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
  #161  
Old 07-19-2010, 7:44 AM
ed bernay ed bernay is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

another comment...I know Alan Gura and SAF are going after the Antis with a strategy and are much smarter than me. What I would have done to start to dismantle NY's unconstitutional gun laws would be first to go after NYC's long gun registration requirement. As I understand it, NY state doesn't require long guns be registered while NYC does require registration with the non compliance penalty being jail. That in my opinion is an obvious equal protection violation as it treats New Yorkers differently depending upon where they live in the state. I would then go after the Sullivan law requiring registration of all handguns as it turns a fundamental right into a priviledge.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 07-19-2010, 8:13 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ed bernay View Post
another comment...I know Alan Gura and SAF are going after the Antis with a strategy and are much smarter than me. What I would have done to start to dismantle NY's unconstitutional gun laws would be first to go after NYC's long gun registration requirement. As I understand it, NY state doesn't require long guns be registered while NYC does require registration with the non compliance penalty being jail. That in my opinion is an obvious equal protection violation as it treats New Yorkers differently depending upon where they live in the state. I would then go after the Sullivan law requiring registration of all handguns as it turns a fundamental right into a priviledge.
Handguns are directly protected by Heller (and by extension to the States by McDonald) while long guns aren't yet directly protected. Handgun laws are, therefore, easier to go after at this point in history.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 07-19-2010, 8:38 AM
gorblimey's Avatar
gorblimey gorblimey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,523
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Are my favorite people around - the NRA - supporting this?
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 07-19-2010, 8:52 AM
Sinixstar Sinixstar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,520
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ed bernay View Post
another comment...I know Alan Gura and SAF are going after the Antis with a strategy and are much smarter than me. What I would have done to start to dismantle NY's unconstitutional gun laws would be first to go after NYC's long gun registration requirement. As I understand it, NY state doesn't require long guns be registered while NYC does require registration with the non compliance penalty being jail. That in my opinion is an obvious equal protection violation as it treats New Yorkers differently depending upon where they live in the state. I would then go after the Sullivan law requiring registration of all handguns as it turns a fundamental right into a priviledge.
The one thing that would make sense - is that if you can get 'shall issue' through, and you can establish that carrying in public is also a right - then it might make it easier to fight the convoluted path to ownership. Just seems like a slightly odd way to go about it, especially in NY of all places.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 07-19-2010, 9:07 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,871
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The strategy may go something like this:

Getting shall-issue confirms a fundamental, individual right to carry outside of the home unless prohibited. With that position as a starting point, the path to eliminating unnecessarily burdensome regulation is illuminated.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 07-19-2010, 9:39 AM
ed bernay ed bernay is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 149
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
The strategy may go something like this:

Getting shall-issue confirms a fundamental, individual right to carry outside of the home unless prohibited. With that position as a starting point, the path to eliminating unnecessarily burdensome regulation is illuminated.
That maybe the case but it conditions the courts and the people to the notion that politicians can require a permission slip before citizens can exercise a fundamental right. It really irks me purely based on principle which is why I comment on it when I see it in these threads.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 07-19-2010, 9:41 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The reason for going after carry first is to make gun ownership useful for a common, everyday, and necessary purpose otherwise it's not worth defending in court. There isn't compelling interest for an expensive, inconvenient, and obscure hobby to be upheld.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 07-19-2010, 10:02 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

What are you going to carry with your shiny new [shall-issued] carry permit?

(Most likely your Heller-protected handgun.)
__________________
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
  #169  
Old 07-19-2010, 10:21 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
What are you going to carry with your shiny new [shall-issued] carry permit?

(Most likely your Heller-protected handgun.)
Looking like a G29 or a 3-3 1/2" 1911 of some flavor for me.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 07-19-2010, 10:24 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,871
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
What are you going to carry with your shiny new [shall-issued] carry permit?
What am I going to be wearing that day?
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 07-19-2010, 10:26 AM
Sinixstar Sinixstar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,520
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
Looking like a G29 or a 3-3 1/2" 1911 of some flavor for me.
for those of you lucky enough to have the ownership permission slip - that's great.


From the rest of us - good for you?
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 07-20-2010, 12:11 AM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
What am I going to be wearing that day?
I'm going to be wearing a towel, because that's all be able to afford to keep after selling all my other possessions to afford the taxed privilege permit.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 07-20-2010, 7:55 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,493
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Ultimately it comes down to this one simple question: by how much, if any, would a pro hac vice denial impede our ability to win?
You are so detached from the reality of what you're trying to position that you miss that your version of skepticism is advantageous for us. On the merits of the legal arguments about guns or carry, we might lose. On the merits of a pro hac vice motion, Alan wins every time.

Letting us win over stupid stuff doesn't help the other side.

I'm now going to be not nice. This is the 9th or 10th federal lawsuit I've been directly or indirectly involved in. I'm quite confident your equivalent number is 0. Please let go of unearned non-authority.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 07-20-2010, 8:06 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,862
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
You are so detached from the reality of what you're trying to position that you miss that your version of skepticism is advantageous for us. On the merits of the legal arguments about guns or carry, we might lose. On the merits of a pro hac vice motion, Alan wins every time.

Letting us win over stupid stuff doesn't help the other side.

I'm now going to be not nice. This is the 9th or 10th federal lawsuit I've been directly or indirectly involved in. I'm quite confident your equivalent number is 0. Please let go of unearned non-authority.

-Gene
I am amazed this is still being discussed...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 07-20-2010, 8:29 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,493
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
I am amazed this is still being discussed...
Clarity doesn't come easily to some...

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 07-21-2010, 12:11 AM
azn_wrx azn_wrx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 462
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Hopefully they can fix FOIA requests.

http://cryptome.org/ny-packing-master.zip
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 07-21-2010, 2:23 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

How many lawsuits do you have to be involved in to get a reserved parking space in the courthouse lot?
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 07-21-2010, 4:16 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,493
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
How many lawsuits do you have to be involved in to get a reserved parking space in the courthouse lot?
You have to wait until everyone kisses your behind and calls you your honor...

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 07-21-2010, 4:24 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
You are so detached from the reality of what you're trying to position that you miss that your version of skepticism is advantageous for us. On the merits of the legal arguments about guns or carry, we might lose. On the merits of a pro hac vice motion, Alan wins every time.

Letting us win over stupid stuff doesn't help the other side.

I'm now going to be not nice. This is the 9th or 10th federal lawsuit I've been directly or indirectly involved in. I'm quite confident your equivalent number is 0. Please let go of unearned non-authority.

-Gene


This would be a great signature line
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 07-21-2010, 4:28 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I know i few of our judges and i dont think they would say the same thing about the rear end kissing. LOL
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 07-21-2010, 5:32 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,862
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
You have to wait until everyone kisses your behind and calls you your honor...

-Gene
A lifetime appointment to the bench guarantees you preferred parking...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 07-21-2010, 7:04 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 1,922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So, the obvious question for this native newyoker is, how long till I can carry in NYC on my NV ccw? ( I know, two weeks :-p ) but really? a year?
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 07-21-2010, 7:17 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,493
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmith View Post
So, the obvious question for this native newyoker is, how long till I can carry in NYC on my NV ccw? ( I know, two weeks :-p ) but really? a year?
Keep an eye on Peterson v. Lacabe and Kachalsky v. Cacace. Peterson clarifies that out of staters should be able to get carry permits and Kachalsky clarifies that NY is not immune from the "bear arms" part of the Constitution.

6 months for initial decisions. 2 years for finality at least.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 07-21-2010, 7:21 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,720
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
You are so detached from the reality of what you're trying to position that you miss that your version of skepticism is advantageous for us. On the merits of the legal arguments about guns or carry, we might lose. On the merits of a pro hac vice motion, Alan wins every time.

Letting us win over stupid stuff doesn't help the other side.

I'm now going to be not nice. This is the 9th or 10th federal lawsuit I've been directly or indirectly involved in. I'm quite confident your equivalent number is 0. Please let go of unearned non-authority.
Yep, my equivalent is zero, thank goodness (since law is quite obviously not my profession).

I'm not attempting to assert that my viewpoint is correct. I'm trying to understand why yours is.

And yes, I'm very slow to learn, because my mind insists on logical connections between everything. In my world, there is no such thing as "just because" (er, well, for the vast, vast majority of things, at any rate. Axioms do exist but they are foundational).


ETA: (and yes, there most certainly are many people compared to whom I am a simplistic dullard. Those are the people I'm happiest to meet because I can hopefully learn something from them, even if they would prefer I go play with my toys in the corner. )
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 07-21-2010 at 7:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 07-21-2010, 7:58 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Which is to say, if we get logic within law, great! But do not expect it.

Last edited by Al Norris; 07-21-2010 at 8:01 PM.. Reason: Clarification
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 07-21-2010, 8:50 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Retracted
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon

Last edited by Connor P Price; 07-21-2010 at 9:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 07-21-2010, 8:58 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,720
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Which is to say, if we get logic within law, great! But do not expect it.
Heh. Believe it or not, I do not expect logic within the law.

I realize what follows may sound internally contradictory. Please bear with me.

Quite the opposite of the above, I expect law to not be logical. I expect it to be arbitrary, because it is a creation of man that is not subject to the restrictions of the laws of physics. More precisely, it is as logical or arbitrary as those who are craft it and those who decide upon its validity wish it to be. No more and no less.

What Gene and the others are saying is that we are going to get a non-arbitrary result. In the context of an arbitrary framework, it seems to me there has to be a logical reason for that.

More to the point, he's saying that Alan's pro hac vice petition will not be denied (for if it is, he says, Alan will win the resulting challenge). There has to be a reason for that to be true, because (I presume) the people involved are motivated to see a particular outcome and, more importantly, most of those who are deciding these things greatly desire the outcome to be the opposite of what Alan is pushing for.

Which is to say: you have an arbitrary framework in which the deciding players are allowed to rule, on anything that's even remotely related, any which way they like and in which they have a very strong desire to ultimately see the end result be the opposite of what Alan wishes it to be. Why wouldn't such people take every opportunity to put up every roadblock they possibly could in order to maximize the chance that the end result is what they want?

Of course, what Gene is saying is (if I'm reading it right) that fighting things like the pro hac vice petition would backfire, Alan would win, and it would somehow reduce the power of the opposition in the primary ruling.

I'm not sure I understand how that's the case, though. Won't each level issue whatever ruling it wishes to, irrespective of any arguments presented? Why wouldn't it, unless it is somehow disadvantageous to do that? I mean, aren't we talking about something that's important to these people? If the results weren't important to them, then sure, I could understand how they would then step back and play the role of the good, impartial judiciary. But for something they have a personal stake in?


And in the face of that, we expect to win. That expectation would seem to me to be completely contradictory to the preceding, if it weren't for the fact that we have the Supreme Court on our side. But then, we barely have it on our side. Swing one vote in the other direction and it's all over.


Of course, all of the above is from the point of view of someone who is horribly naive about things legal. If the legal landscape really does make more sense than the above implies, then it means that I'm missing some key foundational information, and am left shaking my head as to what I'm missing.

But then, I am slow to learn...
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 07-21-2010 at 9:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 07-21-2010, 9:08 PM
Cobrafreak's Avatar
Cobrafreak Cobrafreak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Carmichael CA
Posts: 1,334
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

And so it all begins..........
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 07-21-2010, 9:15 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,720
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm not sure I understand how that's the case, though. Won't each level issue whatever ruling it wishes to, irrespective of any arguments presented? Why wouldn't it, unless it is somehow disadvantageous to do that? I mean, aren't we talking about something that's important to these people? If the results weren't important to them, then sure, I could understand how they would then step back and play the role of the good, impartial judiciary. But for something they have a personal stake in?
I should refine the above slightly: Won't each level issue whatever ruling it wishes to, irrespective of any arguments presented, in order to maximize the chance of achieving the end result it wishes?
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 07-21-2010, 9:32 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,720
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I should probably make this abundantly clear: with the above, I am not challenging the validity or truth of Gene's statements. That would be idiotic.

I am trying to understand why his statements are true.

I hope the difference between those two things is clear.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 07-21-2010, 10:05 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,720
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Perhaps it would also be slightly illuminating if I explain my primary viewpoint.

I am a very, very deep skeptic. From what I've seen and experienced in the real world, evil (which covers, among other things, those who intentionally cause loss for others in order to achieve gain for themselves) almost always wins. People who are unfailingly selfless inevitably get taken advantage of and tossed aside by those who are unfailingly selfish.

And in fact, in a way, physics itself supports this viewpoint. Entropy is a hard law of nature: the universe naturally gravitates towards disorder, it takes energy to fight it, and the use of that energy ends up merely adding to the disorder in the end.


So when something amazingly good happens, I naturally start looking for the offsetting cost. There has to be one, right? If someone I don't know were to give me something of great value, I'd immediately start to look for the catch, something to indicate that the person in question is attempting to gain something of even greater value, and somehow at my expense. If I were to "win the lottery", I'd start looking for the catch and for how the game was rigged so that I somehow "magically" won it in order to somehow be taken advantage of.

I'm an "optimist" because, when I make a prediction, things usually turn out even worse than I predict.

So when we have people who really know what they're talking about claiming we're going to win big, I start looking for how we're also going to lose, because in my experience with and observation of the real world, such things never happen in such a way that good, selfless people can actually benefit from it in the end. I start looking for the cost that exceeds the value of the gain. It has to be there somewhere, right?


Maybe I'll somehow be wrong about that this time, somehow. But I can't help but look really hard for the downside, because I've never, ever failed to find it before.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 07-22-2010 at 4:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 07-21-2010, 10:12 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

NEW JERSEY PROTECTION AND
ADVOCACY, INC v. JAMES DAVY

Opposition motion filed by State of New Jersey

Reply to Objection by State of New Jersey

Order Granting Motion for Pro Hac Vice

The opposition brief pretty much sums up Gene's argument and my argument. Unless the lawyer has a tendency of jumping over to the opposition counsel's table and punching the other side's lawyer in the face, or is a Jack Thompson type, pro hac vice will NOT be denied.

Google searching "Pro hac vice deny" or "denial" got me the answers I needed in 5 minutes. Going to the actual cases and such cost me money since I had to look up the pacer record of the New Jersey case.

Come on, people, stop asking these kinds of stupid questions when it's been answered three times already by the people who know what they're talking about. Alan Gura is a member in good standing in California, DC, and Virginia, with NO DISCIPLINARY RECORD TO SPEAK OF! He is also merely one attorney on top of local counsel. If anyone would have denied pro hac vice and wanted to screw us over, it would have been Chief Judge Milton Shadur when Alan originally filed the McDonald case. Shadur is notoriously fickle on procedural compliance and even with that fickleness and irritability, he still approved Alan's PHV application.

From the reply in opposition in the New Jersey:

A party’s choice of counsel, even if deemed “superfluous” (which the choice here
clearly is not), is not grounds for denial of a pro hac vice motion. At stake in this litigation is the health and welfare of nearly 1000 New Jersey citizens with mental illnesses. By engaging Pepper Hamilton as local counsel and relying upon the participation of the Bazelon Center attorneys for their expertise in mental health law, NJP&A has assembled an appropriate litigation team to represent it in this matter. The defendant has come forward with no “unusual circumstances” that can trump NJP&A’s right to be represented by its counsel of choice.


They won the motion. Pro Hac Vice applications are not routinely denied.

Stop spreading

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 07-21-2010 at 10:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 07-21-2010, 10:13 PM
Code7inOaktown Code7inOaktown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East Bay
Posts: 632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
This is the B-25's over Tokyo. Or possibly the flight of Avengers over the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, and Hiryu.

Quite possibly this is how Bloomberg sees it:

Not to be picky, but didn't the Dauntless inflict most of the damage on the flattops at Midway? I'm not even sure the Avenger made it in into the Battle of the Midway. So cheers to the SBD Dauntless!
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 07-22-2010, 3:26 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quite right, it was the Dauntless. Very astute catch.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 07-22-2010, 11:50 AM
Scarecrow Repair's Avatar
Scarecrow Repair Scarecrow Repair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Internet Tough Guy(tm), them thar hills
Posts: 2,426
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Code7inOaktown View Post
Not to be picky, but didn't the Dauntless inflict most of the damage on the flattops at Midway? I'm not even sure the Avenger made it in into the Battle of the Midway. So cheers to the SBD Dauntless!
I believe the very first Avengers in combat were at Midway, but lad based and not very many of them and they did no damage.
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 07-22-2010, 12:26 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How depressing, I hope you have a good therapist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Perhaps it would also be slightly illuminating if I explain my primary viewpoint.

I am a very, very deep skeptic. From what I've seen and experienced in the real world, evil (which covers, among other things, those who intentionally cause loss for others in order to achieve gain for themselves) almost always wins. People who are unfailingly selfless inevitably get taken advantage of and tossed aside by those who are unfailingly selfish.

And in fact, in a way, physics itself supports this viewpoint. Entropy is a hard law of nature: the universe naturally gravitates towards disorder, it takes energy to fight it, and the use of that energy ends up merely adding to the disorder in the end.


So when something amazingly good happens, I naturally start looking for the offsetting cost. There has to be one, right? If someone I don't know were to give me something of great value, I'd immediately start to look for the catch, something to indicate that the person in question is attempting to gain something of even greater value, and somehow at my expense. If I were to "win the lottery", I'd start looking for the catch and for how the game was rigged so that I somehow "magically" won it in order to somehow be taken advantage of.

I'm an "optimist" because, when I make a prediction, things usually turn out even worse than I predict.

So when we have people who really know what they're talking about claiming we're going to win big, I start looking for how we're also going to lose, because in my experience with and observation of the real world, such things never happen in such a way that good, selfless people can actually benefit from it in the end. I start looking for the cost that exceeds the value of the gain. It has to be there somewhere, right?


Maybe I'll somehow be wrong about that this time, somehow. But I can't help but look really hard for the downside, because I've never, ever failed to find it before.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 07-22-2010, 1:17 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,720
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
How depressing, I hope you have a good therapist.
Surprisingly enough, I'm not depressed about it. I have simply come to accept that it is how the real world is, and that looking for the downside (after expressing the requisite level of surprise ) is an appropriate response when really good things happen.

You would think, given my viewpoint, that I would simply give in and become an evil, selfish bastard. I have managed to neatly avoid that problem entirely by simply not being interested in "winning" (which is to say, by not being greedy). I'm much more interested in seeing people be happy and free, and I am content as long as I have enough to do the things I want to be able to do. Which I do. Like most honest people, I have to work at getting enough to do what I want to do, but I somehow succeed at it despite the efforts of the real world, and because I'm not greedy I don't really want for much of anything. As such, I'm quite content with my own situation.

Despite the apparent prevalence of evil (for lack of a more precise term) in the world, I want no part of it. If I did not have enough to do what I want to be able to do, I would absolutely not take advantage of others in order to obtain it.

I try very very hard to be as hard a realist as I can be. Which is to say: the truth matters more to me than very nearly anything else. I'd much rather know the truth and be unhappy for it than to be ignorantly happy, for knowledge of the truth is useful while ignorance of it is not. My viewpoint is a direct reflection of that approach to things.

If the real world becomes a kinder, gentler place, then my viewpoint will change accordingly (after the appropriate amount of time to determine that the real world really has changed that way). I have no expectation that will happen anytime soon.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 07-22-2010 at 1:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 07-22-2010, 2:37 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 1,922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default good to hear!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Keep an eye on Peterson v. Lacabe and Kachalsky v. Cacace. Peterson clarifies that out of staters should be able to get carry permits and Kachalsky clarifies that NY is not immune from the "bear arms" part of the Constitution.

6 months for initial decisions. 2 years for finality at least.

-Gene
I can earn money in NYC, I'll carry earn, & donate to cal guns! for this native newyorker carrying in NYC will be sweet victory!
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 07-22-2010, 7:28 PM
monkeshine monkeshine is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 50
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV View Post

I just was curious as to why the leapfrog over the most obvious target in New York, rather than creeping incrementalism. I can think of a few possibilities, but I was curious to hear other perspectives.
I would throw in a guess - and that guess is "5-4".

In other words, it is best to get these cases up in front of USSC while we still have a majority to rule in our favor. Take down the onerous laws ASAP. Doing so now makes sense as it is unlikely to get more favorable in the future. 5-4 is just as good as 6-3 but 4-5 would be the death of our rights. So get them done now.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 07-28-2010, 7:11 PM
2009_gunner's Avatar
2009_gunner 2009_gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 471
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There's a good email interview with the plaintiffs at Only Guns and Money.

It's a bit long to post the entire thing, but here is part of it:

Quote:
What has been your experience since the lawsuit was filed? Have you been contacted by the media? Have friends or colleagues who know of the suit asked you about it? If so, what has been their reaction?

Alan Kachalsky
Nope. No contact from the media. Friends and family are supportive.

Christina Nikolov
I have not been contacted by the media yet. Very few people have said anything to me about the lawsuit and as a matter of fact, many people I have mentioned the lawsuit to were not even aware of it. Reactions have been unanimously positive. Everyone I mentioned this to wished me well with the case.

Finally, in addition to being granted your permit, what would you like to see come out of this lawsuit?

Alan Kachalsky
The outcome I am looking for would be precisely the relief requested in the Complaint - that carry permits are granted to law-abiding citizens who meet the criteria of New York Penal Code § 400.00:

(1), in that each (a) is over 21 years old, (b) of good moral character, (c) has never been convicted of a felony or serious crime, (d) has never been mentally ill or confined to any institution, (e) has not had a license revoked or been the subject of a family court order, (f) has completed a firearms safety course, and (g) should not be denied a permit other than for any good cause.

Christina Nikolov
What I wish to see come of this lawsuit is first of all, for me to obtain my unrestricted carry permit. But I would also like to see the law changed, to allow responsible people to own and carry firearms if they want to and are competent. NY needs to change its backwards way of looking at things and realize that criminals are committing crimes and that restricting gun ownership of people who obey the law only helps the criminals, since the criminals will always find ways to obtain firearms regardless of how strict the gun laws are.
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller

NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor
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 3:19 PM.




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.