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
  #801  
Old 03-27-2012, 12:00 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglemike View Post
FGG,
If one reads the entirety of your posts on various threads it's very easy to see a personal axe to grind - and this has been going on a long time. I'm thinking there is some reason for you to remain anonymous. This does stretch credibility at times..........
Not at all, this has been discussed before. I'm selective about the cases and issues I comment on, and if I'm commenting on something it's because I am seeing some problem or another.
Reply With Quote
  #802  
Old 03-27-2012, 12:13 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have come to believe that FGG does not have an axe to grind. But he occupies the role of pundit here, and he's very good IMO. I do wish he were more proactively helpful rather than just critical.
__________________
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
  #803  
Old 03-27-2012, 12:26 PM
goldrush goldrush is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
I have come to believe that FGG does not have an axe to grind. But he occupies the role of pundit here, and he's very good IMO. I do wish he were more proactively helpful rather than just critical.
He is helpful, if you'd care to ask. In typical group fashion, the dynamic here has concentrated respect in a few, and the acolytes presume them wise and serve as soldiers in defending the leaders and their place at the head of the group from criticism or challenge. It's typical group psychology.

To the pysche, group membership is more powerful and more desired than ultimate rectitude. Would new leaders ultimately assume control of the group, the same defenders of the prior regime would vigorously defend the new leaders and presume them as sage as the old bunch.

Before the next case is filed, call for a conference here, perhaps in a private forum, and have it knocked around and hammered into shape by FGG and others who could lend critical judgment.

Last edited by goldrush; 03-27-2012 at 12:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 03-27-2012, 12:48 PM
monk's Avatar
monk monk is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,229
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldrush View Post
He is helpful, if you'd care to ask. In typical group fashion, the dynamic here has concentrated respect in a few, and the acolytes presume them wise and serve as soldiers in defending the leaders and their place at the head of the group from criticism or challenge. It's typical group psychology.

To the pysche, group membership is more powerful and more desired than ultimate rectitude. Would new leaders ultimately assume control of the group, the same defenders of the prior regime would vigorously defend the new leaders and presume them as sage as the old bunch.

Before the next case is filed, call for a conference here, perhaps in a private forum, and have it knocked around and hammered into shape by FGG and others who could lend critical judgment.
Why not just join CGF? Isn't that entirely the purpose of it?
__________________


NRA Member
SAF Member


Quote:
A tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.
Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 03-27-2012, 2:20 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldrush View Post
Before the next case is filed, call for a conference here, perhaps in a private forum, and have it knocked around and hammered into shape by FGG and others who could lend critical judgment.
I'm happy to facilitate that sort of collaboration. However, he's so far refused to do as much or provide his bar card number.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

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

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 03-27-2012, 2:52 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I'm happy to facilitate that sort of collaboration. However, he's so far refused to do as much or provide his bar card number.
Want to be a little more specific about what exactly I have refused to do? What I don't want to do is form an attorney-client relationship with anybody and/or provide legal advice. I do want to remain anonymous and don't want to "provide my bar card number." So beyond that what have I refused to do?
Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 03-27-2012, 2:52 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I'm happy to facilitate that sort of collaboration. However, he's so far refused to do as much or provide his bar card number.

-Brandon
There's no way FGG could be collaborated with unless he were willing to disclose his identity, at least privately and in confidence. We obviously couldn't have an unknown individual being privy to sensitive strategy meetings. In any case, he seems content enough with the role he presently occupies. And I'm not sure Gene's blood pressure wouldn't rise to dangerous levels, LOL.
__________________
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; 03-27-2012 at 2:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 03-27-2012, 2:57 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
There's no way FGG could be collaborated with unless he were willing to disclose his identity, at least privately and in confidence. We obviously couldn't have an unknown individual being privy to sensitive strategy meetings. And he seems content enough with the role he presently occupies.
That pretty much sums it up!

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 03-27-2012 at 2:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 03-27-2012, 3:04 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
I have come to believe that FGG does not have an axe to grind. But he occupies the role of pundit here, and he's very good IMO. I do wish he were more proactively helpful rather than just critical.

I agree, I think what irks some is that his responses are not in tune with CGF.

FGG certainly adds entertainment with a twist to his point of view whether you agree or disagree with that view.
Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 03-27-2012, 3:04 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,418
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
That pretty much sums it up!
Such that no confidential or strategy conversations would ever take place outside an actual attorney-client relationship, it seems the logical conclusion that your refusal to enter into one pretty well precludes any discussion on the merits except the retrospective armchair quarterbacking we see continuing here.

Are you conflicted out of working with us, or is it some other reason?

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

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

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #811  
Old 03-27-2012, 3:40 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No conflict; I would basically need to start my own practice and all the paperwork and b.s. that entails including deadlines and liability exposure, and that's something I'm just not interested in doing. Anonymous armchair quarterbacking is a diversion for me and I can do it as little or as often as time permits with no strings attached.
Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 03-27-2012, 4:13 PM
IGOTDIRT4U's Avatar
IGOTDIRT4U IGOTDIRT4U is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: So California
Posts: 10,862
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
No conflict; I would basically need to start my own practice and all the paperwork and b.s. that entails including deadlines and liability exposure, and that's something I'm just not interested in doing. Anonymous armchair quarterbacking is a diversion for me and I can do it as little or as often as time permits with no strings attached.
So, in legal profession terms, someone else is paying for your E&O and Malpractice insurance.

Got it. So, you work for a firm and are captive to their work unless you go out and hang and support your own shingle.

Guess that is not too out of the ordinary as a lot of attorneys are in that same boat.
__________________
"Over-sentimentality, over-softness, in fact washiness and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people. Unless we keep the barbarian virtue, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Would you people please stop bashing "Elmer Fudd?" After all, he was an avid sportsman, hunter, and 2a supporter. -Ed in Sac
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 03-27-2012, 4:19 PM
goldrush goldrush is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
I'm happy to facilitate that sort of collaboration. However, he's so far refused to do as much or provide his bar card number.

-Brandon
In all fairness, he'd be foolish to do that. You folks aren't terribly keen on sharing the reins, and you lash out at dissenters.

Further, how is his status as an attorney or learned lay relevant to his insight? Draft your complaint, and ask him to knock it around. It will be public record in due course, so it matters little what a double agent (which he is not) would disclose.

Last edited by goldrush; 03-27-2012 at 4:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 03-27-2012, 4:20 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,864
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
No conflict; I would basically need to start my own practice and all the paperwork and b.s. that entails including deadlines and liability exposure, and that's something I'm just not interested in doing. Anonymous armchair quarterbacking is a diversion for me and I can do it as little or as often as time permits with no strings attached.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IGOTDIRT4U View Post
So, in legal profession terms, someone else is paying for your E&O and Malpractice insurance.

Got it. So, you work for a firm and are captive to their work unless you go out and hang and support your own shingle.

Guess that is not too out of the ordinary as a lot of attorneys are in that same boat.
That is my take on it...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 03-27-2012, 4:56 PM
trashman's Avatar
trashman trashman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Great Valley
Posts: 3,787
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

While I appreciate all the armchair moot-courting FFG likes to provide, the extended gainsaying really ceases to be interesting after a while since he has no skin in the issue (either as a non-anonymous person, or an interested gunny).

So much of what really matters here, particularly in building alliances on issues like gun rights, has a lot to do with genuine goodwill and a willingness to scacrifice some time or personal credibility for the cause.

As FGG notes, this is merely a diversion for him/her, and s/he has no incentive to be anything but as intellectually recalcitrant as he feels at any given moment - it clearly gives him/her some perverse pleasure in sowing FUD amongst the folks here, for many of whom the term "lawyer" is otherwise an epithet.

So let's not pretend FGG is just a neutral third party - he is gaming this instead of watching the new season of "Mad Men" or playing "Angry Birds".

--neill

Last edited by trashman; 03-27-2012 at 9:35 PM.. Reason: typo - "gin rights" mean "gun rights" ..now need a drink
Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 03-27-2012, 5:39 PM
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

I do enjoy the claim that the Nordyke case has done nothing. I assume selective due process incorporation of the Second Amendment is nothing in GoldRush's eyes.

There are only two lawyers to ever get a ruling that the 2A applied to the states. One of them is Alan Gura... Too funny.

News on this topic later this evening when I can post it.

-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
  #817  
Old 03-27-2012, 5:53 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,864
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I do enjoy the claim that the Nordyke case has done nothing. I assume selective due process incorporation of the Second Amendment is nothing in GoldRush's eyes.

There are only two lawyers to ever get a ruling that the 2A applied to the states. One of them is Alan Gura... Too funny.

News on this topic later this evening when I can post it.

-Gene

Dammit Gene.......

Now I have to sit here and wait for your post..........
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 03-27-2012, 7:35 PM
Shotgun Man's Avatar
Shotgun Man Shotgun Man is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,054
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I do enjoy the claim that the Nordyke case has done nothing. I assume selective due process incorporation of the Second Amendment is nothing in GoldRush's eyes.

There are only two lawyers to ever get a ruling that the 2A applied to the states. One of them is Alan Gura... Too funny.

News on this topic later this evening when I can post it.

-Gene
Yes, I was excited when Nordyke incorporated the 2A, but that decision was granted en banc review giving it no value as legal precedent. Nice that it occurred but ultimately it was a hollow, almost meaningless, victory.
Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 03-27-2012, 7:45 PM
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

The Nordykes file a Motion to Supplement the Factual Record today. It bears directly on this question of whether the County has put anyone on notice of their new interpretation before the oral arguments.

-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
  #820  
Old 03-27-2012, 8:09 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
The Nordykes file a Motion to Supplement the Factual Record today. It bears directly on this question of whether the County has put anyone on notice of their new interpretation before the oral arguments.

-Gene
Oh snap!
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Reply With Quote
  #821  
Old 03-27-2012, 8:13 PM
freonr22's Avatar
freonr22 freonr22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 11,816
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
The Nordykes file a Motion to Supplement the Factual Record today. It bears directly on this question of whether the County has put anyone on notice of their new interpretation before the oral arguments.

-Gene
-like
__________________
<img src=http://calgunsfoundation.org/images/stories/San-Benito.jpg border=0 alt= />[IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
We will win. We are right. We will never stop fighting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
They don't believe it's possible, but then Alison didn't believe there'd be 350K - 400K OLLs in CA either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by louisianagirl View Post
Our fate is ours alone to decide as long as we remain armed heavily enough to dictate it.
Reply With Quote
  #822  
Old 03-27-2012, 8:18 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,314
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
The Nordykes file a Motion to Supplement the Factual Record today. It bears directly on this question of whether the County has put anyone on notice of their new interpretation before the oral arguments.

-Gene
OH YES!!!

Chew on this all you Ignorant, Nay-Saying, Armchair lawyers who think you understand ever the least part of what is going on in this case. Chew on this and think about how you and your deprecating and pitiful posts have been so publicly humbled before your betters. Go away and ponder your insufficiencies. Don't come back until you have something of value to post.

Blatherers. Idiots. Obstacles to the Restoration of 2nd Amendment Rights. Now go away or I shall taunt you again.
__________________
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
  #823  
Old 03-27-2012, 8:24 PM
RP1911's Avatar
RP1911 RP1911 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Minden, NV.
Posts: 4,709
iTrader: 159 / 100%
Default

Zing! That was a good read.
__________________
RP1911
-----------
NRA Life
CGN and NVS
Reply With Quote
  #824  
Old 03-27-2012, 9:14 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,781
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Blatherers. Idiots. Obstacles to the Restoration of 2nd Amendment Rights. Now go away or I shall taunt you again.
You forgot to fart in their general direction.
__________________
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
  #825  
Old 03-27-2012, 10:08 PM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,201
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I wonder why appellants didn't bring up the fact that they had reached out to appellees (through e-mail) in September 2010 requesting to open a dialog and hadn't received a response? There was only a reference during oral arguments to the original request 12 years ago and how it hadn't been answered.
Reply With Quote
  #826  
Old 03-27-2012, 10:26 PM
1911_sfca's Avatar
1911_sfca 1911_sfca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,201
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Sorry, but after reading the whole motion, I have to say it's somewhat weak. It sounds like a restatement of the sour grapes position that Chief Justice K. already shot down. IMHO they could have crafted a stronger position but it was just a restatement of an assortment of positions and microfacts without a logical conclusion or proof following from them.
Reply With Quote
  #827  
Old 03-27-2012, 10:33 PM
rkt88edmo's Avatar
rkt88edmo rkt88edmo is online now
Reptile&Samurai Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 9,477
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
You forgot to fart in their general direction.
Do I smell elderberries?
__________________
If it was a snake, it would have bit me.
Use the goog to search calguns
Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 03-27-2012, 10:47 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_sfca View Post
Sorry, but after reading the whole motion, I have to say it's somewhat weak. It sounds like a restatement of the sour grapes position that Chief Justice K. already shot down. IMHO they could have crafted a stronger position but it was just a restatement of an assortment of positions and microfacts without a logical conclusion or proof following from them.
I don't think he shot it down, it just wasn't relevant (in the Judge's view)to the point at hand, which was "could a gun show be held with tethered guns?" But that isn't the only issue or restriction being challenged.

Assuming the unresolved issue of ammo restrictions could be resolved, and there is no reason yet to think it will, the factual record is going to be important to establish what legal fees the county is responsible for.

If Don can show that the county was playing a shell game with their interpretation du jour that caused unnecessary litigation, it may help him collect fees.
__________________
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; 03-27-2012 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #829  
Old 03-28-2012, 5:51 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911_sfca View Post
Sorry, but after reading the whole motion, I have to say it's somewhat weak. It sounds like a restatement of the sour grapes position that Chief Justice K. already shot down.
Yep. Not to mention that it utterly fails to address any of the the above laundry list of examples dating back to at least 2006 where the county notified everyone, in briefs and in oral arguments, how it was interpreting its ordinance. I guess that since, according to the pre-2006 interrogatories, only the County Counsel is authorized to interpret the Alameda ordinance, the only logical conclusion is that nothing the litigation attorneys file or say in court about the ordinance is authorized.

Interesting also that the 2010 email correspondence directly contradicts the plaintiffs' attorney's representation in open court last monday that he was not aware of anything in writing consistent with the county attorney's representation in court that guns shows with secured guns are o.k. You'd think he'd at least try to do something to salvage his credibility instead of digging a deeper hole. Add the county's September 22, 2010 letter brief to the laundry list of examples where the county notified everyone that it was interpreting the ordinance to allow possession and display of guns at gun shows provided they were secured.

I'm sure the judges will be impressed with the half-assed "I'll let you start." More of the old tit-for-tat. The plaintiffs are still not conceding that guns tethered to the table is sufficient.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 03-28-2012 at 5:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 03-28-2012, 5:56 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Updating the laundry list:
  1. the county interpreted the exception to allow events with guns secured in its 2006 motion for summary judgment
  2. the district court interpreted the exception to allow events with guns secured in its 2007 order on the motion for summary judgment
  3. the county in various briefs post-2007 interpreted the exception to allow events with guns secured
  4. Pierce argued in open court in 2009 that the exception allowed events with guns secured
  5. Weaver argued in open court in 2009 that the exception allowed gun shows with guns secured by cable to a table
  6. Weaver argues in a 9/22/10 letter brief to the 9th circuit that the exception allows the display of guns at gun shows
  7. Weaver argued in open court in 2010 that the exception allowed events with guns secured
  8. Pierce argued in open court in 2012 that the exception allowed gun shows with guns secured by cables to a table

I suppose that after at least 6 years this interpretation could still qualify as a "wholly new idea."

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 03-28-2012 at 6:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #831  
Old 03-28-2012, 9:29 AM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 346
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Updating the laundry list:
  1. the county interpreted the exception to allow events with guns secured in its 2006 motion for summary judgment
  2. the district court interpreted the exception to allow events with guns secured in its 2007 order on the motion for summary judgment
  3. the county in various briefs post-2007 interpreted the exception to allow events with guns secured
  4. Pierce argued in open court in 2009 that the exception allowed events with guns secured
  5. Weaver argued in open court in 2009 that the exception allowed gun shows with guns secured by cable to a table
  6. Weaver argues in a 9/22/10 letter brief to the 9th circuit that the exception allows the display of guns at gun shows
  7. Weaver argued in open court in 2010 that the exception allowed events with guns secured
  8. Pierce argued in open court in 2012 that the exception allowed gun shows with guns secured by cables to a table

I suppose that after at least 6 years this interpretation could still qualify as a "wholly new idea."
Where is the rule that says counsels' oral arguments and/or the arguments in their briefs constitute the facts of the case?

The universe of facts for this case are set forth in the JSUF. The Court is limited to those facts and reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party -- the Nordykes.

Neither Sayre Weaver or Peter Pierce are County Counsel.

The facts are, that on the date this case was docketed for appeal the Office of County Counsel's interpretation of the ordinance was the only valid interpretation.

The case is on appeal from a order granting summary judgment on these undisputed facts, which means even the trial court's interpretation of, and reasonable inferences from, the facts are subject to de novo review by the Court of Appeals.

Furthermore, all reasonable inferences from the facts must be drawn in favor of the Plaintiffs even in the Court of Appeal. And if the inferences are too incredulous, then the order granting summary judgment has to be reversed procedurally, because material facts are disputed.

If this ordinance is subject to mutually exclusive interpretations by County Counsel and the County's outside litiation firm on some later date, with no change in the language of the ordinance, then the ordinance doesn't pass a rational basis test -- even if constitutional rights are not at stake.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

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

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

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 03-28-2012, 9:46 AM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,953
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Updating the laundry list:
  1. the county interpreted the exception to allow events with guns secured in its 2006 motion for summary judgment
  2. the district court interpreted the exception to allow events with guns secured in its 2007 order on the motion for summary judgment
  3. the county in various briefs post-2007 interpreted the exception to allow events with guns secured
  4. Pierce argued in open court in 2009 that the exception allowed events with guns secured
  5. Weaver argued in open court in 2009 that the exception allowed gun shows with guns secured by cable to a table
  6. Weaver argues in a 9/22/10 letter brief to the 9th circuit that the exception allows the display of guns at gun shows
  7. Weaver argued in open court in 2010 that the exception allowed events with guns secured
  8. Pierce argued in open court in 2012 that the exception allowed gun shows with guns secured by cables to a table

I suppose that after at least 6 years this interpretation could still qualify as a "wholly new idea."

I was at the Oral arguments two "Nordykes" ago when county counsel argued in open court that guns could not, and need not, be present to conduct a gun show. He talked about how vendors could display pictures of the guns to broker the deal, and then go off of county property to physically take possession of the gun. This was around 2 years ago... so as recently as 2 years ago, they were still saying "No guns present at a gun show".
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #833  
Old 03-28-2012, 9:57 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
I was at the Oral arguments two "Nordykes" ago when county counsel argued in open court that guns could not, and need not, be present to conduct a gun show. He talked about how vendors could display pictures of the guns to broker the deal, and then go off of county property to physically take possession of the gun. This was around 2 years ago... so as recently as 2 years ago, they were still saying "No guns present at a gun show".
You're like 3 or 4 pages behind on this topic.
Reply With Quote
  #834  
Old 03-28-2012, 10:11 AM
Uxi's Avatar
Uxi Uxi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,110
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So they've been dangling it out there seeing if the Nordykes would bite on tethering being acceptable? But without ammunition? Or have they been erratic on the offer in court?
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

9mm + 5.56mm =
.45ACP + 7.62 NATO =
10mm + 6.8 SPC =


Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14
Reply With Quote
  #835  
Old 03-28-2012, 10:32 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Arma View Post
Where is the rule that says counsels' oral arguments and/or the arguments in their briefs constitute the facts of the case?

The universe of facts for this case are set forth in the JSUF. The Court is limited to those facts and reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party -- the Nordykes.

Neither Sayre Weaver or Peter Pierce are County Counsel.

The facts are, that on the date this case was docketed for appeal the Office of County Counsel's interpretation of the ordinance was the only valid interpretation.

The case is on appeal from a order granting summary judgment on these undisputed facts, which means even the trial court's interpretation of, and reasonable inferences from, the facts are subject to de novo review by the Court of Appeals.

Furthermore, all reasonable inferences from the facts must be drawn in favor of the Plaintiffs even in the Court of Appeal. And if the inferences are too incredulous, then the order granting summary judgment has to be reversed procedurally, because material facts are disputed.

If this ordinance is subject to mutually exclusive interpretations by County Counsel and the County's outside litiation firm on some later date, with no change in the language of the ordinance, then the ordinance doesn't pass a rational basis test -- even if constitutional rights are not at stake.
The panel doesn't seem to care a whole lot about all this. 59:58.

Prediction: motion to supplement the record on appeal will be denied. It just recycles old arguments. Only thing not already in the record is the request that the county spoon feed a stipulation to the plaintiffs.
Reply With Quote
  #836  
Old 03-28-2012, 10:47 AM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,953
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
You're like 3 or 4 pages behind on this topic.
That's the problem with incessant irrelevant banter about things that are above our pay grade. It is too daunting to read 84 pages of "dialog" to get caught up.

Before questioning the tactics of Donald Kilmer, Don Kates, or Alan Gura, it's important to first review one's own qualifications. I am quite confident of their intentions. to do the best possible for the furtherance of the second amendment; next we look to their qualifications. Do they have the knowledge, experience and resources to make it happen?

I think they have proven this all to be in the affirmative, so unless you have equal qualifications, knowledge, and resources, then it is very ignorant for you to be criticizing their tactics. I guarantee you every avenue has been discussed on the back end of this thing that none of us is privy to. Just take for granted that we have the best possible representation possible and be thankful of it.

No offense intended, but if you want to do your part, save us the time of filtering through "3-4 pages" of your pedantic posts and spend that time placing a check in the mail to the CGF.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #837  
Old 03-28-2012, 11:00 AM
eaglemike eaglemike is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,294
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The panel doesn't seem to care a whole lot about all this. 59:58.

Prediction: motion to supplement the record on appeal will be denied. It just recycles old arguments. Only thing not already in the record is the request that the county spoon feed a stipulation to the plaintiffs.
You say that you don't have a personal agenda - yet there are times you continue to use unnecessarily inflammatory language. Maybe that is normal in your life and how you commonly discuss things. In my little corner of the world it's not appreciated or tolerated. This isn't the first time. I know it's not a flagrant violation of forum rules.

You have told us that you don't have the desire to take the risks associated with your own practice - fine. Please show common courtesy to those that do have the desire and heart to do so.

As has been noted above, some things (re: oral arguments in this case) have not been written. I'm quite sure you are more qualified than I to address some of these issues in this case. I would note that old saying "if it's not written, it didn't happen." This is quite true in a lot of contract litigation, yes? Isn't it also true regarding litigation such as this? If so, Mr Kilmer's points seem to be on target.
__________________
Don't be a Jake!

It's a muzzle BRAKE, not a muzzle break. Or is your muzzle tired?
Reply With Quote
  #838  
Old 03-28-2012, 11:05 AM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,953
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglemike View Post
You say that you don't have a personal agenda - yet there are times you continue to use unnecessarily inflammatory language. Maybe that is normal in your life and how you commonly discuss things. In my little corner of the world it's not appreciated or tolerated. This isn't the first time. I know it's not a flagrant violation of forum rules.

You have told us that you don't have the desire to take the risks associated with your own practice - fine. Please show common courtesy to those that do have the desire and heart to do so.

As has been noted above, some things (re: oral arguments in this case) have not been written. I'm quite sure you are more qualified than I to address some of these issues in this case. I would note that old saying "if it's not written, it didn't happen." This is quite true in a lot of contract litigation, yes? Isn't it also true regarding litigation such as this? If so, Mr Kilmer's points seem to be on target.
Mr. Mike.... turn around.... that is the wind you are peeing into.

His mind is made.... he is a competent legal mind (though not at competent as the Dons), so you are never going to win.

I'm not a Don... I have not the strength to fight the fight worth fighting; I must limit my fights to those I can win.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #839  
Old 03-28-2012, 11:10 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
I think they have proven this all to be in the affirmative, so unless you have equal qualifications, knowledge, and resources, then it is very ignorant for you to be criticizing their tactics. I guarantee you every avenue has been discussed on the back end of this thing that none of us is privy to. Just take for granted that we have the best possible representation possible and be thankful of it.
Does that logic also apply to your assessment of their tactics?
Reply With Quote
  #840  
Old 03-28-2012, 11:15 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglemike View Post
You say that you don't have a personal agenda - yet there are times you continue to use unnecessarily inflammatory language.
I can't see how "spoon feed" is inflammatory when making an argumentative point, but to the extent it is you know what they say, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Poor Fabio has endured much worse over the years! Edited to add: not from Lex Arma but from others here.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 03-28-2012 at 11:19 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 11:18 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.