Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   Oral Arguments happening now in SF - Question on Parties involved (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=653230)

mikestesting 12-06-2012 11:01 AM

Oral Arguments happening now in SF - Question on Parties involved
 
I'm following the twitter feed for Calguns. I'm new to this, so please be nice.

Who are the following?

Callahan
Clement
O'Scainain
Thomas
San Diego (I assume 'San Diego' is SD County defending their policy)

CaliB&R 12-06-2012 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikestesting (Post 9863476)
I'm following the twitter feed for Calguns. I'm new to this, so please be nice.

Who are the following?


Callahan - Judge
Clement - Counsel for Peruta
O'Scainlain - Judge
Thomas - Judge
San Diego - San Diego counsel

mikestesting 12-06-2012 11:08 AM

Thanks.

Barbarossa 12-06-2012 11:28 AM

Did Twitter Break? (@33 mins old)

Coded-Dude 12-06-2012 11:40 AM

I believe arguments are over, but could be wrong(maybe all their phones died - lol) I have gotten a few tweets in the last couple of minutes from other sources. The last ones about the case were these:

Gene Hoffman: @CalgunsFdn Panel pushes on the point that victims with permits can better defend themselves.

Calguns Foundation: O'Scainlain, but criminals aren't being issued permits?!

phrogg111 12-06-2012 11:52 AM

Question: "Aren't criminals being issued permits?"
Answer: "No, sir. Convicted criminals are not being issued permits, and calling people criminals before they are convicted of a crime is just making up names for them."

1BigPea 12-06-2012 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phrogg111 (Post 9863807)
Question: "Aren't criminals being issued permits?"
Answer: "No, sir. Convicted criminals are not being issued permits, and calling people criminals before they are convicted of a crime is just making up names for them."

Wow. Just wow.

kaligaran 12-06-2012 12:35 PM

I don't use twitter, is there an alternate way to get this information or a log posted somewhere with this info compiled?

And who asked this question?
"Aren't criminals being issued permits?"

Rock6.3 12-06-2012 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaligaran (Post 9864026)
I don't use twitter, is there an alternate way to get this information or a log posted somewhere with this info compiled?

And who asked this question?
"Aren't criminals being issued permits?"

Twitter is now silent as all of those present onsite are now lifting a glass to celebrate the performance of our side.

We now must await the after meal report.

Coded-Dude 12-06-2012 12:45 PM

You don't have to be a twitter user to see the tweets: https://twitter.com/CalgunsFdn

The first tweet about the case was 5 hours ago(And their first tweet of the day)...scroll down until you find it and the read the whole thing(bottom to top).

1BigPea 12-06-2012 1:30 PM

Thanks for the link https://twitter.com/CalgunsFdn I just read it all. Gura is a frigging Rock Star!

kaligaran 12-06-2012 1:39 PM

I assume there wasn't audio recorded or streamed?

The suspense is killing me...

non sequitur 12-06-2012 1:41 PM

Oral Arguments - audio
 
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/index_video.php

You must type "12/06/2012" in the Hearing Date box and click on search.

kaligaran 12-06-2012 1:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur (Post 9864397)
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/index_video.php

You must type "12/06/2012" in the Hearing Date box and click on search.

Thank you so much!

Ubermcoupe 12-06-2012 1:50 PM

Twitter “post limited” the feed? anyone else see this? I guess there are too many posts coming in?

Nick Justice 12-06-2012 2:08 PM

Praying for a favorable decision. But look at how much resistence gun rights have met simce Heller and McDonald. Courts are scared to death of "expanding" the right. They don't want to be the first.
Judges hate making decisions without another case precedent. They hate it. I know several. They cannot stand "breaking new ground". And this is how they see it.

Casual_Shooter 12-06-2012 2:09 PM

Listening now... thanks for the link.

speedrrracer 12-06-2012 2:31 PM

Listening to the audio. Many thanks to non_sequitur.

Early impression: Clement (the first lawyer speaking at length, it appears) does not do a good job framing his points when he speaks. He has all the necessary knowledge to win this case, but isn't putting the points forth in his verbiage in anything close to an optimal way. He recovered well in his extra time for rebuttal, or whatever. Maybe that's his strong suit.

2nd lawyer (Chapin?) is an effective spreader of FUD. The female judge seems to pwn him from time to time.

The 2nd lawyer is totally throwing the State law under the bus. He has all but said the State law is unconstitutional, and in fact dodged a direct question asking exactly that. That should be usable as evidence: An actor for the government claims the government's law is unconstitutional in a friggin court of law. But I'm sure it's not, and it's just accepted that he's trying to muddy the waters and whatever he actually says holds no weight.

The first speaker (man, Holcomb?) in the Hawaii case needs to be removed. Unworthy. He was totally beeyotched by the woman who seemed to have a stuffy nose. Proof to me that 2A legislation is often in the wrong hands. A painful beat-down for our side.

In the 3rd audio file, Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here. Or maybe he wasn't bringing his A game? Maybe speaking isn't his strong suit? His opponent did the best job of any of the three, as least as long as you accept without questioning what he presents as facts...

In sum, it's really depressing to hear how the 2nd Amendment is treated. Phrases like, "There must be some way, some how, however restricted and limited by the State, to exercise the right..." from our side(!) make me believe the Framers are spinning in their grave at what we have become...

Barbarossa 12-06-2012 2:32 PM

Thanks listening in as well

rivraton 12-06-2012 2:50 PM

Audio linK:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6/10-56971.wma

kaligaran 12-06-2012 3:00 PM

Just finished listening.

I know these things are always long and drawn out. Is there an estimate on the timeframe for a decision or is that too unknown to even guess?

mrrsquared79 12-06-2012 3:50 PM

Are there three different and separate audio streams(cases)? I thought they all are under one stream?

Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6/10-56971.wma

Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6/12-16258.wma

Adam Richards, et al. v. Ed Prieto, et al. found here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6/11-16255.wma

Is this correct?????:confused:

Coded-Dude 12-06-2012 3:56 PM

yes three separate audio files

mrrsquared79 12-06-2012 3:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coded-Dude (Post 9865169)
yes three separate audio files

Thanks!

mikestesting 12-06-2012 4:04 PM

I just finished listening to Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego. I'm not a lawyer or an expert on law, but I think San Diego got their ***** handed to them :)

Drivedabizness 12-06-2012 4:08 PM

They must be having one helluva lunch

Meplat 12-06-2012 4:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock6.3 (Post 9864041)
Twitter is now silent as all of those present onsite are now lifting a glass to celebrate the performance of our side.

We now must await the after meal report.



I think you mean the after hangover report!:43:

mrrsquared79 12-06-2012 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikestesting (Post 9865220)
I just finished listening to Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego. I'm not a lawyer or an expert on law, but I think San Diego got their ***** handed to them :)

:iagree:

Starting audio for HI case now.

mrrsquared79 12-06-2012 4:20 PM

LOVE the end where our side says the Heller/McDonald cases can not be ignored!!

:owned:

sighere 12-06-2012 4:35 PM

2 weeks!

mrrsquared79 12-06-2012 4:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sighere (Post 9865392)
2 weeks!

Was this what you were looking for: :twoweeks:

curtisfong 12-06-2012 4:42 PM

Two weeks until kcbrown is proven right, and the judges completely ignore logic and the law.

Onwards and upwards to SCOTUS.

safewaysecurity 12-06-2012 4:52 PM

Just listened to all 3. The Baker attorney sounded like he just ripped a big one off of the bong before he spoke. Gura and Clement did great jobs as usual. The lawyer for Yolo was just saying so much untrue crap I couldn't keep track. I hope CA7and 10 release their decisions already. Those cases are long overdue.

mag360 12-06-2012 5:03 PM

when defendant counsel says things like "it is perfectly legal to carry in many places, your own property, or business for instance" or basically lying "you have to unload your gun in the restaurant" (in reference to some type of unloaded open carry??)

How come Gura isn't asking, but how do they arrive their safely? How do they respond to a threat on the road if the gun is locked up or in the trunk.

The silliness is in the details of these California laws.

wash 12-06-2012 5:03 PM

I'm bad at judging these things but the council for San Diego seemed to be not very good at oral arguments, the council for Yolo seemed more able but his argument was weak and the council for Hawaii kept talking about things unrelated to the case hoping that she could convince the panel that guns are bad so unconstitutional laws are ok.

Clement was ok, Gura did fine and the Hawaii lawyer on our side was a little overwhelmed but still far better than his opponent.

To me it sounds like Richards is a slam dunk and the judgement might create the relief that Peruta seeks and the Hawaii case is a question mark but I'm hopeful.

Any way that is my take on the proceedings.

The lunch was great too, they raffled off Gene's car. Mitch won but he gave it back.

mag360 12-06-2012 5:17 PM

why is there some Gorski case from 2004 in Sacramento causing a problem for peruta? I guess I hope that it doesn't screw anything up.

sfpcservice 12-06-2012 5:22 PM

Stand by for En Banc and a trip to SCOTUS.

mag360 12-06-2012 5:46 PM

i really like paul clement closing argument. essentially "why are we even here, heller already defined bear, lets respect that and move on".

tankarian 12-06-2012 6:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curtisfong (Post 9865431)
Two weeks until kcbrown is proven right, and the judges completely ignore logic and the law.

Onwards and upwards to SCOTUS.

Agreed.

Window_Seat 12-06-2012 6:40 PM

At the risk of getting laughed at, I think that Gura & Clement both slam dunked it today, and I couldn't ask for a better team on our side...

I think the Counties and the State of HI choked.

Erik.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.