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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 05-25-2011, 9:01 AM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago View Post
Judges seem to think that they can hijack the constitution's meaning by using ersatz synonyms for constitutional lexicon. So I was truly quite pleased to see, in his 23-MAY-11 Nordyke filing, Mr. Kilmer's effort to juxtapose the word 'infringed' with softer alternatives which, had they been used by the framers, would give the court more room to breathe. Seeing no such legitimate breathing room hence hoping that the effort continues, I wrote only to suggest that grammatical purists will be distracted by some readily remedied imprecision ... rather like telling a friend that his zipper is down before he goes back out in public.

With respect to "... the verb clause 'undue burden' ..."
- Clauses are either independent or dependent (aka subordinate)
There is no such thing as a 'verb clause'
- Clauses, by definition, have verbs
'Undue burden' has no verb, hence is not any kind of clause
- 'Undo burden' is a phrase
It consists of an adjective (undue) modifying a noun (burden)
It refers to a person, place, or thing
It is a noun phrase
With respect to "... the verb 'infringed' ..."
- Often in English a past participle looks like a past-tense verb
My right has been infringed ('infringed' is a past participle)
He infringed my right ('infringed' is a past-tense verb)
- Sometimes it does not
The apple has been eaten ('eaten' is a past participle)
He ate the apple ('ate' is a past-tense verb)
- A past participle is a verbal but not a verb
It functions, always, as an adjective
As used in the second amendment, it is a predicate adjective

I didn't write the rules, but I do know them.

Also, and with all due respect, ... The most recent Nordyke opinion referred to 'undo burden' only in the context of abortion rights. For the most part, the court found its breathing room by using 'substantially burdened' where the framers preferred 'infringed'. Not quite as egregious, but egregious nonetheless.

Beyond that; I'm pleased to concede the 'top bunk' to Mr. Kilmer, with gratitude, as he's more than earned it.

Peace
We'll have to agree to disagree. But I appreciate and respect your criticism.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

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

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

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
  #82  
Old 05-25-2011, 1:22 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,042
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I apologize for nitpicking. I am also glad Mr. Kilmer is addressing the plain language of the constitution. I didn't mean to imply in the least that I didn't think it was a worthy argument; quite the contrary, I am extremely pleased. I will let FGG take care of the whinging
  #83  
Old 05-25-2011, 1:37 PM
Smokeybehr's Avatar
Smokeybehr Smokeybehr is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CM96xx
Posts: 798
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Arma View Post
Finally a valid criticism! But you forgot the missing article on page 13, the missing possessive 's on page 13 (Texas = Texas's) and the misspelled word on page 17.

And in case you hadn't noticed, I was kinda busy the 3rd week of May and even though my four (4) proof readers also missed these mistakes, I take full responsibility for the brief AND its mistakes.
FIRE 'EM! I'll take a job as a proofreader. I've been a well-known internet grammar/spelling Nazi for a LONG time.
__________________
Rule #1: Keep your booger hook off the bang-switch!
Cruz/West 2016 - You STILL want to call me a racist tea bagger?
  #84  
Old 05-25-2011, 1:40 PM
Grakken's Avatar
Grakken Grakken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,102
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Thanks Lex for being on our side.
__________________
NRA - Life Member

Guns don't kill people. People Kill people.
  #85  
Old 05-25-2011, 2:37 PM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I apologize for nitpicking. I am also glad Mr. Kilmer is addressing the plain language of the constitution. I didn't mean to imply in the least that I didn't think it was a worthy argument; quite the contrary, I am extremely pleased. I will let FGG take care of the whinging
No apology necessary, I seem to recall a rather famous feud among our Founding Fathers about whether 'unalienable' or 'inalienable' was the correct usage in a rather famous document. Without the delusions of grandeur that this observation implies, I thinks there is always room for good natured criticism of grammar.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

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

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

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
  #86  
Old 09-04-2011, 9:34 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,119
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

It's been more than 100 days. Justice delayed is Justice denied. Heavy sigh....
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
  #87  
Old 09-04-2011, 10:10 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,448
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple K View Post
It's been more than 100 days. Justice delayed is Justice denied. Heavy sigh....
Real battles don't happen quickly. Just ask Mr. Lincoln.

-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
  #88  
Old 09-05-2011, 9:43 AM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I think we are waiting on Alameda to file a reply brief.
  #89  
Old 09-05-2011, 12:28 PM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nope. Alameda filed a response. We filed a reply. Waiting on the court.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

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

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

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
  #90  
Old 09-05-2011, 12:52 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The court is obviously aware of the sea change that's underway. They neither want to lead the way, nor be seen as obstructing the SCOTUS. It's a tough spot to be in if you aren't willing to accept the amendment at face value.
__________________
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
  #91  
Old 09-05-2011, 1:38 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,208
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Lesson learned.

Until I read this thread, I didn't really get the significance of "shall not be infringed" versus "undue burden".

When Alan Gura said that the "Heller case" was the lawyer's full employment act, I didn't realize how true his words are.

IMHO, the second amendment was probably meant to be far more expansive than we have gotten so far from "Heller and MacDonald".

Of course we have been focusing on our RKBA, there has been little if any discussion our our DKBA(Duty to keep and bear arms).

Of course "Militia duty" was probably less popular then "Jury duty" which would probably explain why it kind of faded away.

We need to keep in mind that while we are going on "offense in the court of law", we will need to also start winning in the court of public opinion.

Fortunately we have some "Forward thinking individuals" on this board who are blindsiding the enemy.

Nicki
  #92  
Old 09-05-2011, 1:53 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Second Amendment has the convenient yet largely unheeded feature of having it's own level of scrutiny written directly into it's text.

The fact that there is any debate about scrutiny at all reminds of the joke where an employee, who had been warned repeatedly about his tardiness found himself once again late for work and unable to find a parking spot.

He began to pray: "God, please, just this once, let there be a spot open up near the front door. Please God, please!"

Miraculously just as he nears the entrance he sees that the first parking spot near the front door is empty and he says: "Oh, never mind, God, I found one."

The 'scrutiny' for the Second Amendment has been hiding in plain sight for more than 200 years.
__________________
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

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 09-05-2011 at 1:56 PM..
  #93  
Old 09-05-2011, 2:07 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,679
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
The Second Amendment has the convenient yet largely unheeded feature of having it's own level of scrutiny written directly into it's text.
Even SCOTUS seems to recognize that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heller Decision
The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
(bolded emphasis mine)

However, I can't help but expect that the bolded wording above was just "for show", and that SCOTUS didn't really mean it. For if they did, then any law which is considered to infringe the right would be Unconstitutional on its face, and no amount of justification (which is what "scrutiny" really is) would save it. And I simply don't see SCOTUS having that strong a spine.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 09-05-2011 at 2:11 PM..
  #94  
Old 09-05-2011, 2:17 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,888
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Even SCOTUS seems to recognize that:


Originally Posted by Heller Decision The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.
(bolded emphasis mine)

However, I can't help but expect that the bolded wording above was just "for show", and that SCOTUS didn't really mean it. For if they did, then any law which is considered to infringe the right would be Unconstitutional on its face, and no amount of justification (which is what "scrutiny" really is) would save it. And I simply don't see SCOTUS having that strong a spine.
I am troubled by that paragraph... If the Justices truly believed that, how could they slice and dice the Fourth Amendment as much as they have...
__________________
  #95  
Old 09-05-2011, 3:22 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
I am troubled by that paragraph... If the Justices truly believed that, how could they slice and dice the Fourth Amendment as much as they have...
Supreme court nominations are the number one reason why presidential elections matter far beyond whatever damage they can do during their term.
__________________
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
  #96  
Old 09-05-2011, 3:43 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Didn't Ezell rule that the "you can't do it here, because you can do it there" is still a burden?
  #97  
Old 09-05-2011, 3:54 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,891
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi357 View Post
Didn't Ezell rule that the "you can't do it here, because you can do it there" is still a burden?
It was even better than that. They didn't use the undue burden test at all. It wasn't a mere peripheral infringement, in their opinion, so that test wasn't appropriate. It was more like: You can't ban ranges here, just because they don't ban them there, period. When near the core of the right, cases don't get decided on rational basis tests.
__________________
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

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 09-05-2011 at 5:34 PM..
  #98  
Old 09-05-2011, 5:13 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It seems to me that buying a gun is very close to the core right. It's pretty hard to exercise your 2A right without a weapon.
The idea that you can buy a gun at a gun store, so gun shows are banned is toast.
  #99  
Old 09-05-2011, 5:28 PM
notme92069 notme92069 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Free America
Posts: 861
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'm saving it to read on my flight tomorrow. I actually wish it was longer to keep me amused during the flight
__________________
NRA Member
CRPA Member
Don't yank on the trigger. It's not your pecker.
Member #46312
  #100  
Old 09-05-2011, 6:20 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,130
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

after ezell and mcdonald, I can't believe that CA can keep SB23 on the books. THAT is infringed/undue burden/not equally applied 2nd amendment to the states...etc.
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
  #101  
Old 09-05-2011, 6:50 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,812
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
after ezell and mcdonald, I can't believe that CA can keep SB23 on the books. THAT is infringed/undue burden/not equally applied 2nd amendment to the states...etc.
But it will take a Federal court suit to make it go away.

All in good time ...
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #102  
Old 09-05-2011, 6:53 PM
rero360 rero360 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 3,836
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Real battles don't happen quickly. Just ask Mr. Lincoln.

-Gene
They do when you own the airspace, and have superior firepower
  #103  
Old 09-06-2011, 7:54 AM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 11,355
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
after ezell and mcdonald, I can't believe that CA can keep SB23 on the books. THAT is infringed/undue burden/not equally applied 2nd amendment to the states...etc.
That's why SB23 is being challenged in the courts
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
  #104  
Old 09-06-2011, 8:40 AM
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,621
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Don, Thanks. I was a little out of date... I looked at the docket and I see that Alameda filed a response on the July 12th and the court allowed a reply brief in support of the motion on the 18th. So if I understand correctly, we are waiting on the court to rule on the motion for the En Banc hearing.

Fingers are crossed.
__________________

  #105  
Old 09-06-2011, 5:27 PM
spdtiger's Avatar
spdtiger spdtiger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 340
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

so once this is done we are going to challenge the ca handgun roster list, it seems that the list would be an easy slam dunk compared to this
  #106  
Old 09-06-2011, 5:34 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,126
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spdtiger View Post
so once this is done we are going to challenge the ca handgun roster list, it seems that the list would be an easy slam dunk compared to this
Already started on that one

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid
  #107  
Old 11-28-2011, 4:45 PM
Monte's Avatar
Monte Monte is offline
Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 427
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

According to the CGF Twitter feed, Nordyke v. King is going en-banc, again.
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Nor...2011-11-28.pdf

[Edit: Brandon/Wildhawker's post: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=505242]
  #108  
Old 11-28-2011, 4:48 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The three-judge panel
opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
Interesting, but (as a DQ), this is always the case when it goes en banc, yeah?

Erik.
Closed Thread

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 12:00 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.