View Single Post
  #64  
Old 01-09-2013, 9:09 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The clients had this if they wanted it in 2006. They had it again in 2012, after 6 more years of litigation and about a million dollars in fees and lost profits (and don't forget that nearly all that time they didn't have gun shows with guns lol). Not what I would call a good bang for your buck!
Alameda responded to spec rogs under penalty of perjury, and stipulated on 9/1/2006 in a Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (fact #88) that county counsel was the proper person to interpret the ordinance. Can you point to an interpretation from county counsel in or about 2006 that contradicted the existing "no guns" interpretation? Appellate lawyer bloviations don't clear the bank when they are contradicted by the official position of the county. A lawyer's one liner hypothetical taken out of context isn't the same as reserving the fairgrounds and actually having a gun show.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).
Reply With Quote