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 12-02-2012, 6:10 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: 2,529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Could you explain this to us. I would have no idea why after reading the context of the OP and what your views mean.
Have a look at the prayer for relief of the first amended complaint, the MSJ briefs, and the appellant's opening brief for starters, and see if you can come up with a counter argument. Not trying to be a dick here, just trying to steer you in the right direction.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-02-2012 at 6:14 PM..
  #82  
Old 12-02-2012, 6:23 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 624
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
OK; I think I understand what happened, but it seems that we have only speculation as to what happens next. I think the confusion regarding this development amongst the CGN rank and file is due to the fact that most of us donít know enough about legal procedure to ask the right questions; and those who do know enough already know the answers.

Questions:

Can the ninth circuit still combine Peruta and Prieto if it wants? We have had much speculation about what they should do, and what they probably will do; much of it sounding to me like whistling in the grave yard. What I would like to know is; what is the worst they can do.

Can the AG still get involved in Prieto as a defendant if it is combined with Peruta?

If it is not combined and they remand Peruta can the court direct the plaintiff in Peruta to clean up its case and do its notifications, and then, if the AG gets involved, say they must wait for the outcome in Peruta before they rule in Prieto?

If they can and do combine the cases, can Prieto be remanded back in conjunction with Peruta, even though Gura did everything correctly?

Please; not what should happen or might happen, but what is the worst case scenario?

I donít think the 9th gives a fig about doing the right thing. They donít want to find for us and they know we want them to find against us. So what is their most productive tactic? Delay us!

The pertinent judges of the 9th knew what happened. Why did Gura have to splain it to them again? Why the **** grenade one week before orals? I smell a rat!
We just had judges assigned to the panel. So why would anyone be issuing orders before last week outside of the Clerk. And I am pretty sure telling us what do at our oral arguments goes beyond the scope of her duties. I am beginning to think that this is essentially a public admonishment more than anything else. Although it is going to eat into arguments for them.
  #83  
Old 12-02-2012, 6:37 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=Meplat;9836481]Has esqappellate ever had to deal with the 9th circus?[/QUOTE]

Yes:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.p...&postcount=125

I have been before Judge Thomas twice and won twice (once quite recently). He adhered to the letter of the law both times. He resisted the "feel good" result advocated by liberal groups and the state of California. He will play it straight. More than that, one cannot reasonably ask.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-02-2012 at 6:47 PM..
  #84  
Old 12-02-2012, 6:38 PM
sharxbyte's Avatar
sharxbyte sharxbyte is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Kommifornistan
Posts: 2,327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Peruta copycatted Sykes, which was the original name of Richards v. Prieto before Sykes & the Sacramento defendants were dropped from the case due to Sacramento's change in policy. Mr. Peruta was the only plaintiff on the case between September of 2009 & March of 2010.



Dot dot dot, Blah Blah Blah.


Thanks for the breakdown Gray!
__________________
My AR is 7.62x39, so that if/when we get invaded, I can shoot their ammo back at them!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
Where is this ammo "Black market" he speaks of? Do they have .223 in stock?
My Home-Made Recurve Bow Thread


Own An 80%? CLICK HERE!


Kevin de Leon, on minority women and profiling.
  #85  
Old 12-02-2012, 6:44 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
So you no longer think the first amended compaint is "great news"?
The amended complaint with the additional plaintiffs, including a former OB/GYN who happened to perform elective abortions, was a nice touch at that point, than solely a tarnished plaintiff.

It still doesn't change the fact that neither Neuharth nor Michel/Associates didn't file the notice.

I trust esqappellate on the matter because I know his qualifications, which corrected some of my own:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.p...0&postcount=19

It would be fair to say that my stance has moderated on the issue hearing from esqappellate, who has a lot more experience with federal appellate procedure doing what he does than you do, or Michel for that matter.
  #86  
Old 12-02-2012, 7:33 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Not trying to pick a fight with you... But according to some of your questions to Gray, it seems you imply that the District Court had some responsibility to notify the state (since it would seem awkward to me for the District Judge to just sit there and watch the Plaintiff make these errors without doing something), and that is what I was thinking as well, so if that were the case, wouldn't it be predictable for the Ninth Circuit to remand Peruta with instructions based on that issue?
No, that would be illogical and very unlikely. The 9th circuit has jurisdiction regardless of the failure to notify under rule 5.1. An appellate court may remand a case to the district court under rule 5.1 where notice was not given and where the parties defending that constitutionality of the statute have waived or abandoned various arguments in district court, including the appropriate standard of review, the possibility of a saving construction, and the interests served by the statute.

Absent some indication of harm or prejudice to the State's opportunity to fully present its views however, belated certification, while not ideal, is sufficient to honor the purpose of the federal statute.
Furthermore, there is general agreement that rule 5.1 should not be ignored, but, at least where the constitutionality of the statute has been upheld, there is no practical purpose to be served in remanding. Merrill v. Town of Addison, 763 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1985). This makes sense when you consider the purpose of the rule. If the constitutionality was upheld it makes for a very difficult argument that the government's position was not well represented. Since both Peruta and Richards are appealing a loss there is almost no chance at all of a remand, regardless of a failure by both plaintiffs and (apparently?) both district courts to notify/certify.
  #87  
Old 12-02-2012, 7:55 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: 2,529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I trust esqappellate on the matter because I know his qualifications, which corrected some of my own:
Are you sort of answering my question what authority is there that 5.1 notice must be given when "challenging how a state law is interpreted"? lol.

How about putting your money where your mouth is on the claims in your chicken little post? How much do you want to bet that there is no remand on 2403/5.1?
  #88  
Old 12-02-2012, 8:04 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Are you sort of answering my question what authority is there that 5.1 notice must be given when "challenging how a state law is interpreted"? lol.

How about putting your money where your mouth is on the claims in your chicken little post? How much do you want to bet that there is no remand on 2403/5.1?
I don't make bets with fake named people, "Fabio". When I made a bet in re a steak dinner for someone getting their license by January 1, 2014, we at least had the courtesy to exchanging real names for the bet. Something tells me that you won't do that.
  #89  
Old 12-02-2012, 8:09 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Still speculating. Still whistling past a grave yard.
How about this. I know one case will absolutely be heard, because we have nothing to do with this State notification issue lol.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
  #90  
Old 12-02-2012, 8:35 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,888
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
How about this. I know one case will absolutely be heard, because we have nothing to do with this State notification issue lol.
Not sure I understand this one.

I'm pretty sure that all three will be heard - the court was not canceling oral arguments, they were telling the litigants to be prepared to argue the issue of notification.

So I'm personally very certain that both Peruta and Richards will be heard - the disposition after the orals is what I have questions about.

But it could be that I'm misunderstanding - wouldn't be the first time.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #91  
Old 12-02-2012, 8:35 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: 2,529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I don't make bets with fake named people, "Fabio". When I made a bet in re a steak dinner for someone getting their license by January 1, 2014, we at least had the courtesy to exchanging real names for the bet. Something tells me that you won't do that.
Ask a mod to hold the money, I'll send a money order. Your "horror show" isn't going to play out I'm afraid lol.
  #92  
Old 12-02-2012, 8:45 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 624
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There will be impact to all three cases though as Paul Clement and Alan Gura will have to devote precious time to addressing this issue when it should have been spent on the substantive issues. I just wonder what Paul Clement is saying to the rest of the counsel on his team right now.
  #93  
Old 12-02-2012, 8:49 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
There will be impact to all three cases though as Paul Clement and Alan Gura will have to devote precious time to addressing this issue when it should have been spent on the substantive issues. I just wonder what Paul Clement is saying to the rest of the counsel on his team right now.
Is it your implication that oral arguments are usually (or ever) determinative in United States circuit courts, particularly when dealing with constitutional questions?
  #94  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:34 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,888
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Is it your implication that oral arguments are usually (or ever) determinative in United States circuit courts, particularly when dealing with constitutional questions?
You actually did make me chuckle a little.

I'm no expert on such stuff, but some time ago I came to the conclusion that orals at the circuit and SCOTUS levels are mostly window dressing. But they perpetuate the myth that the orals are very important and people are continually suckered.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #95  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:41 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 Tincon View Post
Is it your implication that oral arguments are usually (or ever) determinative in United States circuit courts, particularly when dealing with constitutional questions?
Is it your implication that oral arguments are usually not (or never) determinative in federal courts of appeals, particularly when dealing with constitutional questions?

-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.
  #96  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:45 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
You actually did make me chuckle a little.

I'm no expert on such stuff, but some time ago I came to the conclusion that orals at the circuit and SCOTUS levels are mostly window dressing. But they perpetuate the myth that the orals are very important and people are continually suckered.
We send postcards to the courts, thanking them for an occasion to meet each other.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.
  #97  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:50 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,888
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
We send postcards to the courts, thanking them for an occasion to meet each other.
Excellent!!!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #98  
Old 12-02-2012, 9:58 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Is it your implication that oral arguments are usually not (or never) determinative in federal courts of appeals, particularly when dealing with constitutional questions?

-Brandon
Yes, of course. While the United States legal system is derived from that of the British commonwealth and its oral adversarial traditions, I think you will find almost universal agreement among practicing attorneys today that written briefs usually determine the outcome of cases in modern courts, particularly appellate courts considering constitutional questions.
  #99  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:02 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 Tincon View Post
Yes, of course. While the United States legal system is derived from that of the British commonwealth and its oral adversarial traditions, I think you will find almost universal agreement among practicing attorneys today that written briefs usually determine the outcome of cases in modern courts, particularly appellate courts considering constitutional questions.
Usually is not never or always and almost universal is not unanimous. So it doesn't look like you disagree with wolfwood after all.

-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.
  #100  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:22 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Usually is not never or always and almost universal is not unanimous. So it doesn't look like you disagree with wolfwood after all.

-Brandon
I believe you may be presenting a False Continuum. While there may surely be some exceptions to the rule here, it is absurd to ascribe them any great significance absent some evidence that oral arguments will carry an unusual weight in these cases.

As I said before, absent some tactical reason for not giving notice (as has been alleged to exist), it is my opinion that it should have been given. It is not however, a significant factor in either case.

Interestingly, the worst case scenario seems to have been achieved in the Richards case, where notice was given (possibly eliminating any theoretical tactical advantage), but the notice was materially deficient (possibly precluding compliance with rule 5.1).
  #101  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:33 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,888
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I believe you may be presenting a False Continuum. While there may surely be some exceptions to the rule here, it is absurd to ascribe them any great significance absent some evidence that oral arguments will carry an unusual weight in these cases.

As I said before, absent some tactical reason for not giving notice (as has been alleged to exist), it is my opinion that it should have been given. It is not however, a significant factor in either case.

Interestingly, the worst case scenario seems to have been achieved in the Richards case, where notice was given (possibly eliminating any theoretical tactical advantage), but the notice was materially deficient (possibly precluding compliance with rule 5.1).
This may be a dumb question, but did you mean "worse case" instead of the "worst case" you typed?

If it were "worst case" I'd imagine that you expect dire consequences for the deficiency but you indicated previously that you didn't think the issue would be significant in either case.

I suspect (and hope) it was just a typo.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #102  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:33 PM
mike_schwartz@mail.com mike_schwartz@mail.com is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If the Peruta case never should have happened in the first place, why are we mad that it is now out of the way Gene, Gray, and Brandon?

Without a compelling and specific answer to that question, this whole thing smacks of a smear campaign or some kind of personal vendetta.
  #103  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:37 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

Perhaps, or perhaps I'm simply highlighting the deficiencies in your original inquiry.

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I believe you may be presenting a False Continuum.
__________________
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.
  #104  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:38 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,079
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Interestingly, the worst case scenario seems to have been achieved in the Richards case, where notice was given (possibly eliminating any theoretical tactical advantage), but the notice was materially deficient (possibly precluding compliance with rule 5.1).
Could you please clarify in what way it was deficient?

As I mentioned earlier, when FGG shows up, the battle of egos starts raging from all sides. While there is an undeniable entertainment value in it, the informative value tends to go down with all "oh, yeah, tell me this" and "are you saying that."

Most of us are just trying to figure out what the status is and whether there are any serious procedural issues that can lead to long delays. Anything else that we can learn about the process is a pure bonus.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #105  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:38 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: 2,529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Usually is not never or always and almost universal is not unanimous. So it doesn't look like you disagree with wolfwood after all.
Well, you should at least get some credit for sounding logical!

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-02-2012 at 10:42 PM..
  #106  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:41 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
This may be a dumb question, but did you mean "worse case" instead of the "worst case" you typed?

If it were "worst case" I'd imagine that you expect dire consequences for the deficiency but you indicated previously that you didn't think the issue would be significant in either case.
I did mean worst case, but allow me to clarify the limits of my opinion. Given the ability to notify, or not to notify, and the belief in a tactical advantage in not notifying, with regard to effects of rule 5.1 one the case, the worst possible scenario would be to give notice, but to have it be deficient. You get the worst of both worlds, so to speak.

The effect of the "worst case scenario" however, given rule 5.1 and those facts, is unlikely to have any significant effect on the outcome of the case, for the reasons I already mentioned.
  #107  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:41 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 mike_schwartz@mail.com View Post
If the Peruta case never should have happened in the first place, why are we mad that it is now out of the way Gene, Gray, and Brandon?

Without a compelling and specific answer to that question, this whole thing smacks of a smear campaign or some kind of personal vendetta.
1. We don't know if Peruta is "out of the way" or not.

2. If it were, who said I'd be "mad that is is?"

I'm sorry your plaintiff handed your organization's opportunistic [and perhaps too anxious] lawyers the case he did.

-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.
  #108  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:46 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Could you please clarify in what way it was deficient?

As I mentioned earlier, when FGG shows up, the battle of egos starts raging from all sides. While there is an undeniable entertainment value in it, the informative value tends to go down with all "oh, yeah, tell me this" and "are you saying that."

Most of us are just trying to figure out what the status is and whether there are any serious procedural issues that can lead to long delays. Anything else that we can learn about the process is a pure bonus.
If you read rule 5.1 you will see exactly two requirements for notice (not including time and manner of delivery):

1. The notice must state the constitutional question raised and;

2. The notice must identify the paper that raises it.

If you carefully examine the notice linked to in the OP, as sent by certified mail, you will see that it fails to meet the second requirement.

As an aside, I'm not sure what all the chest thumping around here is about, it seems clear to me that we are all on the same side.
  #109  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:49 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Ask a mod to hold the money, I'll send a money order. Your "horror show" isn't going to play out I'm afraid lol.
I'm not in the business of doing work for you, "Fabio". I don't do proxy bets with someone anonymous.
  #110  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:51 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: 2,529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
I'm not in the business of doing work for you, "Fabio". I don't do proxy bets with someone anonymous.
It's ok, I wouldn't take the bet if I were you either. Please mind the forum rules by the way lol.
  #111  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:58 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
It's ok, I wouldn't take the bet if I were you either. Please mind the forum rules by the way lol.
Which rule is that? You're the one who started asking for bets, and then you took the anon coward route.
  #112  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:05 PM
mike_schwartz@mail.com mike_schwartz@mail.com is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Guys, this is all some personal agenda crap. This is some kind of smear campaign. The evidence is that the first 4 posts on this thread were from Gene, Brandon, and Gray, all three of them are hanging in there to do nothing more than trash a couple people (who you'd think would be considered all on the same progun team), they aren't giving all the facts, this Fabio guy has a whole different story...

I don't know what is going on here, but it is all someone's agenda. Don't let them make you part of their agenda. I only know what is on this thread, but I can smell the BS right through the computer screen. Disregard this entire thread and move on. We could use far fewer jr-wanna-be-lawyers and Hoffman sycophants and far more activists.

Back away from the calguns and go teach some people how to shoot and/or volunteer for a pro-gun politician or candidate. The rest of this is all a waste of time.
  #113  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:09 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: 2,529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Which rule is that? You're the one who started asking for bets, and then you took the anon coward route.
I need to be careful, last time I tried to defend myself against this kind of forum rule violation I got banned! If you change your mind and want to put money on whether your dire predictions will come through, just say the word, pick your escrow agent, and I will send a money order ASAP. lol.
  #114  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:17 PM
Hurstolds's Avatar
Hurstolds Hurstolds is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: 6,225'
Posts: 945
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

It's just going to be a never ending battle
  #115  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:30 PM
solipsist solipsist is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_schwartz@mail.com View Post
Guys, this is all some personal agenda crap. This is some kind of smear campaign. The evidence is that the first 4 posts on this thread were from Gene, Brandon, and Gray, all three of them are hanging in there to do nothing more than trash a couple people (who you'd think would be considered all on the same progun team), they aren't giving all the facts, this Fabio guy has a whole different story...

I don't know what is going on here, but it is all someone's agenda. Don't let them make you part of their agenda. I only know what is on this thread, but I can smell the BS right through the computer screen. Disregard this entire thread and move on. We could use far fewer jr-wanna-be-lawyers and Hoffman sycophants and far more activists.

Back away from the calguns and go teach some people how to shoot and/or volunteer for a pro-gun politician or candidate. The rest of this is all a waste of time.


Spare us the conspiracy theories.

You say talking about the facts surrounding a case that is public record and asking questions about it is a smear campaign, and then proceed to talk trash.

You obviously need to follow your own advice...
  #116  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:42 PM
mike_schwartz@mail.com mike_schwartz@mail.com is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

is "solipsist" latin for brain surgeon?

clearly i am not disputing the facts of this. of course it actually happened.
i am dismissing the opinions and insults in the comments that followed. and suggesting time is better spent for our cause by bringing new people into the fold rather than sitting around reading internet gossip and getting caught up in the agendas of three men.
  #117  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:57 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Which rule is that? You're the one who started asking for bets, and then you took the anon coward route.
That line of conversation is off topic for any thread outside of OT. Let us please restrain our Imps of the Perverse.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.
  #118  
Old 12-03-2012, 12:06 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,079
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
As an aside, I'm not sure what all the chest thumping around here is about, it seems clear to me that we are all on the same side.
You nailed it. This is exactly what most of us are trying to figure out. If you can shed some light, that'd be great.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #119  
Old 12-03-2012, 12:08 AM
freonr22's Avatar
freonr22 freonr22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 11,785
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
That line of conversation is off topic for any thread outside of OT. Let us please restrain our Imps of the Perverse.
Examples

The Imp of the Perverse is also exemplified in The Bad Glazier, a prose poem by Charles Baudelaire.
The concept also figures prominently in the motives of Jack Shaftoe, a swashbuckling protagonist in Neal Stephenson's trilogy The Baroque Cycle:
But here was a rare opportunity for stupidity even more flagrant and glorious.
Now, Bob, who'd been observing Jack carefully for many years, had observed that when these moments arrived, Jack was almost invariably possessed by something that Bob had heard about in Church called the Imp of the Perverse. Bob was convinced that the Imp of the Perverse rode invisibly on Jack's shoulder whispering bad ideas into his ear, and that the only counterbalance was Bob himself, standing alongsides counseling good sense, prudence, caution, and other Puritan virtues.
But Bob was in England.
__________________
<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.
  #120  
Old 12-03-2012, 12:35 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 mike_schwartz@mail.com View Post
is "solipsist" latin for brain surgeon?

clearly i am not disputing the facts of this. of course it actually happened.
i am dismissing the opinions and insults in the comments that followed. and suggesting time is better spent for our cause by bringing new people into the fold rather than sitting around reading internet gossip and getting caught up in the agendas of three men.
The only agenda here is to show examples to the wider world of why duplicative, unnecessary, and unwarranted lawsuits by people who are not competent in strategic civil rights litigation, endangers all of our freedoms and liberties.

When it comes to litigation, NRA-ILA aligned persons such as Chuck Michel, Paul Clement, and Steven Halbrook has done a tremendous amount of professional discourtesy, and done terrible jobs at protecting 2A-related civil liberties.

From the beginning, NRA-ILA aligned civil litigators did everything possible to keep what was to become District of Columbia v. Heller (it was called Parker v. District of Columbia at the time), including filing sham litigation that was Seegars v. Ashcroft. That was Stephen Halbrook. They then later twice tried to get Congress to repeal the DC handgun ban, mooting the case. Only Virginia Tech stopped that train.

Fast forward a year. They (NRA-ILA) file unnecessarily duplicative litigation against the city of Chicago, using themselves as the lead plaintiffs, interfering at every step with McDonald v. City of Chicago

Paul Clement, in professional discourtesy, told the Supreme Court, in his position as former Solicitor General of the United States, now on behalf of the NRA, that Gura did not argue enough on substantive due process, which was provably false. The NRA's view did not gain them 5 votes in the Supreme Court, as Justice Thomas would not have joined a substantive due process ruling and we would have lost.

It is believed that certain personalities that control the NRA was afraid of the penumbras of civil liberties that a resurrected P&I clause in the 14th amendment would engender.

NRA ILA against the 18-21 year old bans on purchasing handguns from an FFL, and carry between 18-21, before even the carry issue was resolved. These cases should have never been pursued.

They get the rare wins, like Shawn Gowder in Chicago, which netted the NRA lawyers $125K. When NRA-ILA got a check from the City of Chicago for $1.3 million dollars, they got it because Gura made the argument that got the magic 5th Justice that was needed in McDonald (That would be Justice Thomas).

Benson v. City of Chicago, total handgun sales ban & 8 other things. Mr. Gura & Mr. Sigale were able to get the total range ban tossed and give strong precedent in the 7th Circuit. NRAILA's Bensen litigation is still in a quagmire down below.

ILA generally doesn't know how to litigate, because they are the institute for LEGISLATIVE action.

When you have a long history of litigation failures, it only informs what is going on with the Peruta litigation.

Also, litigation in re the state AB962 litigation. Yes we as gun owners won the preliminary injunction, but there was such sloppiness after the injunction that despite usually getting attorneys fees under the California fee recovery statute, Michel & Associates did NOT get their fees back, which means the money doesn't go back to the NRA-ILA & CRPAF.

Unfortunately, the NRA-ILA does stupid things for fundraising purposes, and continually rewards failure. It's no wonder they parachuted in Clement.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-03-2012 at 12:38 AM..
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 1:39 PM.




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