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
  #41  
Old 12-06-2012, 5:54 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,778
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It doesn't really matter what happened at oral arguments. They are largely meaningless theater. What matters is the arguments in the briefs, and the logic the panel can find in there to arrive at the conclusion that they want to arrive at. Namely: guns are bad, and no way are we going to be the ones to open the door for all you crazies to be legally carrying in public.

I predict a loss, which is good because we then have a straight shot at SCOTUS instead of getting all caught up in an en banc review.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-06-2012, 6:10 PM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, we need at least one win for a circuit split. So far we're losing at all Circuits. SCOTUS could choose not to take up certiorari on something that has no split. Add to that that B.O. has 4 more years to spin SCOTUS in the leftist direction and you have Heller/McDonald as the high water mark very much in danger.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-06-2012, 6:19 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,778
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sighere View Post
Well, we need at least one win for a circuit split. So far we're losing at all Circuits. SCOTUS could choose not to take up certiorari on something that has no split. Add to that that B.O. has 4 more years to spin SCOTUS in the leftist direction and you have Heller/McDonald as the high water mark very much in danger.
A circuit split isn't an absolute requirement before SCOTUS will review. It's just the best way to guarantee a review.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-06-2012, 6:20 PM
MattyB MattyB is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Orangevale, CA
Posts: 350
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

In regards to the San Diego case, I have a feeling all that will come from it is that Sheriffs will be required to explain WHY they are denying a CCW permit. I haven't listened to the other arguments but it seems counsel for SD was trying to blame the State law, protect his Sheriff and at the same time say that because guns are bad there is no reason to argue the constitutionality of the State law and by proxy what the Sheriff is doing.

Like I said, I dont think anything other than a reason for denial will come from this case.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-06-2012, 6:45 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,467
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulgron View Post
It doesn't really matter what happened at oral arguments. They are largely meaningless theater. What matters is the arguments in the briefs,...
I hope so, because the orals seemed really...unprofessional. I expected much more polished presentations, at least from Clement and Gura. I came away assuming they must not matter too much, glad to have some confirmation.

Quote:
I predict a loss
Not going out on any limbs there. Still, didn't it seem like the female judge was very pro-2A? Maybe it's not possible to determine a judges personal feeling from the questions they ask, when they interrupt counsel, etc, but if I were an anti, she would have worried me greatly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-06-2012, 7:23 PM
MattyB MattyB is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Orangevale, CA
Posts: 350
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Not going out on any limbs there. Still, didn't it seem like the female judge was very pro-2A? Maybe it's not possible to determine a judges personal feeling from the questions they ask, when they interrupt counsel, etc, but if I were an anti, she would have worried me greatly.
Using ObamaCare as a comparison, there were some questions asked that almost made it seem like a lock it would be overturned. Since then, I give no credence to questions asked and definitely none to the 9th Circus.

Callahan is our only potential friend being a Wilson/Bush appointee, but Kennedy was suppose to be a conservative friend as well....
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-06-2012, 7:33 PM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Don't let the questions fool you. It's the 9th circuit. I can't imagine they will not rule in any way but left, left, left.....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-06-2012, 8:16 PM
live2suck live2suck is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West Anacrime
Posts: 126
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Peruta
Mr. Clement seemed to be on the ball, especially, considering the limited scope of their argument.

Was it just me, or did Mr. Chapin representing San Diego state that the statute was an unconstitutional burden, and the sheriff offered relief from that burden? It seemed that he was dodging all questions, and really had no counter argument to Mr. Clement. Towards the tail end his arguments became a purely emotional appeal.

Richards
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?

Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.

Baker
Mr. Holcomb - not reassuring in any sense of the word.

Ms. Van Aken - orals were just as disorganized Mr. Holcomb. Guns are scary - only those with a badge should carry them.


In summary, I would love to read the defenses' briefs, none of them seemed like they had prepared anything at all. It doesn't seem like there's any way we can lose either Peruta or Richards. Therefore, echoing everyone else, I predict a loss across the board.

Now that we've listened to all of that, let's wait for the ruling, and kcbrown to be correct. The real world does not tolerate optimism!

Where's my sammich? I need to prepare for me nap.
__________________
"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear." ~ Douglas MacArthur

Treat every stressful situation like a dog.
If you can't eat it, play with it, or hump it ...
PISS ON IT and walk away.

Last edited by live2suck; 12-06-2012 at 8:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-06-2012, 8:43 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sighere View Post
Don't let the questions fool you. It's the 9th circuit. I can't imagine they will not rule in any way but left, left, left.....
You could be right. However i bet a little bird from Scotus left a message telling the Ninth to try to get this one right so we can put an end to this mystery of carry
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-06-2012, 8:54 PM
MOA1 MOA1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: AV
Posts: 85
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

In the HI case. Does it make sense to only issue gun carry rights to police that actively pursue people that may lead to a deadly confrontation with guns being involved?

How can that be better than issuing carry permits to people who do not pursue people, only citizens that are pursued by criminals will use their gun and only when left no other choice but grave bodily harm or death imminent?

Obviously I'm going down the wrong path, if they disarmed the police the argument would be a moot point and that's not what we are after.

JMO:
SD = win
CA = could go either way.
HI = back to the drawing board. It reminded me of when I fought a speeding ticket in court. If I would of defined the "why" I was not guilty I would of had a chance. It seems the case is more about getting one person his permit and not about overturning the policy of may issue w/just cause. No disrespect intended toward Mr. Holcomb. I wasn't there.
__________________
"one test is worth a thousand opinions".
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 12-07-2012, 1:19 AM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
In the 3rd audio file, Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here. Or maybe he wasn't bringing his A game? Maybe speaking isn't his strong suit? His opponent did the best job of any of the three, as least as long as you accept without questioning what he presents as facts...
I'd respectfully disagree. Gura did more than a fine job of arguing the case and Yolo's attorney literally made up law as he went. If Yolo was the strongest of the three opposition counsel, then...

Quote:
In sum, it's really depressing to hear how the 2nd Amendment is treated. Phrases like, "There must be some way, some how, however restricted and limited by the State, to exercise the right..." from our side(!) make me believe the Framers are spinning in their grave at what we have become...
You're taking the opposition's bait of getting into the weeds. The bottom line is that either the Second Amendment applies outside the home or it doesn't. If it does, then we win and another case(s) will determine the sort of regulations that are permissible.

-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
  #52  
Old 12-07-2012, 1:49 AM
MOA1 MOA1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: AV
Posts: 85
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I'm such a noob to all of this I'm honored just to be a fly on the wall.

Thanks for not splattin me on the wall.
__________________
"one test is worth a thousand opinions".
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:01 AM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I would say the only thing that Gura missed (and he only missed slightly) is that when UOC was dicussed vs LCC, he didn't stress the point enough that an unloaded firearm is not a firearm, it's dead weight and that any form of unladed carry is not carry of anything but an expensive throwing weapon. Opposition set him up perfectly for it with his weak dictation of new and existing laws, but Alan didn't pick it up in his final few minutes. Other than that, I agree with the many here that say he did a stellar job!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:02 AM
MrBrent's Avatar
MrBrent MrBrent is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 306
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=live2suck;9867314]Peruta


Richards
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?

Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.

I was thinking the same thing. The way he was describing it, if you can legally have the gun (LOC at your private property and drive to the gun range) at the starting point and the ending point of your drive you could carry in your car. It made my head spin. Don't try this at home BTW LOL
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:44 AM
sighere's Avatar
sighere sighere is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oxnard
Posts: 321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Not only that, but toward the end of his diatribe he said that the "new" penal code would require locked, unloaded, not in glovebox when transporting in a car, intimating that the existing penal code does not. This is another part where Gura should have driven home the point that "transporting" firearms is not the same as "bearing" them. Opportunity missed. I think a carjacking scenario would have been appropriate...."please goood criminal sir, do you mind waiting until I unlock my firearm, load it, and then we can carry on with your crime????" All in all the point that unloaded and locked is completely worthless was not explored enough. Prieto's counsel presented all of the legal methods of transporting arms as evidence of not substantially violating the 2A right, when in fact anything other than loaded and readily at hand is in fact a substantial curtailment of the right. Gura should have jumped all over that.

[QUOTE=MrBrent;9869276]
Quote:
Originally Posted by live2suck View Post
Peruta


Richards
Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss?

Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal.

I was thinking the same thing. The way he was describing it, if you can legally have the gun (LOC at your private property and drive to the gun range) at the starting point and the ending point of your drive you could carry in your car. It made my head spin. Don't try this at home BTW LOL
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:37 AM
jar jar is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
In sum, it's really depressing to hear how the 2nd Amendment is treated. Phrases like, "There must be some way, some how, however restricted and limited by the State, to exercise the right..." from our side(!) make me believe the Framers are spinning in their grave at what we have become...
That statement doesn't mean what you think it means. Arguing in court isn't like political speeches. The speaker isn't saying that the state greatly limiting and restricting the right is good or correct. He's making the point that even if we give the state the maximum benefit of the doubt and assume that the state is allowed to restrict and limit the right, their conduct *STILL* fails to pass Constitutional muster.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 12-07-2012, 9:12 AM
Jason_2111's Avatar
Jason_2111 Jason_2111 is offline
Internet Folk Hero
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Way up in the hills
Posts: 3,067
iTrader: 139 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post

You're taking the opposition's bait of getting into the weeds. The bottom line is that either the Second Amendment applies outside the home or it doesn't.
^^^ This.

It was so hard to not stand up during the oppositions argument and shout out "So, my life is worth LESS if I'm outside of my home??!?!?".

I bit my lip pretty hard.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by aklon View Post
The inevitable explosion gets closer and closer, coming in little steps, but closer every day.
I say: "Let's do it and get it over with."
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 12-07-2012, 10:46 AM
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

I have to somewhat agree with Bulgron at the top of the page, orals are a very small part of the appeal process, the briefs are where the real case is made so an appellate lawyer who is horrible in court can still win.

What watching the orals does do is let us see the issues involved in a slightly more clear way because a 20 page brief may only have one paragraph on the key legal theory that determines the case (with the rest being setup material).
__________________

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
  #59  
Old 12-07-2012, 11:50 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,467
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by speedrrracer
In the 3rd audio file, Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here. Or maybe he wasn't bringing his A game? Maybe speaking isn't his strong suit? His opponent did the best job of any of the three, as least as long as you accept without questioning what he presents as facts...

I'd respectfully disagree. Gura did more than a fine job of arguing the case and Yolo's attorney literally made up law as he went. If Yolo was the strongest of the three opposition counsel, then...
I appreciate your disagreement very much. I want badly to be wrong! Keep in mind I'm speaking as a person who has absolutely zero idea about all this legal stuff, so it's really surface commentary -- how he came across as a speaker, since his facts are obviously spot on.

Among other things, I was really shocked to hear him say, "Y'know.." three times. Not going to earn a spot on the debate team with that, right?

He brings in results, and that's what matters. I just assumed such a person would be a public speaker out of The Devil and Daniel Webster or something.

Agreed on the Yolo thing, I caught a couple things that made me scratch my head, did some CGN wiki-reading, and was, "..this guy is spewing bull****!"

Why don't the judges call him out on that stuff? Are you allowed to just puke out whatever lies you want during orals without repercussions?

Quote:
The bottom line is that either the Second Amendment applies outside the home or it doesn't. If it does, then we win and another case(s) will determine the sort of regulations that are permissible.

-Brandon
On the subject of winning...do you feel that there's any "tell" from a judges tone, choice of timing on interruptions of counsel, and questions to counsel as to how they lean politically / personally?

If so, did you witness any of that during these orals?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 12-07-2012, 3:19 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: 2,572
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
After Yolo's counsel was up, we started taking bets on how soon it will be before the Ninth starts mandatory drug testing. Honestly, some of us were wondering if maybe there was a mistake and he was arguing the wrong case.

The good news is that, according to Yolo's attorney, you can now carry a gun into a bar. It just has to be unloaded.
Did he really say that you can do that without qualification? In the audio I'm only hearing him say that under AB 144 you can carry an unloaded gun into a bar with the owner/tenant's permission. If you could point me to where he says otherwise that would be great, I've been looking but can't find it. ETA: he's clear that need the owner/tenant's permission to openly carry unloaded in a bar (e.g., 26:00 of the Richards audio).

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-07-2012 at 3:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 12-07-2012, 4:28 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
On the subject of winning...do you feel that there's any "tell" from a judges tone, choice of timing on interruptions of counsel, and questions to counsel as to how they lean politically / personally?
We know how they lean. They don't give a damn about the briefs, or orals. They want this case dead. That's how this circuit rolls.

The judges will carefully cherry pick from each to support the ruling they wanted to give from the start, in the hopes that it is good enough to have SCOTUS deny certiorari.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-07-2012, 4:48 PM
Scarecrow Repair's Avatar
Scarecrow Repair Scarecrow Repair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Internet Tough Guy(tm), them thar hills
Posts: 2,426
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Gura's presentation seems kinda weak. I've never heard him speak before, and he didn't seem to be the master orator I had imagined based on the hype around here.
I didn't think anyone claimed Gura was a master orator, spellbinding and riveting. What they claim is that he's a master litigator, knows how to cut to the chase, knows his case inside and out, and probably knows his opponent's case better than the opponent.
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:08 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Did he really say that you can do that without qualification? In the audio I'm only hearing him say that under AB 144 you can carry an unloaded gun into a bar with the owner/tenant's permission. If you could point me to where he says otherwise that would be great, I've been looking but can't find it. ETA: he's clear that need the owner/tenant's permission to openly carry unloaded in a bar (e.g., 26:00 of the Richards audio).
The way i heard it he talked about private property and permission to carry but when he referenced the bars he said no such thing. At least that was my recollection of what i was hearing,

After listening to it twice i still came up with a WTF? So i replayed it again and well i could find no correlation to the private land and the bar comment. Funny thing though is that an LTC holder is generally not allowed to carry loaded in a place that primarily serves alcohol. Usually sheriffs rules.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:00 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: 2,572
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
After listening to it twice i still came up with a WTF? So i replayed it again and well i could find no correlation to the private land and the bar comment.
The correlation is made very explicitly beginning at 26:00. At 26:35 he says "(a) it has to be unloaded, (b) you have to have permission of the owner or the tenant as the case may be."
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:32 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

San Diego's attorney was attempting to do some spectacular rhetorical gymnastics. The sheriff doesn't burden the right, the statute does, but the statute pertaining to concealed carry is not unconstitutional? LOL

Hawaii's plaintiff's attorney seemed very discombobulated. He didn't seem to be very prepared to argue his case, which is suprising considering he had just heard 2 other attorneys argue more effectively on the broader issue. The "good news" is that his request before the court was only for a preliminary injunction against the law Hawaii was trying to implement, rather than challenging a sheriff's policy or the statute itself.

Here's a picture of the Baker attorney:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg duuuuuuuuuude.jpg (17.9 KB, 120 views)
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton

Last edited by Ryan_D; 12-07-2012 at 7:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:30 PM
SlippyOU's Avatar
SlippyOU SlippyOU is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Lalaland
Posts: 18
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sighere View Post
I would say the only thing that Gura missed (and he only missed slightly) is that when UOC was dicussed vs LCC, he didn't stress the point enough that an unloaded firearm is not a firearm, it's dead weight and that any form of unladed carry is not carry of anything but an expensive throwing weapon. Opposition set him up perfectly for it with his weak dictation of new and existing laws, but Alan didn't pick it up in his final few minutes. Other than that, I agree with the many here that say he did a stellar job!
I completely agree - I thought that was a meatball pitched that Gura just took looking. <--- Man, I love mixing baseball analogies to guns! What a great country!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-07-2012, 11:07 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 speedrrracer View Post
On the subject of winning...do you feel that there's any "tell" from a judges tone, choice of timing on interruptions of counsel, and questions to counsel as to how they lean politically / personally?

If so, did you witness any of that during these orals?
At SCOTUS, it was pretty clear who was going to vote no incorporation in McDonald v. Chicago, the "Heller 5" were less easy to read which makes me think that they were actually impartial and ruling on the merits of the case.

To me that means if the judges ask stupid questions and seem to enjoy listening to the anti-gun lawyer talk about how bad guns are, they are going to vote against us. If they ask questions about the law, scrutiny and historical meaning of the second amendment, I get optimistic but at the reversible 9'th, I never know what to think.

The orals seemed to go well but the briefs are what counts and I've read briefs that sound like a slam dunk wind up losing so I don't know what to think there either.
__________________

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
  #68  
Old 12-07-2012, 11:14 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,794
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Again: They. Don't. Care.

They'll pick what they want out of the briefs to support the conclusion they already wanted to come to from the start.

Until SCOTUS says otherwise, the 9th can do whatever it wants to.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-07-2012, 11:23 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I must admit I did find myself feeling a touch optimistic overall at how the panel asked questions. They seemed to question the defendants more frequently and ask questions that in reality should have been easy to answer, but because the answer was detrimental to defendant's position, required a longer discussion. Unfortunately, it IS the 9th Circus, so that optimism didn't last long. The Panel seemed less focused on the nature of the challenge necessarily, and more focused on what level of scrutiny counsels thought they should apply.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-07-2012, 11:27 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

That depends on the judges involved.

We got incorporation in Nordyke, that was the ninth circuit.

It was taken back and stayed pending McDonald v. Chicago enbanc which was a clear case of an anti-gun judge messing with a correct ruling and hiding behind an enbanc vote but that's different than a pannel who didn't seem like a bunch of antis handing down an unconstitutional decision.

And once again, not all judges in the 9'th are anti-gun.

They might not care but it didn't seem that way to me.
__________________

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
  #71  
Old 12-07-2012, 11:35 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I do like that the Panel seemed willing to at least consider that A.) a right to self-defense was part of the core right to KABA and B.) that a right might claim a higher priority than a state's interest in a particular situation.

Not to throw stones, but I also understand the CGF people being displeased with parties' decision in the San Diego case to not challenge the statute as well, from a strategy standpoint. IMHO it would have made S.D. counsel's job immensely more difficult to do both.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-08-2012, 12:11 AM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,929
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Did he really say that you can do that without qualification? In the audio I'm only hearing him say that under AB 144 you can carry an unloaded gun into a bar with the owner/tenant's permission. If you could point me to where he says otherwise that would be great, I've been looking but can't find it. ETA: he's clear that need the owner/tenant's permission to openly carry unloaded in a bar (e.g., 26:00 of the Richards audio).
As I didn't have the luxury of listening to the audio multiple times and I was already a little punch drunk from the astonishing realization that he came to court completely unprepared (initially some of us were wondering if he was arguing the wrong case) it's entirely possible that I may have misstated what he said (though not what I heard).

You should come to Oral Arguments some time, Fabio. The rest of the Michel team managed to make it.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-08-2012, 12:16 AM
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

Where was that cute lawyer with the nice legs?

I didn't see her there.

Wait a second, is she Fabio?


Damn, I never though I would want to throw Fabio a bone.
__________________

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.

Last edited by wash; 12-08-2012 at 12:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-08-2012, 4:15 AM
voiceofreason's Avatar
voiceofreason voiceofreason is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,781
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair View Post
I didn't think anyone claimed Gura was a master orator, spellbinding and riveting. What they claim is that he's a master litigator, knows how to cut to the chase, knows his case inside and out, and probably knows his opponent's case better than the opponent.
Agreed. Gura definitely shows up prepared, with a well thought out argument that he works hard to keep on track.

IIRC (which I often don't), Gura has mentioned before that we are best served in litigation in his opinion by narrowing the scope of what we're asking for and tailoring the argument such a fashion that we are focused on one or at most two specific arguments/concepts, which make it more difficult for the court to rule against.

(my analysis of the above, NOT from A. Gura)
By throwing in everything and the kitchen sink, we allow the court to pick and choose what it wishes, essentially providing the court with room to maneuver in ruling against our interests.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-08-2012, 5:32 AM
SilverBulletZ06 SilverBulletZ06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
I hope so, because the orals seemed really...unprofessional. I expected much more polished presentations, at least from Clement and Gura. I came away assuming they must not matter too much, glad to have some confirmation.



Not going out on any limbs there. Still, didn't it seem like the female judge was very pro-2A? Maybe it's not possible to determine a judges personal feeling from the questions they ask, when they interrupt counsel, etc, but if I were an anti, she would have worried me greatly.
I don't put anything past the courts at this point. The orals in Kachalsky were very positive, and look at that abortion of a ruling that was passed down. I'm fairly confident that the more questions asked about the law the more the judges are just looking for holes to thread through or punt to the SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-08-2012, 6:24 AM
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

In regards to Alan Gura's speaking skills, he did not seem as polished as McDonald v. Chicago but I am sure he prepared and rehearsed like crazy for that one.

For Richards he was certainly well prepared on the legal matter but probably didn't rehearse as much.
__________________

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
  #77  
Old 12-08-2012, 6:29 AM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 4,983
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Again: They. Don't. Care.

They'll pick what they want out of the briefs to support the conclusion they already wanted to come to from the start.

Until SCOTUS says otherwise, the 9th can do whatever it wants to.
I agree. Just like the rulers of this state. The US Constitution is just paper for wiping in the rest room.....and nothings going to change that for decades if at all.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-08-2012, 6:54 AM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
San Diego's attorney was attempting to do some spectacular rhetorical gymnastics. The sheriff doesn't burden the right, the statute does, but the statute pertaining to concealed carry is not unconstitutional? LOL

Hawaii's plaintiff's attorney seemed very discombobulated. He didn't seem to be very prepared to argue his case, which is suprising considering he had just heard 2 other attorneys argue more effectively on the broader issue. The "good news" is that his request before the court was only for a preliminary injunction against the law Hawaii was trying to implement, rather than challenging a sheriff's policy or the statute itself.

Here's a picture of the Baker attorney:
We already have a law in place, and that is what the PI is for. We were well ready to argue the case. Trying to compare my attorney to Gura or Clement would be a disservice as both are at the pinnacle of experience for 2a matters.

We were able to answer the courts questions, and more importantly help elicit some very good questions from the panel.

I love the arm chair quarterbacks who don't have too much of an idea what is going on, but are dead set on bashing not only my friend, but my counsel. I'll take opinions of the people we talked to there and others like esqappellate.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.

Last edited by Funtimes; 12-08-2012 at 6:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:01 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 684
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
We already have a law in place, and that is what the PI is for. We were well ready to argue the case. Trying to compare my attorney to Gura or Clement would be a disservice as both are at the pinnacle of experience for 2a matters.

We were able to answer the courts questions, and more importantly help elicit some very good questions from the panel.

I love the arm chair quarterbacks who don't have too much of an idea what is going on, but are dead set on bashing not only my friend, but my counsel. I'll take opinions of the people we talked to there and others like esqappellate.
I'd suggest ignoring a person that apparently does not know the law we are challenging has been implemented for quite sometime know.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:55 AM
jorgyusa jorgyusa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gura did exactly what he needed to do for this case. The ramblings, lies, and missteps of all 3 defense attorneys should not serve them well. If the court remains rational and fair and not with a sinister agenda, then we should win.

Being present at the hearings was quite an experience and hearing Gura and Clement was soul lifting. I am hopeful that we will win, if not at the Circuit then at the SCOTUS. We have the best on our side and they have the worst.

Thanks to Calguns for the great luncheon afterwards.
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 6:42 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.