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 11-09-2017, 1:44 PM
Adeodatus's Avatar
Adeodatus Adeodatus is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mountain View
Posts: 2,207
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Hey guys!

I will be there. I will be bringing my anti gun criminal law professor from SJSU. We have been debating a lot since the Las Vegas shooting and he is being open minded enough to come to a firearms meeting and hear more of the other side. Hoping to eventually convert him.
__________________
Certified Instructor for NRA Basic Pistol

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-09-2017, 7:09 PM
GW's Avatar
GW GW is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 14,385
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adeodatus View Post
Hey guys!

I will be there. I will be bringing my anti gun criminal law professor from SJSU. We have been debating a lot since the Las Vegas shooting and he is being open minded enough to come to a firearms meeting and hear more of the other side. Hoping to eventually convert him.
Good luck with that.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-09-2017, 7:57 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Meanwhile, FGG has provided nothing of any use to anyone here, ever.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 11-09-2017 at 8:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-09-2017, 9:52 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 772
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
You have been critical of CGF, and in many ways, rightly so. Your error is in not being equally critical (at least, that I've seen) of the other organizations that have attempted the same things. This makes you appear biased.
If you've been paying attention in your reading and actually comprehending my many comments on this subject (sometimes I tend to think that your pontification tendencies limit your comprehension abilities), you would have already understood that my biggest contentions with CGF are: 1. transparency of purpose, goals, and use of donors funds (note my long standing signature directed squarely at Gene), 2. leadership and organizational skills (the examples of behavior on this forum alone are too many to list), 3. General ineptitude in the courts that has nothing to do with left coast or 9th circuit bias (Hokeyson, anyone?) 4. Overall attitude. People will accept all of these issues if you deliver, but when you don't or can't deliver, you can't overcome the results of the withdrawals you've made from people's perceptual, emotional and actual bank accounts.

It's fair to say that other 2A organizations have fallen short on promises, but I think it's pretty fair to say that the criticisms that I've made publicly about CGF are the result of a fairly unique set of circumstances created solely by the principal actors of CGF.
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-09-2017, 9:54 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 772
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Meanwhile, FGG has provided nothing of any use to anyone here, ever.
I disagree. FCG has provide us with pretty accurate analysis of how most of the 2A litigation actions were going to play out, which has helped many of us make decisions about which organizations we choose to donate supporting funds to.
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-09-2017, 10:00 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
which has helped many of us make decisions about which organizations we choose to donate supporting funds to.
The results of which have been - nothing. Zero. Zilch.

Why? For the reasons kcbrown points out

1) the courts are political
2) the vast majority of lawyers either don't care that it is political, or they are in denial about it.

Heller came about because lawyers started talking behind the scenes, and slowly built support (and wrote papers) around the idea that the only thing supporting the "collectivist rights" interpretation of the 2A was the very racist Cruikshank, which was enough to get SCOTUS to rethink things beyond right/left politics.

FGG would never in a million years suggest anything as similarly accurate and constructive.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-09-2017, 10:14 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,195
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
2) the vast majority of lawyers either don't care that it is political, or they are in denial about it.
A lawyer's stock in trade is his time.
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf
I see the gulf of Mexico
As tiny as a tear
The coast of California
Must be somewhere over here, over here
Greatful Dead
“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-09-2017, 10:27 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
If you've been paying attention in your reading and actually comprehending my many comments on this subject (sometimes I tend to think that your pontification tendencies limit your comprehension abilities), you would have already understood that my biggest contentions with CGF are: 1. transparency of purpose, goals, and use of donors funds (note my long standing signature directed squarely at Gene), 2. leadership and organizational skills (the examples of behavior on this forum alone are too many to list), 3. General ineptitude in the courts that has nothing to do with left coast or 9th circuit bias (Hokeyson, anyone?) 4. Overall attitude. People will accept all of these issues if you deliver, but when you don't or can't deliver, you can't overcome the results of the withdrawals you've made from people's perceptual, emotional and actual bank accounts.
Yes, I understand that such has been your criticism of CGF and, as I said, your criticisms are generally valid. I don't dispute them.

The problem is that your criticisms are leveled at a single target or singular group of people, namely CGF and/or the people involved in it. You have not, that I have seen, leveled criticism at any other RKBA organization. Not CRPA, not NRA, not GOA. And the same is true of FGG, at least from what I've seen.


Quote:
It's fair to say that other 2A organizations have fallen short on promises, but I think it's pretty fair to say that the criticisms that I've made publicly about CGF are the result of a fairly unique set of circumstances created solely by the principal actors of CGF.
I agree that CGF and the actors within are more blatant in those respects than the others, but that is very different from the claim that CGF is unique in that respect.

For instance, this is from one of CRPA's bulletins:

Quote:

CRPA works relentlessly in California to defend your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Your CRPA membership dues and donations help CRPA to fight for your right to choose to responsibly own and use firearms for hunting, sport, or to defend yourself and your family.

CRPA is proud to be the official state association of the National Rifle Association (NRA). CRPA and NRA work together in California as a team fighting for your rights in Sacramento, in cities and counties across the state, in regulatory agencies, and in the courts. Working together, CRPA and NRA complement and enhance each other’s ongoing efforts and multiply their effectiveness, accomplishing more by working together on your behalf than either could accomplish working alone or separately in California.

Beware of imitators! The CRPA and NRA national team of highly regarded civil rights attorneys, legislative advocates, and scholars has the experience, resources, skill and expertise needed to maximize the potential for victory in California’s often hostile political environments.

Even with the generous rates that our team of civil rights attorneys, legislative advocates, experts and consultants grant us, these ongoing efforts are still expensive. You can support our pro-Second Amendment efforts in California by donating to the CRPA, CRPAF, or CRPA PAC. All dues and donations are spent to specifically benefit California gun owners.
That is most certainly not at the strength of the claims CGF has made, but it is of the same flavor.

So my observations about the bias you seem to possess stand, at least for now.


Don't get me wrong: CGF could be considered the worst of the lot (certainly they have proven to be the most arrogant by far, as evidenced by how they're the only organization that has declared their refusal to engage here while simultaneously insulting the entire readership here in the process), but that is very different from claiming that they are the only offender. All of the groups have failed to deliver, and CRPA, at the very least, continues to announce that they have what it takes to "maximize the potential for victory". It's basically the same song, sung to a somewhat milder tune. My problem with you isn't your criticism of CGF, it's with your apparent belief, based on your lack of criticism of the other organizations, that those other organizations don't have the same failings when they clearly do (though to a lesser degree).

Now, maybe I've been misreading you all this time. But you've been silent as regards criticism of CRPA and others, and your claim that CGF's actions make it clear where people should put their money clearly implies that there exist truly viable alternatives when none of those alternatives are truly viable at all, if actual forward progress is your litmus test (and, really, is there any other valid and objective one?). All of that is subject to change, but that is just as true of CGF as it is those other organizations, because the failure of all of those organizations arises from the same root cause, one which is beyond their control.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-10-2017 at 12:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 11-09-2017, 10:45 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: 2,843
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Heller came about because lawyers started talking behind the scenes, and slowly built support (and wrote papers) around the idea that the only thing supporting the "collectivist rights" interpretation of the 2A was the very racist Cruikshank, which was enough to get SCOTUS to rethink things beyond right/left politics.
Sure about that? lol.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-09-2017, 10:48 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Sure about that? lol.
Still waiting for something substantively useful.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 11-10-2017, 12:28 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: 2,843
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Still waiting for something substantively useful.
That "accurate and constructive" Heller strategy you mentioned never happened!!! That may be the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on calguns, you literally have no idea what you're talking about lol.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 11-10-2017, 7:51 AM
1bulletBarney's Avatar
1bulletBarney 1bulletBarney is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: West of Mayberry (209)
Posts: 1,550
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

lol...
__________________
NRA Member
NRA-ILA Contributor
CGN Contributor

36 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A of treachery...
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-10-2017, 10:23 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Still waiting for something coherent and constructive.

Or even the background on what changed in the insular court to make Heller possible that can be learned from.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-10-2017, 11:44 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,813
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
I disagree. FCG has provide us with pretty accurate analysis of how most of the 2A litigation actions were going to play out, which has helped many of us make decisions about which organizations we choose to donate supporting funds to.
Only partially true.

FGG has indeed correctly pointed out the flaws in many of the cases, but he still hasn't provided a winning strategy that would validate his approach. It's similar to KC Brown who has used a correlation-based analysis of the judges to come to the similar conclusion - we will lose.

Most of the time both of them were correct. Then Moore happened. Then initial Peruta happened. Then Wrenn happened. Then we got a PI in magazine case.

The problem for me, as a hard science guy, is that every time things didn't go as predicted, it invalidated the model (in KC's case) or legal reasoning (FGG's case). It's not their fault or a knock on either one, but it shows that the courts are inherently unpredictable and that they will adopt different doctrines on a whim, particularly in 2A cases.

Probably the best example of why I won't consider the above "a contribution" until KC/FGG help us win something is the most recent AW case coming out of 4th Circuit, where the court held that AWs are NOT protected under 2A. The similar cases upholding AWBs from other circuits came to the same conclusion, but used completely different arguments, including that AWs ARE protected under 2A. So, which one is it, are AWs protected by 2A or not? FGG would have to pick a side here and, no matter what he picks, there would be a panel that disagrees with him.

It's these inherent inconsistencies in our legal system that show there are multiple coherent and valid legal interpretations and the lower court battles are about selecting a single one that will be then confirmed by SCOTUS. Everyone else will end up "being wrong." The value is not in sticking to one of the interpretations and jeering every time it gets supported by a court, but in being able to influence which one of the interpretations will be the one to win at SCOTUS and become the official jurisprudence.

That's where I'd love to see someone like FGG succeed.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-10-2017, 12:14 PM
avbear63's Avatar
avbear63 avbear63 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: East Bay Nor Cal
Posts: 122
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the heads up. Sounds good.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-10-2017, 5:45 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,527
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I'm curious whether Gene intends on addressing the bungled handling of the CGF/FPC magazine ban case? Remember the Weise v. Becerra case, where they continued pursuing the case even after a failed preliminary injunction, even when the NRA/CRPA supported case Duncan v. Becerra case had already succeeded?
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 11-10-2017, 6:39 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,195
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
I'm curious whether Gene intends on addressing the bungled handling of the CGF/FPC magazine ban case? Remember the Weise v. Becerra case, where they continued pursuing the case even after a failed preliminary injunction, even when the NRA/CRPA supported case Duncan v. Becerra case had already succeeded?
In meetings like the one planned, I'd assume there would be a spot where the speaker takes questions from the audience. I'd be surprised if Hoffman just said thanks after his planned address and left the buildingl.
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf
I see the gulf of Mexico
As tiny as a tear
The coast of California
Must be somewhere over here, over here
Greatful Dead
“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 11-10-2017, 6:39 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Only partially true.

FGG has indeed correctly pointed out the flaws in many of the cases, but he still hasn't provided a winning strategy that would validate his approach. It's similar to KC Brown who has used a correlation-based analysis of the judges to come to the similar conclusion - we will lose.
More precisely, we should expect to lose. But yes, that's the fundamentals of it, at least.


Quote:
Most of the time both of them were correct. Then Moore happened. Then initial Peruta happened. Then Wrenn happened. Then we got a PI in magazine case.

The problem for me, as a hard science guy, is that every time things didn't go as predicted, it invalidated the model (in KC's case)
The original one, yes. The current one is "probabilistic", but the problem with it is that there are so few sample points that the confidence level can't be very high, at least under certain conditions.

More precisely, it seems to be good only for predicting losses. Which is to say, if you have a panel full of Democrat-appointees, it predicts with great certainty that the result will be a loss for us. On that front, it has not been wrong thus far.

But when the panel is composed of at least a majority of Republican-appointees, the results have been much less consistent. And that's because Republican appointees seem to be much less supportive of the right to arms than the Democrats are opposed to it.



Quote:
or legal reasoning (FGG's case). It's not their fault or a knock on either one, but it shows that the courts are inherently unpredictable and that they will adopt different doctrines on a whim, particularly in 2A cases.
Yes, but there is some consistency in that. It's not purely random. If it were purely random, we'd win about 50% of the time, no?

But we don't. We almost always lose. So what you say here is really that the courts will generally adopt different doctrines on a whim, for the purpose of achieving a relatively consistent outcome: suppression of the 2nd Amendment.


Quote:
It's these inherent inconsistencies in our legal system that show there are multiple coherent and valid legal interpretations and the lower court battles are about selecting a single one that will be then confirmed by SCOTUS. Everyone else will end up "being wrong." The value is not in sticking to one of the interpretations and jeering every time it gets supported by a court, but in being able to influence which one of the interpretations will be the one to win at SCOTUS and become the official jurisprudence.

That's where I'd love to see someone like FGG succeed.
This. Couldn't agree more. I'd love to know how I can help to shape that outcome in our direction. The problem is that I just can't see any mechanism by which to do so to any truly meaningful degree. I don't know of any way I can contribute enough that my contribution makes the difference between success and failure.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 11-10-2017, 7:12 PM
WatchMan WatchMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 243
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

WOW! This thread managed to bring out all the old schoolers, even the recently stealthy FGG! Good to see. Have to say, this whole thing has really become better than any reality TV show could every strive to be.

Unfortunately, it's our rights at stake.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 11-10-2017, 7:33 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

FGG has faith in the courts. He does not believe they are political. He truly believes the litigator with the superior intellect and better argument always wins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'd love to know how I can help to shape that outcome in our direction.
Given that he has yet to express that there is a way of winning, we can only conclude he believes the 2A has no objective value, since the court (by his judgement) interprets what parts of the Bill of Rights have value and which do not, and does so infallibly.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 11-10-2017, 7:41 PM
SonofWWIIDI's Avatar
SonofWWIIDI SonofWWIIDI is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Santa Clara county
Posts: 20,531
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Crap!!!

I work until 8.

And being self employed, no work means no money.
__________________
•=iii=<(
🎺

Dear autocorrect, I'm really getting tired of your shirt!
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
No more stupid threads. you have my word
Quote:
Originally Posted by LugerDevil666 View Post
Rule 1 I'll admit I'm a jerk when I post stupid thread.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmut Shmacher View Post
I'll do the picking.. Name wise .. if you don't mind...
Helmut Shmacher- Formerly lugerdevil666
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-10-2017, 10:13 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,160
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
I disagree. FCG has provide us with pretty accurate analysis of how most of the 2A litigation actions were going to play out, which has helped many of us make decisions about which organizations we choose to donate supporting funds to.
I second this. I've learned a lot more about the correct protocols in approach to legislation and 2nd Amendment related lawsuits from his input and perspective, than from most anyone else on this board. I've also learned that he's just about never wrong, and he's been batting about 500 on predictions for outcomes a good while now.

When things seemingly had gone off the rails with the blind faith of lemmings rattling tiny little jingling sabres in chorus unison, unbeknownst to many of us that the so called "right people" could not have been more wrong for the job, his injunction did well to corral some sensibility into the runaway packs and expose the bulls in the Sacramento cabinet making things worse.


.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-10-2017, 11:22 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALI-gula View Post
I've also learned that he's just about never wrong, and he's been batting about 500 on predictions for outcomes a good while now.
Telling you the CA courts (and courts in the 9th) will do whatever it takes to ignore the bill of rights, but only when it comes to the 2A, isn't exactly rocket science.

Anybody can tell you "this is a losing strategy". They'll always be right if they predict courts here will be hostile to gun rights.

Much harder to say "here is a winning strategy".

FGG will NEVER provide one. Ask yourself why.

No, I don't see that he provides value proportional to his intelligence and expertise. He certainly incessantly reminds the rest of us how worthless we are, so we obviously can't be asked to provide value.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 11-10-2017 at 11:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-10-2017, 11:40 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
FGG has faith in the courts. He does not believe they are political. He truly believes the litigator with the superior intellect and better argument always wins.
One might think that at first glance.

But if that's so, then answer this: where has his criticism been of the non-CGF cases that have also lost? If the litigator with the superior intellect and better argument always wins, and the litigator that lacks those is worthy of criticism (FGG has seemingly gone out of his way to criticize the CGF attorneys and litigation approach, at least), then where's the criticism of Peruta? Or Jackson? Or Bauer?

On those, FGG has been utterly silent. And yet, if you're right about what he believes, then those litigators are as deserving of ridicule as those he has leveled it at, no?


No, I have no reason to believe that FGG is any less biased than any of the other CRPA cheerleaders around here. Like Moleculo, he levels his criticism only at CGF and its people, and not (at least that I've seen) anyone else, despite the fact that all of the other players have been equally unsuccessful at restoring the right to arms.

When someone like FGG or Moleculo at organizations like CGF without doing the same against the other failing organizations, I can't help but at them in return, precisely because their criticisms (while obviously valid) are so lopsided and obviously biased. They are not objective in the slightest.

That said, FGG, at least, does provide some excellent guidance towards real insights, but boy does he make you work for it. I'm not sure if that approach is as effective as a teaching method as some others, but it is effective if you really do the proper legwork. You at least can't say that FGG's criticism isn't sometimes highly enlightening when one follows through on it.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-11-2017 at 12:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 11-10-2017, 11:42 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,160
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Telling you the CA courts (and courts in the 9th) will do whatever it takes to ignore the bill of rights, but only when it comes to the 2A, isn't exactly rocket science.

Anybody can tell you "this is a losing strategy". They'll always be right if they predict courts here will be hostile to gun rights.

Much harder to say "here is a winning strategy".

FGG will NEVER provide one. Ask yourself why.

No, I don't see that he provides value proportional to his intelligence and expertise. He certainly incessantly reminds the rest of us how worthless we are, so we obviously can't be asked to provide value.
Your confusing what you want him to do with what I said was helpful contribution and education. He has more than once explained the obscure details of how things should be properly done legally, in filing, or in court, and of course when they weren't, ridiculous results ensued for lack of heading clear warning.

.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 11-11-2017, 12:23 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
One might think that at first glance.
Quote:
No, I have no reason to believe that FGG is any less biased than any of the other CRPA cheerleaders around here.
Sometimes you have to spell out a hypothetical explicitly to show exactly how unlikely it is

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALI-gula View Post
Your confusing what you want him to do with what I said was helpful contribution and education. He has more than once explained the obscure details of how things should be properly done legally, in filing, or in court, and of course when they weren't, ridiculous results ensued for lack of heading clear warning.
Pointing out what the court already said was the reason they lost AFTER the decision is not helpful in the least. Literally anyone can quote the court's decision after it was published and hold it up as infallible reasoning.

Finally, what I want is irrelevant. Rather, whether he is helpful or not is the question. He's said time and again he isn't interested in being helpful. Draw your own conclusions based on that alone, if you like.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 11-11-2017 at 12:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 11-11-2017, 12:25 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALI-gula View Post
Your confusing what you want him to do with what I said was helpful contribution and education. He has more than once explained the obscure details of how things should be properly done legally, in filing, or in court, and of course when they weren't, ridiculous results ensued for lack of heading clear warning.

That is true, of course, but the error you and others make is in the belief that avoiding those mistakes would have yielded a different outcome. The cases where he DIDN'T level such criticism failed just as badly as those he criticized. What does that tell you?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-11-2017, 12:42 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Gene Hoffman Speaking in San Jose THURS NOV 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Sometimes you have to spell out a hypothetical explicitly to show exactly how unlikely it is
There is that, to be sure.


Quote:
Pointing out what the court already said was the reason they lost AFTER the decision is not helpful in the least. Literally anyone can quote the court's decision after it was published and hold it up as infallible reasoning.
That's not quite fair to FGG. more often than not, what happened is that he called out the reasoning the court would use long before it issued a decision. Many responded with incredulity, but the court did what many thought it "couldn't" anyway.

No, the problem with FGG is that he NEVER SUPPLIED A WINNING ALTERNATIVE. If he believed there was no way to win the case, he should have simply said so (I think he did for one case, but not any others). That he didn't suggests that he believed there to be a way to win at least some of these cases, but he nevertheless refused to divulge those winning methods. Moreover, lack of criticism on his part is clearly no indicator that a case has any chance of succeeding because nearly all such cases ALSO failed. That renders FGG's criticisms essentially worthless.

We will never know if FGG with his apparent knowledge could have made a real difference precisely because of the above. If he cares about the right to arms at all, he should be incredibly angry at himself, because if he believed there to be a way to win these cases, then it means he squandered the opportunity to massively alter the course of events, and all so that he could at what turns out to be the expense of us all.


The plain fact is that the courts will decide as they please and will pull "precedent" from whatever sources they need to in order to "justify" their premeditated decision after the fact. It didn't take rocket science or the clairvoyance that apparently comes from being a legal "insider" to correctly predict that Peruta would be reversed through en banc proceedings. It only took logic and observation.


Quote:
Finally, what I want is irrelevant. Rather, whether he is helpful or not is the question.

In the poisonous environment we find ourselves, NOBODY is "helpful". There is simply no help possible here, that I can see.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-11-2017 at 12:47 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-11-2017, 12:43 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That is true, of course, but the error you and others make is in the belief that avoiding those mistakes would have yielded a different outcome.
My claim is that the competence of litigator is entirely irrelevant. You could have an omniscient, infinitely smart person representing the plaintiff, and a potato representing the state, and the state would still prevail.

The idea that competence matters might normally be the case, but not with the 2A, and not anywhere in the 9th.

You may forum shop to Fresno or what have you in the lower courts but when you get to the 9th itself, Chief Judge Thomas is running the show. Period. He'll fix any problems the state has with their case for them.

And even if a lawyer knows this to be true, there is no way he'd ever admit it. Ever. Either because he's a smart businessman and knows where his bread is buttered, or he's drank the koolaid, or he knows making such excuses for losing just makes him look like a whiner, both to his clients and his other lawyer buddies he has to see on the golf course.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-11-2017, 1:04 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Gene Hoffman Speaking in San Jose THURS NOV 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
My claim is that the competence of litigator is entirely irrelevant. You could have an omniscient, infinitely smart person representing the plaintiff, and a potato representing the state, and the state would still prevail.
That is basically the conclusion I've come to as well. Certainly, the evidence seems to support it.


Quote:
The idea that competence matters might normally be the case, but not with the 2A, and not anywhere in the 9th.

You may forum shop to Fresno or what have you in the lower courts but when you get to the 9th itself, Chief Judge Thomas is running the show. Period. He'll fix any problems the state has with their case for them.
Exactly. This is something I've pointed out almost from the very beginning: the right to arms is different than any other topic, and not even minority civil rights can touch the fear and loathing that many on the bench have for this right. The "right people" insisted otherwise. This thread, and many of the responses we've seen herein, show what has become of the "right people". Their refusal to even acknowledge the possibility that the courts are political, combined with other errors, destroyed their credibility. This is what hubris will do. It is what refusal to listen to logic and evidence will do.


Quote:
And even if a lawyer knows this to be true, there is no way he'd ever admit it. Ever. Either because he's a smart businessman and knows where his bread is buttered, or he's drank the koolaid, or he knows making such excuses for losing just makes him look like a whiner, both to his clients and his other lawyer buddies he has to see on the golf course.
That is true. But I suspect it's much more deeply ingrained than that. Lawyers have to train to believe, or at least look like they believe, the arguments they put forth and the side they are paid to represent. Think about what that must do to one's critical thinking capabilities. It would serve to destroy the ability to be objective, to step outside of one's framework and look at the world as it is. Because if one were to do that, one might stop believing in the side one has been paid to represent, since that side is obviously arbitrary, subject to change without notice, and may well be objectively incorrect. One can be paid to represent one set of arguments and then, at a later time, paid to represent the very opposite. The people that do this for a living have to be capable of backing any side, no matter how objectively incorrect, unless they somehow have the luxury of turning away work.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-11-2017 at 1:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-11-2017, 1:48 AM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,160
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Pointing out what the court already said was the reason they lost AFTER the decision is not helpful in the least. Literally anyone can quote the court's decision after it was published and hold it up as infallible reasoning.
That's not true; FGG often pre-empted direction with flowchart predictions that evolved verbatim as to what he said would happen, months in advance, based on merely filings or discussion evolving here alone, not AFTER they lost a decision. Plenty of times.

To say otherwise is incredibly untrue. Having been here a good while through thick and thin in the first person for most all of it and an active participant, I have not blindly followed FGG either; I have doubted and set contention to his seemingly rambling whims, but could not deny his soothsayer revelations months later when they unfolded exactly as he opined.

If the "right people" could not take the time to go back over their tracks to examine much of what FGG outlined in their first failures, ignoring it again one, two, three, and several times again later, in order to avoid repeat mistakes, we might not have as many messes to clean up as we do now.

Gene Hoffman should have NEVER been anywhere near a courtroom or legal anything or 'consulting' period. Exposing such ruse, conman, and fraudulent folly was more than enough contribution to society on FGG's part.

.

Last edited by CALI-gula; 11-11-2017 at 1:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-11-2017, 2:19 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Gene Hoffman Speaking in San Jose THURS NOV 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALI-gula View Post
That's not true; FGG often pre-empted direction with flowchart predictions that evolved verbatim as to what he said would happen, months in advance, based on merely filings or discussion evolving here alone, not AFTER they lost a decision. Plenty of times.

To say otherwise is incredibly untrue. Having been here a good while through thick and thin in the first person for most all of it and an active participant, I have not blindly followed FGG either; I have doubted and set contention to his seemingly rambling whims, but could not deny his soothsayer revelations months later when they unfolded exactly as he opined.
Yep, completely agree on that.


Quote:
If the "right people" could not take the time to go back over their tracks to examine much of what FGG outlined in their first failures, ignoring it again one, two, three, and several times again later, in order to avoid repeat mistakes, we might not have as many messes to clean up as we do now.
Wrong. We would have exactly as many messes to clean up as we do now. Have you really not been paying attention? We almost always lose NO MATTER WHAT WE DO AND NO MATTER WHO MAKES THE ATTEMPT!


Quote:
Gene Hoffman should have NEVER been anywhere near a courtroom or legal anything or 'consulting' period. Exposing such ruse, conman, and fraudulent folly was more than enough contribution to society on FGG's part.
Probably true, except for your very last sentence.

For your very last sentence to be true, you have to explain why FGG never made any predictions, showed flaws, or anything else with respect to the non-CGF cases that were filed, when those cases inevitably also lost in court.

Let me put it this way: on what basis are you going to determine competence in 2A litigation when the outcome is very nearly ALWAYS the same no matter who brings the case or how it's litigated? Even the vaunted Paul Clement, who many CRPA cheerleaders here were proclaiming to be as close to a godlike litigator as it gets, simply couldn't get it done in any of the cases he participated in.

When the so called "cream of the crop" litigators are unable to win, what exactly makes for a "fraud" in the litigation arena? The outcome is the same.

Gene's sin was extreme hubris. I won't be surprised to find that he's failed to learn the proper lessons from this experience (arrogant people tend to be dense that way). But like it or not, he did at least actually make the attempt to change the outcome, even if he was too blinded by arrogance to learn from his mistakes. Can you really say the same of FGG? No, you cannot. FGG did nothing (at least that any of us know about) but sit back and laugh.

And that is really the point. If FGG was capable of winning these cases in court and insisted instead on laughing at some of those who tried and failed, then he has contributed even less to the fight for the right to arms than Gene, for all his failings, has. And if FGG wasn't capable of winning these cases in court then his criticisms are pointless, because it means heeding them would have done nothing to the outcome.

One last thing. From what I understand, some effort was made by CGF to secure FGG's services. That didn't work, quite possibly because CGF refused to listen to what FGG advised. It is possible that FGG actually participated in some way in the other litigation (e.g., CRPA litigation). If he did, then that proves that his capabilities and knowledge are insufficient to make winning possible, thus rendering his criticism pointless. If he didn't, then he really did belittle others at what amounts to the expense of us all. Think about that before you level too much criticism at people like Gene who, for all their faults, at least tried to do good, and before you give more credit to FGG than he is truly worthy of.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-12-2017 at 3:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-11-2017, 7:11 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,160
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

I get what you're saying.

But I learned from his conversational input, from his Devil's advocacy even if sometimes frustratingly a bitter pill, and for me, that's sufficient enough to call it a contribution.

.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-11-2017, 10:34 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,240
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALI-gula View Post
I get what you're saying.

But I learned from his conversational input, from his Devil's advocacy even if sometimes frustratingly a bitter pill, and for me, that's sufficient enough to call it a contribution.
Oh, I don't disagree with you on that at all. I'm not claiming that FGG hasn't made any contributions at all. He has brought light, and sometimes great insight, for those willing to actually follow through on what he (sometimes only implicitly) suggests you should go examine. His style demands more effort on the part of the reader than most, and you have to be willing to get past his acerbic wit, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

But as I said, you shouldn't ascribe greater credit to FGG than he actually deserves. Likewise, you shouldn't ascribe greater fault to Gene and company than they deserve, either.

You have to be evenhanded, fair, and objective in all of this. Otherwise, you end up being no better than the people you criticize.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 11-12-2017, 6:40 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,228
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

A lawyer never asks questions they don't already know the answers to. If you want to argue about principles and logic, then the conversation is not going to go well. They simply see it different, they see another reality. That's why Fabio sounds like an alien talking to most people, the gears and wires are totally different to us average gun guys.

The political people are s similar breed and equally on a different wavelength, as are the "activists". That's why we can't make heads or tails of what CGF is doing or saying, because they are playing a game we don't know how to play or what the rules are.

The gun organizations are also cryptic, at a recent NRA dinner I could make no sense of what was said or the attitudes behind it, I was like a deer in the headlights trying to pick small pieces of info out from a sea of what sounded like a 4 ring circus flying by. That's mostly about business, which I don't get either.

I think average gun owners don't have advocates or like minds, and it's a phenomenon of the modern world. In the age of information and intelligence, no one is paying any attention to the vast groups of people who represent the most common denominator. Case and point: the last year and a half I spent trying to collect information and distill it for average people to understand and grasp and I got zero help from FCG, NRA, CGF, etc.etc. It's as if the most important problem out there, how to comply with the law and even understand what the law actually is, might be the least talked about subject among the "right people". I mean that as a euphemism for the elite supposedly powerful and intelligent people in the "gun community".

If it weren't for calguns and many considerate and patient members here, I would have gone insane long ago. The reality is we are increasingly on our own as California gun owners and all we have is each other, fellow like-minded gun owners. Businesses, lawyers, and institutions don't seem to be in touch anymore.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 11-12-2017, 8:01 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: 2,843
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
On those, FGG has been utterly silent.
If you're wrong about that, which you are on Peruta and Jackson (I don't look at or comment on recently filed cases like Bauer any more), then your whole "bias" narrative is drivel lol.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-12-2017, 9:20 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,631
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

90% of 2A issues are all about the $$$
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-12-2017, 11:00 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I don't look at or comment on recently filed cases like Bauer any more
So, are you helpful, or not helpful?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-12-2017, 11:26 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: 2,843
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The goose is basically cooked now, isn't it? What would have been helpful is if calguns foundation never filed any of its horrible turds. It is unbelievable that anyone is still donating money to CGF or listening to anything hoffmang has to say.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 11-12-2017 at 11:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-12-2017, 11:34 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,516
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Why? Would things be substantively different if they hadn't?

Does the quality of litigator actually matter?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
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 10:00 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.