regards to the question about the measurements, this quote is from the minutes of the variance hearing. Whether we like it or not, the staff used a an interpretation of the distance ordinance that was deemed to be consistent with the ordinance, but the County Surveyor's measurements that the gun shop used were inconsistent with that ordinance:

The Ordinance states distance is measured from the premises to
Residentially Zoned property. The staff interpretation of premise is from the building to Residential Zoned property line. In this case the distance is 445 feet. The distance from the front door of the use to the property line
is 492 feet. The distance from the property line of the gun shop to the property line of the residential district is 432 feet. Distance measurements presented by the Applicant conducted by the County Surveyor were from the front door of the gun shop to the front door of a premise. This does not comply with the Ordinance as to how measurements are to be conducted
to the Residential Zoned District. Counsel added County Ordinances are subject to interpretation. Perhaps there is discretion to interpret the Ordinance differently. The authority to interpret the Ordinance is conducted by the decision making bodies. In this case the Board of Zoning Adjustments or the Board of Supervisor’s if appealed. The importance of the 500 foot requirement is that if not met. A variance would be required. If a variance is
then required, necessary findings must be made. If the variance findings cannot be met, the conditional use could not be supported.

For those that think these types of proceedings and determinations are unusual, let me illustrate this example: Over 15 years ago, my company purchased a large parcel of valuable land that was already zoned for a specific purpose. Various State and Federal agencies did not agree with the zoned purpose and forced us to go through an unbelievable amount of hearings and studies (including environmental impact, traffic, wetlands, etc.) in an attempt to stop us from using the land as zoned. We spent many millions of dollars on this approval process, and it took over 15 years to complete, even with full time staff working on it. However, we got it approved and will still still turn a profit, and there is no lawsuit that could have been filed that would have changed this process. The reality of the situation in CA is that if you want to start a business that the surrounding HOA, city, county, state, or some stupid state commission doesn't want, you have to jump through unfortunate hoops. Filing a lawsuit over a situation like this that you don't agree with won't necessarily get you anywhere, as we can clearly see in this case.

When I read the judgement and compare notes against the variance hearing, it seems that the judge believes that the county's zoning requirements were fair and consistently applied, the variance was denied using a consistently applied standard, and the 14A and 2A claims were without merit. IANAL, but I don't see anything unusual about the judgement made in this case.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:49 PM
No, I did not "mis understand" you.

OK:) You go ahead and dwell on that for a while:)

taperxz
02-28-2013, 9:53 PM
With regards to the question about the measurements, this quote is from the minutes of the variance hearing. Whether we like it or not, the staff used a an interpretation of the distance ordinance that was deemed to be consistent with the ordinance, but the County Surveyor's measurements that the gun shop used were inconsistent with that ordinance:



For those that think these types of proceedings and determinations are unusual, let me illustrate this example: Over 15 years ago, my company purchased a large parcel of valuable land that was already zoned for a specific purpose. Various State and Federal agencies did not agree with the zoned purpose and forced us to go through an unbelievable amount of hearings and studies (including environmental impact, traffic, wetlands, etc.) in an attempt to stop us from using the land as zoned. We spent many millions of dollars on this approval process, and it took over 15 years to complete, even with full time staff working on it. However, we got it approved and will still still turn a profit, and there is no lawsuit that could have been filed that would have changed this process. The reality of the situation in CA is that if you want to start a business that the surrounding HOA, city, county, state, or some stupid state commission doesn't want, you have to jump through unfortunate hoops. Filing a lawsuit over a situation like this that you don't agree with won't necessarily get you anywhere, as we can clearly see in this case.

When I read the judgement and compare notes against the variance hearing, it seems that the judge believes that the county's zoning requirements were fair and consistently applied, the variance was denied using a consistently applied standard, and the 14A and 2A claims were without merit. IANAL, but I don't see anything unusual about the judgement made in this case.

Whether you agree or disagree with CGF and the plaintiff, ^^^ this in a nutshell. It SUCKS for gun owners and all of us that are for gun rights. It is the political reality of the day though.

taperxz
02-28-2013, 10:02 PM
No, I did not "mis understand" you.

I understand you quite well.

COOL!:) More for you to dwell on:)



Kinda hoping a mod cleans this up though.

Tincon
02-28-2013, 10:06 PM
You mean like the right of someone to prohibit blacks from eating at their lunch counter? Nice.

Let's say it all together...

Fundamental
Enumerated
Constitutional
Right

And as the court informed you, you do not have a Fundamental Enumerated Constitutional Right to put a gunshop wherever you like. Also, property rights are in the Constitution as well. Perhaps if you had grasped that before the suit was filed you could have saved a great deal of time and money. That said, my point was just to consider things from the point of view of the home owners, not to declare a moral or legal victor.


Please make clear where I've implied or said my rights are more important than anyone else's rights.

You described the rights of property owners as "feelings" and "popular opinion".

Basing this suit on 2A might be a mistake, in retrospect. (hindsight is easy)


It should have been easy to see at any point. But yes I agree that it certainly is easy to see now. Which is why I'm amazed at talk of filing an appeal. That is something we don't need.

eaglemike
02-28-2013, 10:15 PM
You described the rights of property owners as "feelings" and "popular opinion".

It should have been easy to see at any point. But yes I agree that it certainly is easy to see now. Which is why I'm amazed at talk of filing an appeal. That is something we don't need.
Go back and look at your post 160. You mentioned "how you would feel", etc...

Remember how some people felt in the 1960s and before, especially in the south? I'm thinking JD made a great point.

Things happen that I don't feel great about - but my feelings do not trump rights.

AND - I did not describe property owner's rights as feelings. Now you are just making stuff up. pwnd

Tincon
02-28-2013, 10:21 PM
Go back and look at your post 160. You mentioned "how you would feel", etc...

Remember how some people felt in the 1960s and before, especially in the south? I'm thinking JD made a great point.

Things happen that I don't feel great about - but my feelings do not trump rights.

AND - I did not describe property owner's rights as feelings. Now you are just making stuff up. pwnd

How would I feel yes, about my rights being violated. So no, not pwnd. :rolleyes:

eaglemike
02-28-2013, 10:26 PM
How would I feel yes, about my rights being violated. So no, not pwnd. :rolleyes:
No one mentioned your rights be violated....

It's long been known that the powers-that-be in any locale will manipulate the system to get what they want,and to keep control It seems like lawsuits are one way to attempt to change the status quo. As noted, this was done quite effectively at times - but not without losses.

Tincon
02-28-2013, 10:31 PM
No one mentioned your rights be violated....


You are correct, I was posing a hypothetical regarding homeowners' feelings about having their property rights potentially violated. Please try to keep up.


It's long been known that the powers-that-be in any locale will manipulate the system to get what they want,and to keep control

This wasn't the "powers-that-be" this was the local home owners, and they were not "manipulating the system" they properly requested a public hearing and spoke about their concerns.

rootuser
02-28-2013, 10:42 PM
Basing this suit on 2A might be a mistake, in retrospect. (hindsight is easy)

Not being involved with any of the personal issues going on here, this is definately an intersting thread to me.

EagleMike I respect you for your admission of the basis of the suit and you are right, hindsight is easy.

The CGF guys are trying to fight the fight, so I support and will continue to support that. I think they should probably pick better fights, but at the same time, I do understand you have to sometimes fight battles you can't win to find places you can.

There are a lot of limits put on rights, and I don't think the 2A requires that a city allow gun-stores. It sucks because I have trouble finding stores here in the Bay Area that offer the goods that I want, so I am relegated to the internet, but oh well, not all things are convinient.

eaglemike
02-28-2013, 10:44 PM
You are correct, I was posing a hypothetical regarding homeowners' feelings about having their property rights potentially violated. Please try to keep up.
Go back and read your post again. It's number 160.

No one in this thread is talking about violating property owners rights but you - and now it's potential, and about how you would feel, etc.

This suit is about being able to have a gun store in a certain location. It was even said earlier in the thread that freeways, canals, etc don't matter in zoning This is total b.s. Now if one said this didn't matter in measuring (evidently in this case) they would be correct at this point. The same thing might not be said in another state. Practical and common sense seem to be lacking in this state at times. I've had a little experience with zoning and planning people in a couple of locations. It was obvious they had never had to work for a living.

Remember some property owners didn't want people of a different race in the neighborhood? They didn't feel happy about it. I'm even pretty sure lawsuits were filed at times. They likely didn't feel happy about that either. Did they feel "bullied" as you said in your post? Maybe - but the process was used to try to balance rights. This seems to be what is going on in this case.

eaglemike
02-28-2013, 10:48 PM
You are correct, I was posing a hypothetical regarding homeowners' feelings about having their property rights potentially violated. Please try to keep up.



This wasn't the "powers-that-be" this was the local home owners, and they were not "manipulating the system" they properly requested a public hearing and spoke about their concerns.

My comment was general, not limited to this case. Knowing how things work behind the scenes, I would not guarantee everything behind the scenes was innocent. Someone might make a few phone calls recommending rejecting the variance, etc.

Tincon
02-28-2013, 10:48 PM
Go back and read your post again. It's number 160.

DO you have a reading comprehension problem? I'll quote myself from post 160:

As if they felt flexing their rights were more important than the ones I have in my property.

Reading comprehension check: what does the word "ones" in the quote above refer to?

eaglemike
02-28-2013, 10:50 PM
DO you have a reading comprehension problem? I'll quote myself from post 160:



Reading comprehension check: what does the word "ones" in the quote above refer to?

Read the whole post, not selected parts.

Now you are getting personal.
I realize you cannot dispassionately discuss this.

ETA: read what you just wrote:
flexing their rights was more important than the ones in your property. Think about that. Flexing their rights........... I've never, ever used the term more important.....
I wish you all a good night.

Tincon
02-28-2013, 10:55 PM
Read the whole post, not selected parts.

Now you are getting personal.
I realize you cannot dispassionately discuss this.

You said no one was talking about rights. Clearly I was, and you were in error. I'm doing you the favor of assuming this was an honest error owing to your failure to fully comprehend what I wrote. If you were being deliberately disingenuous then it was you who was getting personal and not I.

Falconis
02-28-2013, 11:47 PM
getting back to the what has CGF won, didn't they also get an injunction against that ammo bill a few years back?

Back then, I was buying ammo in bulk for training purposes. I was actually really thankful for that.

BTW, I don't agree with all the viewpoints of CGF and or Gene and Co. But I do recognize when good is being done. All things considered, I also know they are fighting in enemy territory. With liberal activist judges, you really can't expect wins at the lower levels without the expectation of some miracles IMO.

jdberger
02-28-2013, 11:49 PM
You said no one was talking about rights. Clearly I was, and you were in error. I'm doing you the favor of assuming this was an honest error owing to your failure to fully comprehend what I wrote. If you were being deliberately disingenuous then it was you who was getting personal and not I.

Uh..this here ^^ is why you need to keep changing screen names.

http://demotivators.despair.com/demotivational/dysfunctiondemotivator.jpg

jdberger
02-28-2013, 11:51 PM
getting back to the what has CGF won, didn't they also get an injunction against that ammo bill a few years back?

Back then, I was buying ammo in bulk for training purposes. I was actually really thankful for that.

BTW, I don't agree with all the viewpoints of CGF and or Gene and Co. But I do recognize when good is being done. All things considered, I also know they are fighting in enemy territory. With liberal activist judges, you really can't expect wins at the lower levels without the expectation of some miracles IMO.

Nope. We were dismissed for lack of standing. It was CRPA/NRA.

And thanks, Falconis. I/we appreciate your support.

Libertarian71
03-01-2013, 12:01 AM
Federal district court decisions have no precedential value.

eaglemike
03-01-2013, 6:20 AM
You said no one was talking about rights. Clearly I was, and you were in error. I'm doing you the favor of assuming this was an honest error owing to your failure to fully comprehend what I wrote. If you were being deliberately disingenuous then it was you who was getting personal and not I.
This is obviously incorrect.

You have mentioned several times the rights of property owners, and how the property owners might feel if someone else was flexing their own rights. Are you alleging that if these "other people" flex their rights, it automatically results in the rights of "the property owners" being violated?

BTW, since you have (more than once) questioned my abilities, when my reading comprehension skills were tested, I was off the top of the scale. :)

The whole 2A movement is about flexing our rights.

kcbrown
03-01-2013, 6:58 AM
It shouldn't be! Thats the way the 2nd gets treated though and CGF should know this.

Its sucks but the 2A needs to go to court with a different standard to win "at this time"

What would be the point? Doing that would merely enshrine the anti-rights view of the 2nd Amendment.

If you do not argue, in court, the legal theory that is actually suitable for the 2nd Amendment, it will never, ever get recognized by the court system at all.

If you do not stand up for what you believe, what you believe will be relegated to the dustbin of history.


You are arguing, here, that we should shut up, be (pardon the term but it fits here) good niggers, and take what's being dished out; that we should, in a legal sense, remain silent, and be content with the treatment the 2nd Amendment is getting in the legal system.

What exactly is it that you want to win here?

taperxz
03-01-2013, 7:17 AM
It shouldn't be! Thats the way the 2nd gets treated though and CGF should know this.

Its sucks but the 2A needs to go to court with a different standard to win "at this time"

What would be the point? Doing that would merely enshrine the anti-rights view of the 2nd Amendment.

If you do not argue, in court, the legal theory that is actually suitable for the 2nd Amendment, it will never, ever get recognized by the court system at all.

If you do not stand up for what you believe, what you believe will be relegated to the dustbin of history.


You are arguing, here, that we should shut up, be (pardon the term but it fits here) good niggers, and take what's being dished out; that we should, in a legal sense, remain silent, and be content with the treatment the 2nd Amendment is getting in the legal system.

What exactly is it that you want to win here?

I'm talking about the "levels of scrutiny" (standard was a poor choice for words) that each court wants to impose and that every time a 2A case goes to court "levels of scrutiny" is always a question and a guess as to how it will be applied in courts at this time.

I should have been more clear on what i said in the post above.

kcbrown
03-01-2013, 7:34 AM
I'm talking about the "levels of scrutiny" (standard was a poor choice for words) that each court wants to impose and that every time a 2A case goes to court "levels of scrutiny" is always a question and a guess as to how it will be applied in courts at this time.

I should have been more clear on what i said in the post above.

I don't see how that changes your point, and so I don't see how it changes the applicability of my response.

The court you're making your case before will use whatever method of analysis it wants. If I understand you correctly, what you're claiming here is that we should be tailoring our argument to fit the method of analysis that the lower court we're arguing in front of is most likely to use.

But doing that means abandoning the legal arguments that are actually proper for a fundamental Constitutional right for fear that they will not sway the court.

Again, if you do that, those arguments will never be recognized by the courts at all, for they cannot recognize that which they're not given the opportunity to hear. Worse, if you do what I believe you're saying we should, the tailored arguments you do use will be enshrined as being the proper ones to make.


So again, what is it that you want to win here? Do you want to win the case, or do you want to win the right?

taperxz
03-01-2013, 7:41 AM
I don't see how that changes your point, and so I don't see how it changes the applicability of my response.

The court you're making your case before will use whatever method of analysis it wants. If I understand you correctly, what you're claiming here is that we should be tailoring our argument to fit the method of analysis that the lower court we're arguing in front of is most likely to use.

But doing that means abandoning the legal arguments that are actually proper for a fundamental Constitutional right for fear that they will not sway the court.

Again, if you do that, those arguments will never be recognized by the courts at all, for they cannot recognize that which they're not given the opportunity to hear. Worse, the arguments you do use will be enshrined as being the proper ones to make.


So again, what is it that you want to win here? Do you want to win the case, or do you want to win the right?

"in a way, Yes" It goes back to chess not checkers. Or simply chipping away to create small victories. With those victories, as time goes on, you can win with bolder arguments/precedence.

Didn't we lose the right by anti's chipping away at gun rights for years? JMHO and IANAL

kcbrown
03-01-2013, 8:11 AM
"in a way, Yes" It goes back to chess not checkers. Or simply chipping away to create small victories. With those victories, as time goes on, you can win with bolder arguments/precedence.


No, you can't. Precedence is the enshrinement of that which is past. Every time that precedence is invoked, it gets stronger, not weaker. So rather than building a foundation on which you can win with bolder arguments, you would be building a box with walls that are strengthened with each new case.

That's why, when you're talking about a newly-recognized right (remember, until 2008, the 2nd Amendment was not recognized as an individual right at all), you must start with the arguments that you want enshrined, and must continue to use them until you either win or until there is no hope left. Precedence precludes the ability to, at some later point, fundamentally change the arguments you're making.



Didn't we lose the right by anti's chipping away at gun rights for years? JMHO and IANAL

They chipped away at it at the legislative level. But it is not the legislative level of which we're speaking of here, it's the judicial level. At that level, there is a dearth of jurisprudence. That is both a blessing and a curse (but primarily a blessing). It's a blessing because it allows us to build it from the historical foundation up, and because it wasn't built during the time the right was, at the legislative level, on its way down. It's a curse because it gives us precious little to fall back on, which makes the job of securing the right harder.

curtisfong
03-01-2013, 8:30 AM
Which brings us back to my other point, which is that a 2A case had better be well nigh perfect if you expect to win, because every single CA court will use every flaw it finds to find against you. And if your opponent makes mistakes, the court will ignore them, and probably even go so far as to fix them for your opponents. You WILL have a terrible win/loss record, probably bordering on 0%.

Until YOU, personally, involve yourself in cases to find the perfect plaintiff, sitting there criticizing every case post hoc is entirely useless.

Until YOU, personally, bring arguments and filings that are utterly flawless, sitting there criticizing every case post hoc is entirely useless.

Until YOU, personally, demonstrate that your record of winning is better than everybody else's, there is no evidence that your abilities are any better than anybody else's.

Any retard can pore over a case and figure out what went wrong once the judge tells you what went wrong.

Let's put it this way; from what I can tell, if the choice was yours, you would tell CGF to not proceed on every single one of its cases, since none of them had perfect plaintiffs. All of their cases involved factual circumstances that would prevent an omniscient, infinitely intelligent lawyer from building and litigating a perfect case.

And make no mistake; if you expect to bat better than .500 in CA, your case has to be utterly perfect, and your opponents have to be utter tards.

taperxz
03-01-2013, 8:41 AM
Which brings us back to my other point, which is that a 2A case had better be well nigh perfect if you expect to win, because every single CA court will use every flaw it finds to find against you. And if your opponent makes mistakes, the court will ignore them, and probably even go so far as to fix them for your opponents. You WILL have a terrible win/loss record, probably bordering on 0%.

Until YOU, personally, involve yourself in cases to find the perfect plaintiff, sitting there criticizing every case post hoc is entirely useless.

Until YOU, personally, bring arguments and filings that are utterly flawless, sitting there criticizing every case post hoc is entirely useless.

Until YOU, personally, demonstrate that your record of winning is better than everybody else's, there is no evidence that your abilities are any better than anybody else's.

Any retard can pore over a case and figure out what went wrong once the judge tells you what went wrong.

Let's put it this way; from what I can tell, if the choice was yours, you would tell CGF to not proceed on every single one of its cases, since none of them had perfect plaintiffs. All of their cases involved factual circumstances that would prevent an omniscient, infinitely intelligent lawyer from building and litigating a perfect case.

And make no mistake; if you expect to bat better than .500 in CA, your case has to be utterly perfect, and your opponents have to be utter tards.

Don't put words into other peoples mouths! Your posts have much to be desired, and no one is saying what you are implying. CGF is NOT a group of lawyers! They all started on CGN, and all had their "first post" as a newb.

Tincon
03-01-2013, 9:20 AM
Federal district court decisions have no precedential value.


If that is true (and it isn't), then can you explain why judicial opinions, including the very opinion in the OP of the this thread, cite district court decisions?

kcbrown
03-01-2013, 9:25 AM
If that is true (and it isn't), then can you explain why judicial opinions, including the very opinion in the OP of the this thread, cite district court decisions?

Because district court decisions from other districts in the same circuit are "persuasive", and district court decisions from districts in other circuits are "informative".

They are not precedential, which implies that they are binding. Only decisions from the same district court, the circuit court covering that district, or the Supreme Court are binding upon the district court.


At least, that's my understanding of things.


I do agree with what you say here if you take what Librarian said literally. "Precedential value" implies that the case being cited has some influence over the decision being made, but isn't necessarily binding. My suspicion is that he meant "binding precedential value". But I'll let him speak for himself.

Tincon
03-01-2013, 9:32 AM
Because district court decisions from other districts in the same circuit are "persuasive", and district court decisions from districts in other circuits are "informative".

They are not precedential, which implies that they are binding. Only decisions from the same district court, the circuit court covering that district, or the Supreme Court are binding upon the district court.


At least, that's my understanding of things.

Your understanding is incorrect. There is binding (mandatory) precedent and persuasive precedent. In most jurisdictions, district court decisions are not binding, even in the same district. They are however persuasive in all districts, especially the same district. In any case they certainly have precedential value, they are cited all the time.

http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/25/district-court-opinions-precedential-within-the-same-district/

kcbrown
03-01-2013, 9:34 AM
Don't put words into other peoples mouths! Your posts have much to be desired, and no one is saying what you are implying. CGF is NOT a group of lawyers! They all started on CGN, and all had their "first post" as a newb.

Wait. Which part of his message are you disagreeing with?

It is understood that CGF is not a group of lawyers. It is plaintiffs that bring cases, not lawyers. CGF is an institutional plaintiff in the cases in question.


Curtisfong's message is directly on point and highly accurate with respect to what it takes to win a 2nd Amendment case in most California courts. It's why cases in which the respondent is a locality are particularly difficult, because they have to be initially litigated in a court that is in close proximity to the locality, and the localities that are most likely to cause problems at all are the ones in which the courts are, generally, hostile to the right. State laws and actions of the state are somewhat easier because the venue can be chosen from a wider variety of them, but that does not eliminate the bias.

kcbrown
03-01-2013, 9:39 AM
Your understanding is incorrect. There is binding (mandatory) precedent and persuasive precedent. In most jurisdictions, district court decisions are not binding, even in the same district. They are however persuasive in all districts, especially the same district. In any case they certainly have precedential value, they are cited all the time.

http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/25/district-court-opinions-precedential-within-the-same-district/

Heh. Looks like I edited my message right when you submitted the above.

I agree, district court cases have precedential value in that they can affect the decision of the court.


I'm a bit skeptical that the decisions of a district court are not binding upon that same court, which seems to be what you're implying above when you say "even in the same district". That would imply that a district court can be inconsistent with itself with respect to the decisions it issues. While I will not put it past the court system to allow itself to be inconsistent in that way, I am skeptical of it. Such would make a hash of precedent within a district.

wolfwood
03-01-2013, 1:24 PM
I don't quite get why this is a big issue. I understand the whole Peterson thing being a point of contention but this case is barely started. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Who cares about the scathing language. They are going to file another complaint that will be rewritten to comply with the Court's decision here. If they lose then I guess you can criticize the case.
You guys are criticizing Donald Kilmer based on having a bad first round in a 10 round fight. Let's remember Nordyke got McDonald to the Supreme Court.

Tincon
03-01-2013, 1:52 PM
I don't quite get why this is a big issue. I understand the whole Peterson thing being a point of contention but this case is barely started. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Who cares about the scathing language. They are going to file another complaint that will be rewritten to comply with the Court's decision here. If they lose then I guess you can criticize the case.
You guys are criticizing Donald Kilmer based on having a bad first round in a 10 round fight. Let's remember Nordyke got McDonald to the Supreme Court.

I don't disagree, like I said the main concern I have, other than there being better uses of the time and expense, is the prospect of an appeal. That could lead to another real disaster, a la Peterson.

wolfwood
03-01-2013, 2:16 PM
I disagree Peterson actually was bad case law. It might have been a waste of time but I actually filed a 28j in Baker regarding it as the Court albeit in dicta said there is a right to open carry. All Peterson did was assert the already established principle that as Heller codified a historical right and at Common Law there was no right to concealed carry then there is not one today.

Really interesting question for 3-5 years from now is whether the state can prohibit open carry when concealed is allowed. If concealed carry is effectively a privilege and open carry is a right, the State can not assert take away that right for the privilege.

Tincon
03-01-2013, 2:18 PM
I disagree Peterson actually was bad case law.

Yeah it's great positive authority. :rolleyes:

wolfwood
03-01-2013, 2:22 PM
I don't see why they don't go and go right back to the 10th with a different client and ask for some form of carry this time. The 10th Circuit pretty much said we will rule in your favor if you just ask for some form of carry next time.

What did Peterson establish? Nothing other than there is no right to concealed carry which is undisputed. In Baker we just want some form of carry while we have a effective ban on carry in Hawaii.

Tincon
03-01-2013, 8:45 PM
In Baker we just want some form of carry while we have a effective ban on carry in Hawaii.

Baker keeps me up at night. That case has zero chance of Good Things. I hope your 28j didn't focus on how great Peterson is. Honestly I'm really worried about your case. Have you asked CGN or NRA for help?

rootuser
03-01-2013, 9:09 PM
Baker keeps me up at night. That case has zero chance of Good Things. I hope your 28j didn't focus on how great Peterson is. Honestly I'm really worried about your case. Have you asked CGN or NRA for help?

What is the likely outcome of Baker?

wolfwood
03-01-2013, 9:18 PM
Baker keeps me up at night. That case has zero chance of Good Things. I hope your 28j didn't focus on how great Peterson is. Honestly I'm really worried about your case. Have you asked CGN or NRA for help?

As to the CCW/outside the home issue why so?
Honest question here. If there is a right outside the home how does that statute survive procedural due process in your opinion? How do they justify not issuing permits or having no written standards for what a exceptional circumstance is? Its up on a PI so this is not merely academic.

Tincon
03-01-2013, 9:45 PM
As to the CCW/outside the home issue why so?
Honest question here. If there is a right outside the home how does that statute survive procedural due process in your opinion? How do they justify not issuing permits or having no written standards for what a exceptional circumstance is? Its up on a PI so this is not merely academic.

I don't have a problem with the basic legal theory on carry. It's the rest of the brief, the way it is written, and the relief requested. A bad panel could have all sorts of fun with it.

jdberger
03-01-2013, 10:00 PM
I don't have a problem with the basic legal theory on carry. It's the rest of the brief, the way it is written, and the relief requested. A bad panel could have all sorts of fun with it.

Have any examples of briefs you've written? I'd love to do a comparison.

Or, how, specifically would you improve the briefs in question.

Given a blank slate, what would you write?

Unfortunately Moleculo is out, he's already stated that he's not a lawyer.

That leaves you...

Swing away, Brother. Show us what you got.

Funtimes
03-01-2013, 10:27 PM
JD, I know you have some personal thing against me, but you should really read the brief. If you guys can help him I will personally and publicly give you kudos. Right now it's a mess. I think the best thing might be a motion to withdraw the brief, but I've never actually heard of it being done. Maybe your counsel has.

If that can be accomplished, I'd certainly be willing to talk with counsel about my thoughts on the issues that should actually be briefed.

The brief or the complaint?

Tincon
03-01-2013, 10:39 PM
The brief or the complaint?

I apologize, I just realized I had Baker confused with Young (both being HI cases, and wolfwood saying "we" and I got off track). I've been referring to the Young brief, not Baker. So again, sorry for the confusion.

I'm a lot more worried about Young, honestly it has been keeping me up thinking about it. There are other cases far ahead of it in the pipeline, but if the 9th wants to play games they could delay those. And there are issues that could come from Young that are not addressed in the earlier cases.

By the way, from what I can tell woofwood/Alan is a really great guy, and well-intentioned, I just think there are some big problems with the Brief. Some can be addressed in the reply brief, but it needs to be looked at now.

wolfwood
03-01-2013, 11:07 PM
I apologize, I just realized I had Baker confused with Young (both being HI cases, and wolfwood saying "we" and I got off track). I've been referring to the Young brief, not Baker. So again, sorry for the confusion.

I'm a lot more worried about Young, honestly it has been keeping me up thinking about it. There are other cases far ahead of it in the pipeline, but if the 9th wants to play games they could delay those. And there are issues that could come from Young that are not addressed in the earlier cases.

By the way, from what I can tell woofwood/Alan is a really great guy, and well-intentioned, I just think there are some big problems with the Brief. Some can be addressed in the reply brief, but it needs to be looked at now.

I'm counsel in both cases man.

kcbrown
03-02-2013, 8:39 AM
By the way, from what I can tell woofwood/Alan is a really great guy, and well-intentioned, I just think there are some big problems with the Brief. Some can be addressed in the reply brief, but it needs to be looked at now.

Then address them. It's your duty, if you are indeed on our side in securing our right to keep and bear arms, to do so.

You needn't do so publicly. Wolfwood is counsel. You can engage him in PM.

curtisfong
03-02-2013, 9:41 AM
Agreed. This is a perfect opportunity to make a real difference.

hoffmang
03-03-2013, 1:26 PM
Other types of businesses may very well have the same restrictions. The problem here is that CGF never looked into this to challenge the ordinance. The only other businesses with distance restrictions are adult entertainment businesses. FFLs can certainly be restricted to commercial districts, but there is a critical difference. FFLs and adult entertainment businesses are protected by the constitution in ways that steel mills are not. The reason the 1000' adult ordinance withstands scrutiny is there is actual evidence that there are secondary negative effects. There are no known studies that law abiding gun stores cause crime or other negative effects that don't attack the right itself (aka, the incorrect more guns = more crime bs.)

It's not a mystery what facts would need to be pled, the court gives a clear guide in the opinion. I'm reasonably sure the court is competent to conduct the analysis.


CGF has not secured a single "gun right" despite all of their failed litigation.
I disagree (http://calgunsfoundation.org/news-blog/blog/entry/cgf-and-carry-in-california.html). There is more too.

What i don't understand is WHY? CGF could not see the light and tell the clients that it would be best to find another store?
The various interactions are likely a de-facto ban on new or re-opened gun stores. The real problem with this case was the issue about the appeal being out of time. That was clarified during the PI, so we're excited to narrow the issues. The point of this litigation is to force the Circuit into conflict with Ezell and Bateman (but of course that's a district court decision.) The issue is that you need a denial of a CUP to have clean constitutional litigation. That is a large part of the value of this particular dispute. You can trust that the businessmen in question are far more motivated to find a location, but that is incredibly hard.

This particular fight is just beginning.

-Gene

goober
03-03-2013, 2:04 PM
The various interactions are likely a de-facto ban on new or re-opened gun stores.

Yup.

AlexDD
03-03-2013, 5:10 PM
The only other businesses with distance restrictions are adult entertainment businesses. FFLs can certainly be restricted to commercial districts, but there is a critical difference. FFLs and adult entertainment businesses are protected by the constitution in ways that steel mills are not. The reason the 1000' adult ordinance withstands scrutiny is there is actual evidence that there are secondary negative effects. There are no known studies that law abiding gun stores cause crime or other negative effects that don't attack the right itself (aka, the incorrect more guns = more crime bs.)


Thanks for the info. Useful for me if this ever comes up.

I am concerned for FFLs that they will be conditioned with costly measures such as security, cameras both in store & out, building reinforcing, even how the customer interacts with the gun, etc... as a business unfriendly dis-incentive. Kind of what is done with check cashing and/or "undesirable" places some times.

It would be hard for a City to do this if they already had a Big 5 but not so much if they currently lack an FFL.

I will have to check but I recall a City that had a bunch of stuff in their ordinance already regulating FFL operations. At least the requirement to reinforce the building rings a bell.

AlexDD
03-03-2013, 5:42 PM
Here is the ordinance from the City of Piedmont

http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/html/city_code/pdf/chapter12C.pdf

Here is just some of it. Riflegear would look like a prison building if Fountain Valley had the do this with the window bars....

"SEC. 12C.5 REQUIREMENT OF SECURED FACILITY
12C.5.1 In addition to the conditions of approval stated in Section 12C.4, the business location as shown on the police permit shall be a secured facility meeting all of the following specifications:
(a) Every perimeter doorway shall include one of the following:
(i) A windowless steel security door, equipped with both a dead bolt and a doorknob lock, or
(ii) A windowed metal door that is equipped with both a dead bolt and a doorknob lock. If the window has an opening of five inches or more measured in any direction, the window shall be covered with steel bars of at least one-half inch diameter or metal grating of at least nine gauge affixed to the exterior or interior of the door;
(b) Every perimeter doorway shall also be provided with an exterior metal grate that
is padlocked and affixed to the permittee's premises independent of the door and the door frame;
(c) Every window covered with steel bars;
(d) Heating, ventilating, air-conditioning and service openings are secured with steel 12C -4........." See PDF for more.

sfpcservice
03-03-2013, 6:20 PM
Tincon-

How many cases have you won in court for the 2A?
How many cases have you lost for the 2A?

I'm not sure what the objective of your post is... But do you have something better going on? If so please share because we are all on the same side.... At least I think we are.

Tincon
03-03-2013, 7:49 PM
The point of this litigation is to force the Circuit into conflict with Ezell and Bateman

Wait wait wait. Ezell (Bateman is district court so lets not even go there) was a win. So, when you say the "point of this litigation is to force the Circuit into conflict with Ezell" what you mean is your purpose in litigating is to lose at the Circuit level? It that actually what you are saying? :banghead:

Tincon
03-03-2013, 7:50 PM
If so please share because we are all on the same side.... At least I think we are.

Yeah I used to think that too. Now I'm less sure.

kcbrown
03-03-2013, 8:18 PM
Wait wait wait. Ezell (Bateman is district court so lets not even go there) was a win. So, when you say the "point of this litigation is to force the Circuit into conflict with Ezell" what you mean is your purpose in litigating is to lose at the Circuit level? It that actually what you are saying? :banghead:

I suspect not. Ezell was cited in a supportive fashion in the motion for preliminary injunction (http://ia600408.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.cand.256462/gov.uscourts.cand.256462.21.0.pdf).

My suspicion is that he's saying that the purpose is to put the 9th Circuit in conflict with Ezell [/i]if the 9th circuit gives us the loss[/i]. Which is to say, if we win in the 9th Circuit, the 9th Circuit will presumably not be in conflict with Ezell.

Tincon
03-03-2013, 8:25 PM
Which is to say, if we win in the 9th Circuit, the 9th Circuit will presumably not be in conflict with Ezell.

Right. Except what Gene said was the "point of this litigation is to force the (9th) Circuit into conflict with Ezell." If we win then there is no conflict. So apparently CGF is trying to force the 9th Circuit into ruling against us.

I guess if you can't do anything but lose you might as well declare that to be your strategy. And somehow there is still confusion as to why I am so frustrated with CGF.

Gene you really might want to read FRCP 11.

wildhawker
03-03-2013, 8:59 PM
I'm going to ignore your FRCP remark and simply ask if you went to the "don't let Parker/Heller get to SCOTUS - we don't want to ask them a question we are afraid of the answer to" school of activism.

-Brandon

Right. Except what Gene said was the "point of this litigation is to force the (9th) Circuit into conflict with Ezell." If we win then there is no conflict. So apparently CGF is trying to force the 9th Circuit into ruling against us.

I guess if you can't do anything but lose you might as well declare that to be your strategy. And somehow there is still confusion as to why I am so frustrated with CGF.

Gene you really might want to read FRCP 11.

bussda
03-03-2013, 9:20 PM
Right. Except what Gene said was the "point of this litigation is to force the (9th) Circuit into conflict with Ezell." If we win then there is no conflict. So apparently CGF is trying to force the 9th Circuit into ruling against us.

I guess if you can't do anything but lose you might as well declare that to be your strategy. And somehow there is still confusion as to why I am so frustrated with CGF.

...

Chess, not checkers.

The only to get the Supreme Court to grant cert is to have a very interesing case or have conflicting circuits. The need now for Supreme Court review is so it is more difficult for a later court reinterperts an earlier decision.

And the loser appeals, thus controlling which cases are reviewed for cert. And frames the argument.

kcbrown
03-03-2013, 9:45 PM
Right. Except what Gene said was the "point of this litigation is to force the (9th) Circuit into conflict with Ezell." If we win then there is no conflict. So apparently CGF is trying to force the 9th Circuit into ruling against us.


I doubt it. I suspect his statement is based on his expectations of the 9th Circuit with respect to the 2nd Amendment in general, and not with respect to this specific case.

Which is to say, I suspect he expects the 9th Circuit to disregard Ezell, and any other such jurisprudence which supports the right, in favor of jurisprudence (if/where it exists at all) which would allow them to justify denial of the right.


Bottom line: you're reading what he's saying as a statement about the case, when I believe you should be reading it as a statement about his expectations of the 9th Circuit.

ucsbgirlie18
03-03-2013, 9:55 PM
An opinion was filed today in Teixeira v. County of Alameda (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=588439). The court granted the county's motion to dismiss plaintiff's 2A claims as plaintiffs failed to state sufficient factual allegations to support a claim. As such the case did not survive the pleadings stage. I believe this is the 11th such dismissal based on insufficient pleadings thus far on CGF's illustrious litigation record.

WOW. I had no idea CGF's litigation track record was this bad. I've previously donated several times to CGF, but after seeing this, and NRA's successes in CA, I will be donating to the NRA from this point forward and I will be recommending that others do the same.

curtisfong
03-03-2013, 10:26 PM
And if your opponent makes mistakes, the court will ignore them, and probably even go so far as to fix them for your opponents.

Hmm...

Why didn't she just yield her allotted time to the judges to argue her case. She sounded like a) she was on the verge of crying during her whole case and b) she was an unprepared law student who was being lectured by her professors.


WOW. I had no idea CGF's litigation track record was this bad. I've previously donated several times to CGF, but after seeing this, and NRA's successes in CA, I will be donating to the NRA from this point forward and I will be recommending that others do the same.

Oh please. Stop being so dramatic. Until tincon and his new "crew" can prove their efficacy, stop playing chicken little.

hoffmang
03-03-2013, 10:36 PM
Right. Except what Gene said was the "point of this litigation is to force the (9th) Circuit into conflict with Ezell." If we win then there is no conflict. So apparently CGF is trying to force the 9th Circuit into ruling against us.
I wish to simply put a panel of the 9th Circuit in the no win situation that ruling for us would be pro-gun and ruling against us would create a circuit split allowing us to go to SCOTUS to end the issue. I'm sorry that's hard for you to understand.
WOW. I had no idea CGF's litigation track record was this bad. I've previously donated several times to CGF, but after seeing this, and NRA's successes in CA, I will be donating to the NRA from this point forward and I will be recommending that others do the same.

Yeah. CGF sucks (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/news-blog/blog/entry/cgf-and-carry-in-california.html).

-Gene

IPSICK
03-03-2013, 11:11 PM
Yes, CGF blows. Seems like I am having a hard time setting up recurring donations to you guys. I thought it was set but apparently not. Now, I'm stuck with manual and irregular donation intervals. You guys have a lot of work ahead of you and I need to be able to contribute in $ome meager way.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-04-2013, 5:27 AM
The real problem with this case was the issue about the appeal being out of time. That was clarified during the PI, so we're excited to narrow the issues.

This one wins the prize for "funniest spin". :laugh:

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-04-2013, 5:53 AM
Finally got around to reading the briefs and the motion for preliminary injunction makes some novel "irreparable harm" arguments:

This fact is set forth herein because the County of Alameda has history of engaging civil rights plaintiffs in formal litigation for decades and then claiming that they wanted to settle the matter all along. See Nordyke v. King, 681 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2012)(en banc).

So, are you saying this is going to be another 13 year long fiasco ending in a humiliating defeat like Nordyke? :laugh:

However there is a unique harm to civil rights litigants who bring their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1988. The latest trend in defending municipalities is for the governments to changes their laws, or merely the interpretation of its laws and then call “Olly, Olly, Oxen, Free” to escape the consequences of their conduct under Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc., et al., v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, et. al. 532 U.S. 598 (2002). This was precisely the gamesmanship employed by Alameda County in Nordyke v. King, 681 F.3d 1041 (9 Cir. 2012)(en banc).

I guess that is what you're saying lol.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs (Donald Kilmer) is also counsel of record of the Nordykes in that case. This issue of ducking monetary liability via the Buckhannon case was addressed in a Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Docket No.: 12-275. On October 10, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Alameda County to file a response in that matter.

How'd that cert petition play out by the way? :laugh:

And since this case is vulnerable to the same kind of “reinterpretation” of how the “500 foot rule” is measured, the County of Alameda has every incentive to “Buckhannon” this case if they begin to see that an adverse ruling might be headed their way. If the County pulls that stunt, then by definition monetary remedies will be foreclosed and the Plaintiffs will be out any lost profits from the delay in opening their gun store.

You mean just like Alameda County did when it won every motion and appeal in Nordyke over a 13 year period? :laugh:

This is one of the most pathetic arguments I've ever seen, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-04-2013, 5:58 AM
In case anyone is wondering, I will not be submitting a writing sample or starting my own 2A litigation foundation (and if you think that excuses or justifies someone else filing turds then I can't help you!). :laugh:

curtisfong
03-04-2013, 7:56 AM
Then what justifies your posting, if you refuse to do anything constructive?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-04-2013, 8:14 AM
Then what justifies your posting, if you refuse to do anything constructive?

Same justification as anyone else who posts on an internet discussion forum lol:

2nd Amend. Related Legal & Political Discussion Discuss gun rights and 2A related political topics here.

curtisfong
03-04-2013, 8:17 AM
Same justification as anyone else who posts on an internet discussion forum lol:
That isn't a justification.

It just makes you look like a whiner uninterested in being productive. Perhaps that is the image you are trying to project. If so, you're doing a great job! Carry on.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-04-2013, 8:20 AM
Thanks, I will! :laugh:

curtisfong
03-04-2013, 8:24 AM
Is there anything anybody could do to encourage you to be a productive member?

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
03-04-2013, 8:33 AM
Probably not. But I'm feeling generous this morning so here are some suggestions that I hope will be productive:


check your facts before you file a motion for preliminary injunction;
highlighting how badly you lost your last case is probably not the winningest strategy. :laugh: