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
  #1  
Old 02-25-2011, 8:17 AM
Mr.Pickles's Avatar
Mr.Pickles Mr.Pickles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brentwood
Posts: 637
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default What happened to Nordyke v. King?

I thought there would be something be updated by now. Q1 is coming to a end soon. I was also wondering if there was a deadline for them to make the opinion.
__________________
01100010 01101111 01101111 01101101 00100000 01101000 01100101 01100001 01100100 01110011 01101000 01101111 01110100 00100001
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-25-2011, 8:19 AM
BlindRacer's Avatar
BlindRacer BlindRacer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 631
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It should be decided in Q1, but there is no deadline afaik.

I'm really hoping that they don't just put this in their pocket and try to ignore it. There are so many pending cases that are waiting on this, as well as a multitude of others waiting to be filed until after this decision. If this case goes our way, I'm expecting that to be the end of any hold the anti's had in this country. Most cases should be fairly quick and easy wins. But it's still going to take time and money.
__________________
“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” - Colossians 2:8

Last edited by BlindRacer; 02-25-2011 at 8:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-25-2011, 8:21 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 783
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The Chester ruling probably had something to do with delaying their response. There was an update at one point January that the Chester ruling was now being considered in their ruling.

If you search for Nordyke III orals there is quite a bit of info in there.

Though they have No deadline
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Quote:
....."there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” and the public interest always weighs in favor of protecting constitutional rights. See Joelner v. Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004).
I VOTE and contribute to organizations who share my pursuit of freedom
1991
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-25-2011, 8:22 AM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think it was stated that the typical window was around 90 days, and that the decision would likely show up sometime in Q1. Some decisions do take quite a bit longer though, so there's really no way to know. We can only be sure of one thing: the decision will be released in exactly two weeks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-25-2011, 8:26 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There is no deadline for the opinion. Courts can take as much time as they want to issue an opinion.

As to what's happening here, I'm not a person "in the know", but I fully expect Nordyke to go the way of Palmer in that I expect we'll be waiting for a decision essentially forever. But that's just my skepticism talking. The law guys around here seem to think we'll see a decision very soon. I have no idea why they believe that, given the history of the case...
__________________
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
  #6  
Old 02-25-2011, 9:13 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Nordyke panel is the same panel that incorporated the second amendment in a timely fashion. There is no decision left for them to make that would be anywhere near as controversial as the decision they made last time. Why would they delay a less controversial decision for political reasons? Expect movement soon.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-25-2011, 9:20 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
The Nordyke panel is the same panel that incorporated the second amendment in a timely fashion.
Unless I misremember, they "incorporated" the Second Amendment and decided against the plaintiffs anyway.


Quote:
There is no decision left for them to make that would be anywhere near as controversial as the decision they made last time. Why would they delay a less controversial decision for political reasons? Expect movement soon.
Controversy has nothing to do with it. Denial of justice does. They know their decision can be appealed, and that an appeal is likely to be decided in favor of the plaintiffs with the Supreme Court's current composition. A decision that hasn't been rendered is a decision that can't be appealed, and the state of affairs remains unchanged until they render their decision. Furthermore, delaying the decision makes it possible for the balance within the Supreme Court to change enough to cause an appeal at that time to fail.
__________________
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; 02-25-2011 at 9:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-25-2011, 9:21 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,877
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

IMHO they are debating whether to factor in the "Chester" decision, and cite a standard of scrutiny. Some of the justices may be reluctant to go with "Chester" on scrutiny because it means a LOT of gun laws will be found not to pass muster. Generally, they try to cause as little havoc as possible while still granting a good judgment. However, they will probably also be reluctant to go against "Chester" on scrutiny because that causes a circuit split which in the current climate is likely go to SCOTUS, who will (based on Heller & McDonald outcomes) lower the boom and then they get over-ruled, and no court likes that. So I think it comes down to them trying to craft a ruling that MOSTLY goes along with "Chester"... trying to preserve as much existing law as possible, while leaving enough leeway to not be seen as a direct contradiction of "Chester" and therefore probably avoiding a legal challenge anytime soon. They kind of have to address scrutiny at some point. Nordyke seems like the logical place to do that, because they can already see the gun cases piling up in the pipeline behind Nordyke. It also gives them a window to advise lower courts, so they don't get hit with a bunch of appeal cases down the line that they then have to overturn - just making more work for themselves and clogging up the legal system.

So IMHO they are trying to walk a fine line... give sound guidance on scrutiny to lower courts, upset the current legal framework as little as possible, and not leave themselves open to a SCOTUS smackdown. THAT'S what is taking so long, I think.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-25-2011, 9:36 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
IMHO they are debating whether to factor in the "Chester" decision, and cite a standard of scrutiny. Some of the justices may be reluctant to go with "Chester" on scrutiny because it means a LOT of gun laws will be found not to pass muster. Generally, they try to cause as little havoc as possible while still granting a good judgment. However, they will probably also be reluctant to go against "Chester" on scrutiny because that causes a circuit split which in the current climate is likely go to SCOTUS, who will (based on Heller & McDonald outcomes) lower the boom and then they get over-ruled, and no court likes that. So I think it comes down to them trying to craft a ruling that MOSTLY goes along with "Chester"... trying to preserve as much existing law as possible, while leaving enough leeway to not be seen as a direct contradiction of "Chester" and therefore probably avoiding a legal challenge anytime soon. They kind of have to address scrutiny at some point. Nordyke seems like the logical place to do that, because they can already see the gun cases piling up in the pipeline behind Nordyke. It also gives them a window to advise lower courts, so they don't get hit with a bunch of appeal cases down the line that they then have to overturn - just making more work for themselves and clogging up the legal system.

So IMHO they are trying to walk a fine line... give sound guidance on scrutiny to lower courts, upset the current legal framework as little as possible, and not leave themselves open to a SCOTUS smackdown. THAT'S what is taking so long, I think.
You assume that they care about the court system being clogged with cases. If they're anti-gun, then they surely care nothing about that. In fact, that's a good thing from the point of view of retaining current law since having a bunch of cases stayed will indefinitely extend the amount of time current law remains on the books.

It's not like they're making extra work for themselves or lower courts by not rendering a ruling, either. Cases that are stayed do not occupy the time of the courts. Only active cases do.

And a circuit split can only happen if they render a ruling.


So if all the anti-gun circuit courts simply refuse to issue rulings then there will be no circuit splits. The only cases that wind up before the Supreme Court will be cases where the defendants in pro-RKBA juristictions are stupid enough to appeal a loss at the circuit court level to the Supreme Court. And even then, that won't affect anti-gun jurisdictions until the courts in those jurisdictions actually start to issue rulings. Which is to say, even if the Supreme Court issues guidance as to things like scrutiny to lower courts, if those courts have cases before them they can still just sit on them, with the end result that their anti-RKBA agenda will continue to be satisfied.
__________________
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
  #10  
Old 02-25-2011, 10:02 AM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And a circuit split can only happen if they render a ruling.


So if all the anti-gun circuit courts simply refuse to issue rulings then there will be no circuit splits. The only cases that wind up before the Supreme Court will be cases where the defendants in pro-RKBA juristictions are stupid enough to appeal a loss at the circuit court level to the Supreme Court. And even then, that won't affect anti-gun jurisdictions until the courts in those jurisdictions actually start to issue rulings. Which is to say, even if the Supreme Court issues guidance as to things like scrutiny to lower courts, if those courts have cases before them they can still just sit on them, with the end result that their anti-RKBA agenda will continue to be satisfied.
You can file complaints with the Judicial Council of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts leads the JCUS as supervisor over the lower courts. If the anti-gun courts start playing games along those lines, you can file a JCUS complaint, and Chief Justice Roberts or his underlings will call up the Court of Appeals and ask them why they're taking so long on this particular case. "We don't feel like it" or "we haven't had time", or evasive answering will not be accepted.

The person who's rights are being denied can also file a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of Appeals to answer. There are ways of analysing their current case load to determine if they really are stalling. The Palmer case at least has a reason for the delay (Judge Kennedy's backlog on civil rights cases in general is rather large and he's going through them in chronological order, as explained by Patrick-2).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-25-2011, 10:19 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
You can file complaints with the Judicial Council of the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts leads the JCUS as supervisor over the lower courts. If the anti-gun courts start playing games along those lines, you can file a JCUS complaint, and Chief Justice Roberts or his underlings will call up the Court of Appeals and ask them why they're taking so long on this particular case. "We don't feel like it" or "we haven't had time", or evasive answering will not be accepted.
What will be the consequences if the answers aren't "acceptable"? Which is to say, what can he do to smack the lower courts around if they get unruly?

It's heartening that Roberts sided with the majority in both Heller and McDonald, so at least we can count on him not tolerating any shenanigans from the lower courts on the basis of his leanings.


Quote:
The person who's rights are being denied can also file a writ of mandamus to compel the Court of Appeals to answer.
What prevents the Court of Appeals from ignoring such things?


Quote:
There are ways of analysing their current case load to determine if they really are stalling. The Palmer case at least has a reason for the delay (Judge Kennedy's backlog on civil rights cases in general is rather large and he's going through them in chronological order, as explained by Patrick-2).
Agreed on Palmer. Judge Kennedy is apparently also known for his immense detail, so he tends to take more time than most. I used that as an example of a court case that is taking forever to get a ruling issued, but I should have made it clear that it was being used only for that.
__________________
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
  #12  
Old 02-25-2011, 10:27 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
What prevents the Court of Appeals from ignoring such things?
Guns carried by US Marshalls.

-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
  #13  
Old 02-25-2011, 11:14 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Guns carried by US Marshalls.
Well, then this raises a very pertinent question:

How long are we willing to wait for the court to issue a ruling?
__________________
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
  #14  
Old 02-25-2011, 11:18 AM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So a plaintiff can write a writ of mandamus, hand it to US Marshalls, and say, "put a gun to their heads so they stop stalling"?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-25-2011, 11:28 AM
FS00008's Avatar
FS00008 FS00008 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Purcellville, Virginia
Posts: 1,980
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

That's a very general way to describe it.. I would imagine you would have to have some extensive time for the marshalls to get involved.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-25-2011, 11:38 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 kcbrown View Post
Well, then this raises a very pertinent question:

How long are we willing to wait for the court to issue a ruling?
You? About 45 min. Most folks, it depends on the actual facts of the case and case load of the judge. In this case I aspect complains would be appropriate around the 1 year mark but it will never come to that.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-25-2011, 11:56 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,076
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I suspect (call it a hunch) that the panel would like to avoid giving the antis on the full 9th an excuse to take a Nordyke win complete with strict scrutiny en blanc and draw it out another year. Therefore they have to give the appearance of studying the case to death and they will have to have every "i" dotted. On the other hand it could be stalling so that they don't get overturned yet again.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-25-2011, 12:43 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
There is no deadline for the opinion. Courts can take as much time as they want to issue an opinion.

As to what's happening here, I'm not a person "in the know", but I fully expect Nordyke to go the way of Palmer in that I expect we'll be waiting for a decision essentially forever. But that's just my skepticism talking. The law guys around here seem to think we'll see a decision very soon. I have no idea why they believe that, given the history of the case...
I doubt very much this case is or will be like Palmer (which is, most likely, simply going to be a substantive reply by a considerate judge). Chester is a force they must reconcile and incorporate or face a circuit split. If you're on that panel, you have a lot to think about.
__________________
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
  #19  
Old 02-25-2011, 12:52 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

There's skepticism, and then there's Kcbrown's claims that nothing can ever get better because we'll just magically lose every challenge we make. When pressed for the rationale behind his conspicuous demagoguery, he simply references his signature, and the vague claim that "the real world does not tolerate optimism well." I don't know why he posts on 2nd Amendment if all he's going to do is take a giant dump on everything. Predictions that Nordyke will turn out well for us are not "optimism." They are what everything that has come before point to. Similarly, Kcbrown is not "skeptical." He is pathologically paranoid, and that is the nicest possible way I can say it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Well, then this raises a very pertinent question:

How long are we willing to wait for the court to issue a ruling?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
You? About 45 min. Most folks, it depends on the actual facts of the case and case load of the judge. In this case I aspect complains would be appropriate around the 1 year mark but it will never come to that.
Owned.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-25-2011, 1:25 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaded Claymore View Post
There's skepticism, and then there's Kcbrown's claims that nothing can ever get better because we'll just magically lose every challenge we make. When pressed for the rationale behind his conspicuous demagoguery, he simply references his signature, and the vague claim that "the real world does not tolerate optimism well." I don't know why he posts on 2nd Amendment if all he's going to do is take a giant dump on everything. Predictions that Nordyke will turn out well for us are not "optimism." They are what everything that has come before point to. Similarly, Kcbrown is not "skeptical." He is pathologically paranoid, and that is the nicest possible way I can say it.
Heh.

Needless to say, that's a bit of an exaggeration. But perhaps in the right spirit.

"Paranoia" is perhaps not quite the right term, since I go out in public and do the things that normal people do without even giving it a second thought. I'm not irrationally afraid of bad things happening to me or anything of that sort. The government doesn't appear to be out to get me, and I don't act as if it is.

But I try to be a staunch, stark realist. Wanna know what the score is? Just examine the amount of freedom most people had even 50 years ago (minorities had it much worse, alas) and compare it with now. Note how much more strongly regulated we all are. Ask your grandparents what they were able to do back in their day, and compare against what we can do today. I'm not talking about what technology makes possible, I'm talking about more basic things than that.

If you were to ask someone who lived during the 30s, 40s, and 50s what they thought about the freedom they had back then versus what they have now, they'd almost invariably tell you that they had enormously more freedom to do what they wanted back then than they do now.

Every law on the books is one that at some point in the past didn't exist. People had more freedom prior to the passage of a law than they did after its passage. Multiply that by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of laws. That is the overall direction of things.

My viewpoint is what it is because the events I observe in the real world force me to have it. I would not be a realist otherwise.


I will most definitely acknowledge that we are winning the fight in a big way elsewhere in the country (look at the Constitutional carry laws being introduced! Great stuff). But not here. Not yet. Right now, it appears we're fighting a holding action. If things change substantially and permanently for us here in California as a whole then I will change my viewpoint accordingly. I will happily admit I was wrong. That, too, demands that I change my viewpoint.

But I would much rather be pleasantly surprised than unpleasantly surprised.


Quote:
Owned.
Yes indeed I was. That was some good smackdown by dantodd.
__________________
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; 02-25-2011 at 1:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-25-2011, 2:16 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is online now
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,265
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I will most definitely acknowledge that we are winning the fight in a big way elsewhere in the country (look at the Constitutional carry laws being introduced! Great stuff). But not here. Not yet. Right now, it appears we're fighting a holding action. If things change substantially and permanently for us here in California as a whole then I will change my viewpoint accordingly. I will happily admit I was wrong. That, too, demands that I change my viewpoint.

But I would much rather be pleasantly surprised than unpleasantly surprised.

Yes indeed.

OK let's make this concrete. Let's get down to brass tacks.

I say that if we get a favorable ruling in all three of Nordyke, Pena v. Cid, and Richards v. Prieto in the next 365 days that you will publicly declare that things have changed "substantially and permanently for us here in California as a whole." And donate another $100 to the CalGuns Foundation.

And we'll define "favorable" according to Gene Hoffman, Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb.

If these conditions are not met than I'll donate another $100 to CalGuns Foundation.

Whatta ya say?
__________________
A Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CalGuns Foundation FAQ - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ
Main Page CalGuns Wiki - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
CA Legislature Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, lots of reporting on current CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-25-2011, 2:41 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
OK let's make this concrete. Let's get down to brass tacks.

I say that if we get a favorable ruling in all three of Nordyke, Pena v. Cid, and Richards v. Prieto in the next 365 days that you will publicly declare that things have changed "substantially and permanently for us here in California as a whole." And donate another $100 to the CalGuns Foundation.

And we'll define "favorable" according to Gene Hoffman, Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb.

If these conditions are not met than I'll donate another $100 to CalGuns Foundation.

Whatta ya say?
Sounds great, but let's make it like this: whoever wins donates $100, and whoever loses donates $200.

After all, if we don't do so well then CGF will need even more to continue the fight, and if we do very well then CGF will need even more to fight the inevitable local skirmishes afterwards.

Sound like a deal?
__________________
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
  #23  
Old 02-25-2011, 2:54 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Yes indeed I was. That was some good smackdown by dantodd.
All in good fun. I am not confident we will win Nordyke outright here. It is surely possible that we lose here but get a good result on scrutiny. This would be relatively in line with their last analysis. BUT Chester has been decided in the interim which does give some hope for a complete victory.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-25-2011, 3:12 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
All in good fun.
Yep, I got a laugh out of it!

I've been on the net ever since Usenet was primarily UUCP-driven point-to-point distribution, and participated in my share of flamewars, so it's nigh unto impossible to upset me online. Usenet was very good for building a tough hide.


Quote:
I am not confident we will win Nordyke outright here. It is surely possible that we lose here but get a good result on scrutiny. This would be relatively in line with their last analysis. BUT Chester has been decided in the interim which does give some hope for a complete victory.
Frankly, if we get the results we want on scrutiny but a loss on the ruling itself, then it should make the appeal that much easier to win, so a win on scrutiny but a "loss" on the main ruling won't actually be much of a loss in my opinion (wow, can you believe I'm actually saying something "optimistic" here? )...
__________________
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; 02-25-2011 at 3:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-25-2011, 3:13 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I try to be a staunch, stark realist. Wanna know what the score is? Just examine the amount of freedom most people had even 50 years ago (minorities had it much worse, alas) and compare it with now. Note how much more strongly regulated we all are. Ask your grandparents what they were able to do back in their day, and compare against what we can do today. I'm not talking about what technology makes possible, I'm talking about more basic things than that.

If you were to ask someone who lived during the 30s, 40s, and 50s what they thought about the freedom they had back then versus what they have now, they'd almost invariably tell you that they had enormously more freedom to do what they wanted back then than they do now.

Every law on the books is one that at some point in the past didn't exist. People had more freedom prior to the passage of a law than they did after its passage. Multiply that by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of laws. That is the overall direction of things.
Well I suppose you've got me there.

On reflection, I think I read your analysis of the present and forseeable future as implying that justice and goodness have lost and that there's no sense in fighting back, which I hate. But maybe I'm wrong. It's hard to correctly interpret people's statements over the Internet.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-25-2011, 3:18 PM
MudCamper's Avatar
MudCamper MudCamper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sebastopol
Posts: 3,868
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Don't confuse cynicism with skepticism. I think the word everyone is looking for for for kc is cynicism.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-25-2011, 3:27 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is online now
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,265
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Sounds great, but let's make it like this: whoever wins donates $100, and whoever loses donates $200.

After all, if we don't do so well then CGF will need even more to continue the fight, and if we do very well then CGF will need even more to fight the inevitable local skirmishes afterwards.

Sound like a deal?

Deal.

Start saving your nickels!
__________________
A Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CalGuns Foundation FAQ - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ
Main Page CalGuns Wiki - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
CA Legislature Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, lots of reporting on current CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-25-2011, 3:42 PM
craneman's Avatar
craneman craneman is offline
Gold Member...Oh Behave!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,209
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
OK let's make this concrete. Let's get down to brass tacks.

I say that if we get a favorable ruling in all three of Nordyke, Pena v. Cid, and Richards v. Prieto in the next 365 days that you will publicly declare that things have changed "substantially and permanently for us here in California as a whole." And donate another $100 to the CalGuns Foundation.

And we'll define "favorable" according to Gene Hoffman, Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb.

If these conditions are not met than I'll donate another $100 to CalGuns Foundation.

Whatta ya say?
I'm in with ya for the $100.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-25-2011, 4:00 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreaded Claymore View Post
Well I suppose you've got me there.

On reflection, I think I read your analysis of the present and forseeable future as implying that justice and goodness have lost and that there's no sense in fighting back, which I hate. But maybe I'm wrong. It's hard to correctly interpret people's statements over the Internet.
My sense is that justice and goodness have, indeed, essentially lost (there are a few shining beacons of light left here and there, and the fight for RKBA is one of them, but the overall picture has me looking around for the big reset button).

But that does not mean we shouldn't fight back! Evil needs to be fought no matter the odds of winning. If you fight, your odds of winning are at least non-zero, and you might get lucky. If you don't fight, the odds of winning are zero. I'll take a slim hope over no hope at all any day.

But I'm a realist. A slim hope is hope, but it's still slim nonetheless. And I have to call them as I see them, because my fealty to the truth compels me to.
__________________
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; 02-25-2011 at 4:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-25-2011, 4:01 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Deal.

Start saving your nickels!

Excellent.

This is one that I want to "lose".
__________________
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
  #31  
Old 02-26-2011, 12:28 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
My sense is that justice and goodness have, indeed, essentially lost.
Then explain Heller and McDonald.

-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
  #32  
Old 02-26-2011, 2:18 AM
ALSystems's Avatar
ALSystems ALSystems is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: On the Far Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,160
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
But I try to be a staunch, stark realist. Wanna know what the score is? Just examine the amount of freedom most people had even 50 years ago (minorities had it much worse, alas) and compare it with now. Note how much more strongly regulated we all are. Ask your grandparents what they were able to do back in their day, and compare against what we can do today. I'm not talking about what technology makes possible, I'm talking about more basic things than that.

If you were to ask someone who lived during the 30s, 40s, and 50s what they thought about the freedom they had back then versus what they have now, they'd almost invariably tell you that they had enormously more freedom to do what they wanted back then than they do now.

Every law on the books is one that at some point in the past didn't exist. People had more freedom prior to the passage of a law than they did after its passage. Multiply that by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of laws. That is the overall direction of things.
I remember an old timer told me that he lived in LA in the 1930s and used to ride the street cars. Occasionally he would whip out a pistol and shoot at jack rabbits outside through the window. None of this bothered the other riders. Almost unimaginable!

Remember I said this was open shooting in Los Angeles on public transportation was acceptable!
Los Angeles today is such an overregulated Nanny City/Big Brother town that even George Orwell wouldn't believe it.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-26-2011, 4:22 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Then explain Heller and McDonald.
"Essentially lost" != "completely lost". Heller and McDonald are fruits of the fight for RKBA, which I cited as one of the few shining beacons of light left standing.
__________________
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
  #34  
Old 02-26-2011, 5:28 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,043
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Personally, I think the fight for the RKBA is in a momentum building phase. The other side still predominates - they've got many decades of dominance and thus huge bodies of law and a sort of inertia which will have to be overcome. But the RKBA is building momentum and that is important to realize.

But so far as Nordyke? I may not understand the politics and social dynamics on the 9th Circuit, but it would not at all surprise me if there are several dynamics leading to my frustration at the lack of a ruling at this time. Yes, Chester is likely a factor, but I think sholling nailed another factor - the previous ruling having been taken en banc after this same panel issued it. I seriously doubt that all three judges on that panel liked being de-published and being taken en banc, kind of a slap in the face they probably don't want again.

So you really might have lobbying going on within the 9th Circuit and (if such is permitted) it would not surprise me at all if the three judge panel is trying to come up with a ruling that would not suffer that same rather ignominious fate.

But I'm speculating - I don't really know and there probably aren't many who really do know.

But to speculate further? I'd bet they take another two months of internal wrangling and then issue the ruling - and it doesn't get taken en banc. And I'd take that any day over a ruling on Monday which is then taken en banc.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-26-2011, 6:11 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Personally, I think the fight for the RKBA is in a momentum building phase. The other side still predominates - they've got many decades of dominance and thus huge bodies of law and a sort of inertia which will have to be overcome. But the RKBA is building momentum and that is important to realize.
Not only that, but elsewhere in the country, it appears to be building rather fast, especially in areas that already have some recognition of RKBA. I love how several states are very close to passing Constitutional carry bills. That's huge progress.

It's in the staunch anti-RKBA strongholds that progress is very slow. Even DC and Chicago are acting in defiance of the Supreme Court's rulings which targeted them directly, prompting additional lawsuits that have not (as far as I know) yet been resolved.

And here in California, nothing at all has changed for the vast majority of people, since those people live on or near the coast. Sacramento County is really the only populated region that has seen some real improvement.


We're very hopeful that all that is about to change, of course. But if Chicago and DC can get away with directly defying the Supreme Court's directives, why can't California?

I do think we're going to win in the end. That's the direction the RKBA trend is going, after all. But I think it's going to take many, many years. Decades, even.

But who knows. I've been wrong before, and I'd love to be wrong about this.
__________________
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
  #36  
Old 02-26-2011, 9:42 AM
pointedstick's Avatar
pointedstick pointedstick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 566
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

As much as it pains me, I have to admit that I generally agree with kcbrown. We are indeed winning with RKBA, and that's amazing. But RKBA is one small part of liberty, and today it very much seems like we're losing everywhere else.

I mean, more professions than ever before are subject to discretionarily-issued licenses to operate. You can't build a house on your own property without getting permission and following arcane codes laid down in thousand-page tomes. The police can invade your home and shoot your family members in the dead of night with no liability, while if you mistake them for criminals and fire back you will be prosecuted for murder. At every level of government, regulatory codes criminalize the most insignificant behaviors. Every government form requires your social security number and home address. Sales and income taxes are higher than they've ever been for those who aren't rich. Ever read your city or county codes? You're probably a criminal already six ways to sunday. I discovered that watering your car with a hose is a misdemeanor where I live.

Like him, I would love to be wrong. But I just don't see it right now. Society has changed for the better in many ways, and technology makes things possible today that would have been unthinkable yesterday, but in terms of what you can be fined or thrown in prison for doing, that list has ballooned beyond all recognition.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-26-2011, 9:53 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
"Essentially lost" != "completely lost". Heller and McDonald are fruits of the fight for RKBA, which I cited as one of the few shining beacons of light left standing.
So essentially you aren't explaining Heller and McDonald. In fact, you're doing exactly what the judge in Peruta did - interpreting facts/law narrowly to support your opinion of the state of the world.

There now exists no home handgun ban in the United States. That couldn't be said in January 2008.

-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
  #38  
Old 02-26-2011, 10:19 AM
CalBear's Avatar
CalBear CalBear is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,279
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pointedstick View Post
As much as it pains me, I have to admit that I generally agree with kcbrown. We are indeed winning with RKBA, and that's amazing. But RKBA is one small part of liberty, and today it very much seems like we're losing everywhere else.

I mean, more professions than ever before are subject to discretionarily-issued licenses to operate. You can't build a house on your own property without getting permission and following arcane codes laid down in thousand-page tomes. The police can invade your home and shoot your family members in the dead of night with no liability, while if you mistake them for criminals and fire back you will be prosecuted for murder. At every level of government, regulatory codes criminalize the most insignificant behaviors. Every government form requires your social security number and home address. Sales and income taxes are higher than they've ever been for those who aren't rich. Ever read your city or county codes? You're probably a criminal already six ways to sunday. I discovered that watering your car with a hose is a misdemeanor where I live.

Like him, I would love to be wrong. But I just don't see it right now. Society has changed for the better in many ways, and technology makes things possible today that would have been unthinkable yesterday, but in terms of what you can be fined or thrown in prison for doing, that list has ballooned beyond all recognition.
QFT.

This basically sums up my feelings about how we live today. It's why a big part of me wants to live in unincorporated land miles away from cities. Even then much of this cannot be escaped. It bothers me how little we can actually do with our land, our homes, and even inside our homes without being scrutinized or criminalized.

We have become a society of p***ified, scared little runts who seek permission from mommy government for every little thing, and scurry to the nanny state to take care of minor inconveniences by enacting laws.

I don't know how it has gotten this bad, and thankfully we aren't as bad as the UK yet, but we've gotten to the point where people think it's acceptable to need a permit or permission for every small thing in life. They think it's ok that we have no privacy anymore. They think it's ok that more and more crimes are becoming felonies, and more and more seemingly harmless things are becoming misdemeanors. Somehow it's ok that government employees have more "rights" than commoners.

I see RKBA as a beacon through the fog -- a shining example of people striving to counteract this lack of fortitude and personal responsibility. It puts a smile on my face when I know people all across the country take on the personal challenge and responsibility to safely carry a weapon for their protection, and frankly, for the protection of others by proxy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-26-2011, 10:19 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,043
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think y'all are still being a bit pessimistic. Maybe not grossly so, but at least a bit.

Here in California we're stuck with a judiciary which is decidedly unfriendly to the RKBA as well as a general population which is about the same. That is, indeed, going to slow down the process of restoring rights.

But you can't look at California in isolation. As time goes on and more states have "Constitutional Carry" and the population is not devastated and as jurisprudence advances elsewhere, there will be both political and judicial feedback that will result in accelerating wins here.

I figure we're several years behind places such as Nevada but 10 years from now there may not be all that much difference.

So Nordyke will come out with something less friendly than Chester and that, along with other cases wending their way through the courts will likely get things kicked back up to SCOTUS and I expect about two years from now we get a ruling from SCOTUS laying out at least the broad outline for scrutiny.

The battle won't be over but that is when you're really going to start to see change in California and other uber-restrictive states. Even then games will be played, but I think that 5 years from now California will look very different from today and it would not surprise me if 4-7 years from now you have very legal LOC.

Even then the fight won't be over.

But consider the likely trends otherwise?

Look, Obama is likely a one-term president. You have to at least give a nod to the "Birthers" because it is quite clear Obama thinks that releasing a copy of his birth certificate and other documentation regarding his past will kill him politically. Since it is likely that one or more states will pass a law requiring such documentation to be a candidate in their state and that it will likely stand up to the court challenge - Obama may not even run in 2012.

Congress is not dominated by Tea Party types, but they are now significantly influenced by the Tea Party. The Tea Party is not happy with the advancing loss of freedom and it can at least be hoped that they will effectively push for some reversals.

Fox News is a help in that they do help to publicize some of the problems out there and that will tend to help influence the direction of the country.

Perhaps even more important is the Drudge Report. Surprisingly influential in the news business and constantly bringing up problems with the direction of the country for people to see how they're being messed over.

It could prove very satisfying over time but it's going to be rough for a while yet.

Also, don't forget what happens if California and similar leftist states are recognized as effectively bankrupt? It could be that this will be very influential in pointing out to the general public how the Leftist agenda just doesn't work. With California more or less planning a vote on continued high tax rates in a few months the rude awakening could come very soon (a similar attempt failed not too long ago).

Then if you want the really bizarre stuff? What if Obama doesn't get re-elected and the system(s) no longer protects the info he so desperately doesn't want released? We get passport information and discover he is an Indonesian citizen - not a U.S. one? What happens with the court challenge to every single document he has signed? Would the country as a whole start to demand strict adherence to the Constitution to prevent such further disasters?

Speculative to say the least - but it is within the realm of possibility and the implications could be huge/catastrophic.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-26-2011, 10:30 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
So essentially you aren't explaining Heller and McDonald. In fact, you're doing exactly what the judge in Peruta did - interpreting facts/law narrowly to support your opinion of the state of the world.
I must disagree. That the fight for RKBA is going well does not mean that the overall state of the country is improving as regards freedom, and it is rather simplistic to argue that it does.


Quote:
There now exists no home handgun ban in the United States. That couldn't be said in January 2008.
Yes. How many different ways do I have to say it? The fight for RKBA is a shining beacon of light in the fight for freedom. It stands in stark contrast with the general direction the country is going.

You cannot cite wins on the RKBA front alone as evidence that the general trend is reversing. It's not enough by itself. I wish it were.

I'm a realist. I go where the evidence tells me to. I do not intentionally bury my head in the sand in an effort to ignore evidence that may change my worldview, your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. When we start being more free overall and the trend reversal becomes obvious, I will change my viewpoint. What I see of the real world tells me that I will be waiting a very long time for that to happen, but I could be wrong about that. I hope I'm wrong about that. But hope alone does nothing in the real world.
__________________
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; 02-26-2011 at 10:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:38 AM.




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