Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-07-2013, 10:43 PM
mud99 mud99 is offline
Make Calguns Great Again
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Someone should start one of those whitehouse.gov petitions to get scotus to reconsider this.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-07-2013, 11:34 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,953
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mud99 View Post
Someone should start one of those whitehouse.gov petitions to get scotus to reconsider this.
Whether the SCOTUS hears it or not will not effect gun rights. The appeal was on the denial of attorney's fees.... a win at SCOTUS would only insure the good guys get paid for over a decade of hard work. The title is correct: RIP because people could care less if an attorney gets paid... even if he is a really cool guy, and especially if tax money is going to pay him...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-08-2013, 4:52 AM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 346
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Well I think it can be safely said that after 6 plus years of appeals and nearly a million dollars in fees and lost profits, it has been conclusively determined that both of you were wrong.
Again, I am amazed that you find "safety" in the lack of due process for the "determination" that Judge O'Scannlain and I were wrong. Furthermore, the case went on for 12 years, while your theory of the case is that the county capitulated after 6. So why did the court deny a hearing for losses during those first six years?

Finally, losing a court case is not the same as being wrong.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Unconsciously borrowed from: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." — Judge Learned Hand

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-08-2013, 5:13 AM
GM4spd's Avatar
GM4spd GM4spd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 4,126
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
:




6 years of appeals and they "won" exactly the same thing they already had when they started!

I thought he was right about this. I never understood this case going forward. Pete
__________________
NRA LIFE (1974)
No,my Colt ARs came already assembled---correctly!
I had a commission/USNR from 71-77 but never consider myself a Veteran.
The problem is HEADSPACE between the ears!
Obama for 8 years will be the worst thing to happen to
our country since the Civil War.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-08-2013, 5:21 AM
billmaykafer's Avatar
billmaykafer billmaykafer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: san diego,ca
Posts: 1,266
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

makes me glad to have Don on our side. pitbull.
__________________
MOLON LABE
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-08-2013, 5:35 AM
vmwerks's Avatar
vmwerks vmwerks is offline
Oy vey
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,276
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Arma View Post
Again, I am amazed that you find "safety" in the lack of due process for the "determination" that Judge O'Scannlain and I were wrong. Furthermore, the case went on for 12 years, while your theory of the case is that the county capitulated after 6. So why did the court deny a hearing for losses during those first six years?

Finally, losing a court case is not the same as being wrong.
Please use small words.. may I suggest anything under 3 letters?

Don thank you for all your hard work, SOME of us appreciate your efforts and regret your lack of well earned fees.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-08-2013, 6:59 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 5,710
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Thanks to all those who endured this travesty of the legal system for our 2A rights. This is disgraceful.
__________________
NRA Life Endowment Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-08-2013, 8:22 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any way to find out how much the county spent on this fiasco, only to say at the last minute that "we never said they couldn't be tethered..."

Could be useful in the next election cycle?
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

So it turns out the speed of light is not constant. That means we really know nothing about our beginning; scientifically of course...
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-08-2013, 8:50 AM
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,463
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for all the hard work!
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Endowment Life Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-08-2013, 8:55 AM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Regardless of the final outcome the case, it is historic nonetheless. The case has survived all this time during which the entire body of modern 2A law was developed. It's remarkable in its own right. And let's not forget that it was Don who argued successfully and helped incorporated the 2A right through the due process clause of the 14 Amendment in Nordyke v. King, 563 F. 3d 439 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2009. This gave rise to many of the CGF cases which are still ongoing. The path forged was the same that was followed succesfully in McDonald.

I think it can be said that only two lawyers in American history can say that they have done that.

My hat is off to you Don.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-09-2013, 6:05 AM
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


Here is a quiz, which is from 2007 and which is from 2012? This:



or this:




6 years of appeals and they "won" exactly the same thing they already had when they started!
Fabio,

It's been a little while since I've seen you post. Welcome back from the holidays.

Your quotes are readily distinguished.
Before:
"... the unqualified word, “event,” that preserves the possibility ... including Plaintiffs’ gun shows."

After:
"... the County affirmatively asserts that Plaintiffs, when conducting a gun show ..."

The difference would be clearer if you included this language in the latter:
"The County represents that a sturdy cable attaching the firearm to a fixture, such as a table, would suffice ..."
This is a gross departure from the county's prior stance. You wouldn't buy a beanie baby if you couldn't see it first because it was offsite in a DOJ approved opaque container, would you?

The plaintiffs got the relief they wanted. The county is now required to interpret their own ordinance in such a manner as to allow gun shows to be conducted with firearms available to be fondled by prospective customers. I would call that a "win."

The attorney fees are only at issue after the merits are decided. If you "win" a personal injury case but don't get attorney fees, is that suddenly a loss?

You are welcome to criticize, but many of us realize this wasn't a victory by default in a super gun-friendly jurisdiction. Lex Arma did a phenomenal job on a protracted nightmare of a case, battling Sauron in the depths of Mordor.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña 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
  #52  
Old 01-09-2013, 6:59 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
The difference would be clearer if you included this language in the latter:
"The County represents that a sturdy cable attaching the firearm to a fixture, such as a table, would suffice ..."
This is a gross departure from the county's prior stance.
Not at all. Refer to the laundry list here.

Quote:
The plaintiffs got the relief they wanted.
Strangely, the plaintiffs never argued "gun shows ok with guns secured," they appealed that very determination in 2007, and fought that interpretation to the bitter end lol. If they really wanted gun shows with guns secured, this case could have been over 13 years ago with a simple declaratory relief action. This was a farce and collossal waste of judicial resources IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-09-2013, 11:06 AM
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
Not at all. Refer to the laundry list here.

Strangely, the plaintiffs never argued "gun shows ok with guns secured," they appealed that very determination in 2007, and fought that interpretation to the bitter end lol. If they really wanted gun shows with guns secured, this case could have been over 13 years ago with a simple declaratory relief action. This was a farce and collossal waste of judicial resources IMO.
Just because it is proposed in an oral argument or a brief does not make it so. Despite your laundry list, Alameda County's implementation of their ordinance did not allow the Nordyke's to reserve the fairgrounds unless they agreed that the gun show would take place with "no guns present." They argued on January 15, 2009, that the actual transfer of firearms could take place off county property, which of course violates the requirement that transfers take place on premises or at licensed gun shows. It is common practice to cable guns to the table at quite a few gun shows that I have attended, but that was not acceptable to Alameda until after the oral argument.

For instance, if an attorney representing an official of the State of California indicates in oral argument that part of the "very meaningful" ability to exercise 2nd amendment rights includes the right to carry on private property that I own or have permission of the owner, does that suddenly mean I can carry in publicly accessible private property like my front yard, or in HOA common areas where I am a part owner, or a parking lot with permission?

Your position necessarily eliminates all "as applied" challenges, because the challenged ordinance/statute could be applied in a constitutional manner; however, we should disregard that it is applied unconstitutionally in practice until after the oral argument.

It is unrealistic to imposing some sort of requirement that Plaintiff should have somehow divined that cables would be acceptable in light of Alameda's position that nothing short of "off site" was acceptable in practice. Even if they had asked that exact particular question, the response in 2007 would have been something similar to "what part of 'NO' don't you understand?"
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-09-2013, 1:13 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
Just because it is proposed in an oral argument or a brief does not make it so.
When you argue an interpretation in a motion for summary judgment, and the court grants the motion and adopts your interpretation, it kinda does lol.

Quote:
Despite your laundry list, Alameda County's implementation of their ordinance did not allow the Nordyke's to reserve the fairgrounds unless they agreed that the gun show would take place with "no guns present."
When, in August 1999 before the ordinance was amended to include the secured guns exception?

Quote:
They argued on January 15, 2009, that the actual transfer of firearms could take place off county property, which of course violates the requirement that transfers take place on premises or at licensed gun shows
You might want to quote what was actually said with a little more precision, and in context, i.e., answering a direct question posed by one of the panel judges who had bought into the plaintiffs' "no guns, no exception" interpretation. The county consistently argued during that hearing that the Nordykes could have guns shows with guns secured, which means, obviously, gun shows with guns present and secured if not in the immediate possession of participants.

Quote:
It is common practice to cable guns to the table at quite a few gun shows that I have attended, but that was not acceptable to Alameda until after the oral argument.
Which oral argument? It was the county that said, at the first en banc hearing, that cabling guns to the table would meet the secured guns exception. Perhaps you meant that guns cabled to the table were not acceptable to the Nordykes lol:

"The answer is no, we cannot conduct a gun show with guns tethered to the tables."

"We cannot run a gun show with guns cabled to a...to a table your honor."

If gun shows with guns cabled to tables was what the Nordykes wanted all along, that might have been an appropriate time to say so lol.

Quote:
It is unrealistic to imposing some sort of requirement that Plaintiff should have somehow divined that cables would be acceptable in light of Alameda's position that nothing short of "off site" was acceptable in practice. Even if they had asked that exact particular question, the response in 2007 would have been something similar to "what part of 'NO' don't you understand?"
They never bothered to ask, did they? Nor did they take any initiative whatsoever to propose it. That was because it wasn't what they wanted, despite their now claiming that this was some big "win."

In 2010 the county attorney called the plaintiffs' attorney to talk about how the plaintiffs would like to secure guns at their gun shows but the plaintiffs' attorney hung up on him. This particular exchange in the briefs filed after last year's en banc hearing could not be any more embarassing.

Reality check: even when the original panel was sold on "no guns, no exception," this case was a loser. The Nordykes never wanted guns shows with guns cabled to the table, and nobody whose decision matters agreed that this was a "win."

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 01-09-2013 at 1:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-09-2013, 3:28 PM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 346
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
When you argue an interpretation in a motion for summary judgment, and the court grants the motion and adopts your interpretation, it kinda does lol.



When, in August 1999 before the ordinance was amended to include the secured guns exception?



You might want to quote what was actually said with a little more precision, and in context, i.e., answering a direct question posed by one of the panel judges who had bought into the plaintiffs' "no guns, no exception" interpretation. The county consistently argued during that hearing that the Nordykes could have guns shows with guns secured, which means, obviously, gun shows with guns present and secured if not in the immediate possession of participants.



Which oral argument? It was the county that said, at the first en banc hearing, that cabling guns to the table would meet the secured guns exception. Perhaps you meant that guns cabled to the table were not acceptable to the Nordykes lol:

"The answer is no, we cannot conduct a gun show with guns tethered to the tables."

"We cannot run a gun show with guns cabled to a...to a table your honor."

If gun shows with guns cabled to tables was what the Nordykes wanted all along, that might have been an appropriate time to say so lol.



They never bothered to ask, did they? Nor did they take any initiative whatsoever to propose it. That was because it wasn't what they wanted, despite their now claiming that this was some big "win."

In 2010 the county attorney called the plaintiffs' attorney to talk about how the plaintiffs would like to secure guns at their gun shows but the plaintiffs' attorney hung up on him. This particular exchange in the briefs filed after last year's en banc hearing could not be any more embarassing.

Reality check: even when the original panel was sold on "no guns, no exception," this case was a loser. The Nordykes never wanted guns shows with guns cabled to the table, and nobody whose decision matters agreed that this was a "win."
Just like the County, you are cherry picking facts. The JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS for the summary judgment stipulated that County Counsel (Richard Winnie) was the only Alameda official authorized to interpret the ordinance. His interpretation in 1999 (after the amendment for secured guns), which has never been modified, was that no guns could be present at gun shows held at the fairgrounds.

That is a completely different set of facts from the Court holding a party to an interpretation of the law made by outside counsel in the Court of Appeals after the close of evidence.

This is simple, the Ninth Circuit hated this case. The County gave them an excuse to shut it down and they took it.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Unconsciously borrowed from: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." — Judge Learned Hand

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-09-2013, 3:46 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Arma View Post
The JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS for the summary judgment stipulated that County Counsel (Richard Winnie) was the only Alameda official authorized to interpret the ordinance.
i'll bet you 5 bucks it doesnt say that lol.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-09-2013, 3:48 PM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,667
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Fabio is the smart annoying child you love to hate. Is it still a mystery who he is?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-09-2013, 4:49 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's becoming even more clear how weighty a role the super lame "county counsel said this in 1999 and he is authorized to interpret the ordinance and its in the joint statement so the county is stuck with that interpretation forever" argument played in the decision to litigate this stinker for more than a decade. It's the fallback in every discussion on calguns and also when the case was circling the drain at the en banc hearing. The judges were like "so what?" lol. Which is the response that any judge in their right mind would have.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-09-2013, 4:57 PM
putput's Avatar
putput putput is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Thanks Otis, Thanks Alan!
Posts: 758
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

And you got your clients their gun shows back. With guns. Nice work and thanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Arma View Post
Just like the County, you are cherry picking facts. The JOINT STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS for the summary judgment stipulated that County Counsel (Richard Winnie) was the only Alameda official authorized to interpret the ordinance. His interpretation in 1999 (after the amendment for secured guns), which has never been modified, was that no guns could be present at gun shows held at the fairgrounds.

That is a completely different set of facts from the Court holding a party to an interpretation of the law made by outside counsel in the Court of Appeals after the close of evidence.

This is simple, the Ninth Circuit hated this case. The County gave them an excuse to shut it down and they took it.
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-09-2013, 5:04 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by putput View Post
And you got your clients their gun shows back. With guns. Nice work and thanks.
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!

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 01-09-2013 at 5:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-09-2013, 5:13 PM
putput's Avatar
putput putput is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Thanks Otis, Thanks Alan!
Posts: 758
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

But now they're going to have their gun shows with guns. Aren't they?



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!
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-09-2013, 5:20 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Cant argue with that observation lol!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-09-2013, 5:35 PM
Ferrum's Avatar
Ferrum Ferrum is offline
Janitors Mop
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,222
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Regardless of the legal nuances, I respect the time you put into this.

Based on all of the posts, I am making a Summary Judgment to say it was a worth while effort (that my $2 lawyer word of the day, sponsored by Denny Crane).

Wished it would have went the other way for you! You deserve to be compensated for your time!
Reply With Quote
  #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: Peña 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
  #65  
Old 01-10-2013, 6:10 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
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.
Maybe you can quote what the joint statement actually says lol.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 01-10-2013 at 6:28 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-10-2013, 7:58 AM
jacques jacques is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Goleta
Posts: 2,482
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
It was a crap shoot to go to the SCOTUS and sometimes the "dice" just don't roll your way, but if you don't try, the dice will never role your way.

Right now our side is going through a filtering process where we are seperating the "civil rights folks" from the "hobbyists and sportspersons".

Don took the case on principle, something that many people sadly are lacking.

Don, I know this is a huge letdown, but you did what few others would do because unlike others, you are a pitbull and you stick with your principles and your beliefs.

Don just got beaten down really bad, as a community our response should be supportive because if any of us got beaten down, we would want people to help us up.

Nicki
Right on nicki.

Thanks Don for all the hard work.!!!!!!!
We need fighters in this battle. Not sideline critics. This is a Civil Rights movement not a soccer game.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-11-2013, 6:07 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
Maybe you can quote what the joint statement actually says lol.
The joint statement says: "Fabio evades answering questions when he knows he is wrong. The definitive tell is 'lol.' " (JSUF #123).

It sounds like you have nothing other than your self-serving laundry list. If you had a counterargument, you would have brought it forward. When you can convince anyone that county counsel is not the appropriate person to interpret a county ordinance (subject to judicial review), let me know.

Your beanie babies are safe due to Lex Arma's hard work. Take two seconds and say thank you.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña 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
  #68  
Old 01-11-2013, 9:27 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fizux View Post
The joint statement says: "Fabio evades answering questions when he knows he is wrong. The definitive tell is 'lol.' " (JSUF #123).
One thing at a time lol. First we need to see the exact language from the sacred text which, surprisingly, you haven't provided!

(While you're at it, take a wild guess who represented the county throughout the Nordyke litigation and whose name is on all the pleadings. It's a tough one, I hope you don't strain yourself trying to figure it out. )
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-11-2013, 9:45 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunlawyer View Post
Ahhh the elusive FGG is finally revealed?

Hmm Mr. Sayre Weaver from Yale, Ct is it. Hmmmmm.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-11-2013, 10:10 PM
jpigeon's Avatar
jpigeon jpigeon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Moreno Valley Province, Peoples Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 870
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

RIP
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-12-2013, 10:57 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

JSUF #88 Nordyke Undisputed Facts.pdf.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-12-2013, 11:49 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
JSUF #88 Attachment 192629.

-Brandon
Yep, there it is, in black and white: county counsel is the only official authorized to interpret the ordinance. Oh wait, the JSUF doesn't say that. Just for fun, let's assume that's what the JSUF says. Maybe fizux can i.d. the county's attorneys of record in the Nordyke litigation so we can see whether the county's interpretation was "authorized." (By the way, you're not really arguing that the county's interpretation made during litigation was unauthorized, improper, and unofficial are you? Because if you are, it would be the most retarded argument ever made lol.)

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 01-12-2013 at 11:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:49 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.