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
  #241  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:11 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 5,851
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Understand that I agree with you that they needn't know what I carry. What's more, I don't think you should have to have a permit to carry at all. If you aren't prohibited you should be able to carry.

But there is a certain logic to identifying what you carry. If the sheriff sees that you are planning to carry a .50 caliber handgun he's probably gonna figure you've got a screw loose since they're just generally not a great self-defense weapon.

I'm not saying that justifies the requirement. But I remember being told a few years ago that if I tried to apply for a carry license and listed a .44 Magnum or .50 caliber pistol that my application would probably be denied.

To me, this whole concept goes right back to what is being challenged in yesterday's cases. The sheriff should NOT be able to qualify/disqualify based on his/her 'feeling' that a particular firearm is/is not appropriate. Further, establishing arbitrary numbers of firearms that can be listed isn't supported in PC and needs kicked to the curb.

In a nutshell, the sheriff's only discretion should be to decide whether or not an applicant is permitted to own/purchase firearms. If that is true, the sheriff is mandated to issue a permit IMHO.

.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman
  #242  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:18 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Sometimes they are, sometimes not.

Could be as soon as tomorrow or Monday if it becomes available.

Any idea as to when text versions might become available?


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
  #243  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:09 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: 3,084
iTrader: 139 / 100%
Default

I'm hoping they release the video version today... that way I can show my wife where DarkSoul and I kept mouthing the words "DAFUQ?" when some of the opposing counsel's arguments were completely detached from reality.
__________________


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."
  #244  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:02 AM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,037
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Yolo Counsel says I can LOC to the range and back!
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
  #245  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:26 AM
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 mag360 View Post
Yolo Counsel says I can LOC to the range and back!

And if you get caught, I bet you get arrested.....
__________________
  #246  
Old 12-07-2012, 10:21 AM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Halbrook is an excellent 2A scholar. He's also a excellent 10A/Commerce Clause litigator. He is not an excellent 2A litigator, and we don't need "good". We need excellent. Period.
Halbrook has his place and role, Gura has his place and role.

NRA rocks in legislative actions. they need to get out of the court room in most cases and focus on working with those who right the laws.

Halbrook rocks at research and writing books....that is his contribution. Documenting the history, the reasons why etc the 2nd is not just a "cool idea" BUT a CRITICAL part of being free.

Gura rocks in the court rooms. that is his contribution.

It's not really a problem if people just stick to what they excel at. it actually makes us stronger.

It's the playing in pools you aren't trained to swim in that is a problem NO MATTER how well intentioned. We aren't going to win on good intentions. We are going to win by putting the right people in the right places and supporting them so that they are able to EXCEL at what they do best.

I have actually seen a lot of complaints about egos in a few threads lately. irony is a lot of the complaints are from people who are supporting people in over their heads due to....ego.

the sad truth is very, very few people can put aside ego and focus on the end goal. but that is exactly what we need to do. put aside delusions of grandeur and let the most qualified lead the charge in their area. IF you think you have what it takes to pickup the torch after them...find out how you can start working WITH that person and LEARNING from them. Because at some point as great a job as Gura has been for us, there will reach a time when he will need to step aside and let the next "wave" take over.

That is what people like Halbrook needs to do for Gura. they had their day and in their day they did good work, but their day is past. Some day Gura will need to do this for someone else.

Ideally we should be attacking the "restoration" of the 2nd amendment on three fronts. For illustration only...it could (should?) look like this

Gura coordinating litigation

NRA coordinating legislation

Someone else coordinating and training "average joes" how to talk to people and get them on board. both gun owners and non gun owners.

Last edited by 1859sharps; 12-07-2012 at 10:23 AM..
  #247  
Old 12-07-2012, 10:28 AM
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 1859sharps View Post
NRA rocks in legislative actions.
Perhaps; how much legislation has $250Mil/yr gotten you?

-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.
  #248  
Old 12-07-2012, 10:35 AM
ripcurlksm's Avatar
ripcurlksm ripcurlksm is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Orange County
Posts: 3,117
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1859sharps View Post
I have actually seen a lot of complaints about egos in a few threads lately. irony is a lot of the complaints are from people who are supporting people in over their heads due to....ego.
__________________
Kevin
  #249  
Old 12-07-2012, 1:24 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've listened to the audio of the arguments. Please understand that I do not wish to cast stones at anyone. Certainly Mr. Gura has been a rock star on 2A related issues. However, what were the team's impressions of the panel's position toward Gura's arguments? I too noticed that Yolo counsel seemed to be obfuscating around the edges about the "exceptions" for carrying. One of the things that I also noticed, which the Panel jumped on and Mr. Gura seemed to later assert as well is Yolo's left-handed admission that a core right to self-defense exists. Did the Panel seem to be amenable to accepting that premise? It seemed as though they realized that if a right to self-defense existed, that they would be strongly compelled to find that the Yolo Sheriff was burdening that right. Something I didn't hear, but do wonder if it might have helped our case is a brief recitation of SCOTUS ruling periodically even as far back as the 1950s that the "government" and "the police" are under no statutory duty to provide protection, safety, or security to members of society, and are not legally or financially liable for failing to do so. Would this have helped our case asserting a right to self-defense to make these rulings part of the oral arguments, or is this information additionally contained in briefs filed with the court, but not part of the oral arguments for the sake of expediency? Even if that is so, I would have liked to hear that point made during oral arguments. Again, not trying to denigrate or second-guess anyone, just legitimate questions I have/had and was hoping someone could provide a bit of information about. I admit that while I like our position and Mr. Gura's ability, I'm not altogether confident that the 9th Circus will see things "our" way...
__________________
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
  #250  
Old 12-07-2012, 4:12 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,803
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
Something I didn't hear, but do wonder if it might have helped our case is a brief recitation of SCOTUS ruling periodically even as far back as the 1950s that the "government" and "the police" are under no statutory duty to provide protection, safety, or security to members of society, and are not legally or financially liable for failing to do so.
I really wish this was the case. I can only assume Gura is aware of it, but finds it strategically unnecessary to bring up.
  #251  
Old 12-07-2012, 4:49 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,078
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If, as a member of the armed forces, you should fail to make adequate preparations to secure your AOR due to inadequate intel or resources - as long as you did your duty competently you are not held criminally responsible. You still may be subject to personnel actions of considerable severity if your actions did not meet the standards you were expected to meet.

This is roughly how it will be for police officers and departments.

And I know that most people would accept that argument as a fairly good one. But they don't take it far enough in another aspect to understand why the argument probably would not work in court.

Let us assume that our leadership and taxpayers do not provide the structure or resources to maintain an military force adequate to the defense of our country. This does not automatically authorize the individual citizen (or a group of citizens) to form a military-style unit and start defending our borders or our vital interests overseas.

That duty to defend is neither absolute and is also not able to be assumed by the individual.

I think sticking with the incorporated right to self-defense is the right way to go.

Invoking a lack of duty to protect every individual as either the justification or a justification of an armed citizenry is mistaken and will invite scrutiny issues we don't need.

You could end up where if you live in a neighborhood in which no murders have occurred in the last two years - you have no RKBA because the LEA has been maintaining adequate security for you. You could end up where they start looking at individual blocks and saying that since no one has been murdered on your block in the last few years - the cops have been taking the responsibility of defending you and you have no RKBA. One could imagine their saying no one has been murdered in your particular house - so you have no RKBA.

Personally, I'd not use that argument. I see no good coming from it.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #252  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:07 PM
jorgyusa jorgyusa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 158
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I really wish this was the case. I can only assume Gura is aware of it, but finds it strategically unnecessary to bring up.
I don't understand how that would have helped the case. It is off topic. He only had a short time and needed to stay focused on the core of the case and that was the restriction on the fundamental right. They need to rule on the constitutionality of a severely restricted good cause, when a CCW is the only way one can exercise that right in California. I think Gura did extremely well and did not let the defense attorneys nonsensical ramblings distract him. Much of the defense discussion was off topic.
  #253  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:33 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,527
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Yolo counsel literally made stuff up as he went.

-Brandon
Honestly, does it matter? Every time I read threads like this, it seems like the state/government council just makes things up as they go and we still lose.
  #254  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:42 PM
SilverBulletZ06 SilverBulletZ06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gura made excellent arguments, but damn if Clement didn't nail it with his closing:

"Something odd is going on here. The Supreme Court issued two watershed opinions, Heller and McDonald. Not only has nothing changed, but California's taken this as an invitation to pass act 144 to make it less easy to have access to a handgun. I think this court really does have to send a message that those Supreme Court decisions cannot be resisted, they have to be applied."
  #255  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:16 PM
Wojtek's Avatar
Wojtek Wojtek is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,322
iTrader: 141 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06 View Post
Gura made excellent arguments, but damn if Clement didn't nail it with his closing:

"Something odd is going on here. The Supreme Court issued two watershed opinions, Heller and McDonald. Not only has nothing changed, but California's taken this as an invitation to pass act 144 to make it less easy to have access to a handgun. I think this court really does have to send a message that those Supreme Court decisions cannot be resisted, they have to be applied."
Damn right. I was cheering in my car when I was listening to it.

On another note, did anyone hear the fantastically craptastic pile of crap that Prieto's lawyer spewed about California law and how apparently "unburdensome" the regulations are? Seriously, I nearly threw my laptop into a wall.
  #256  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:19 PM
Wojtek's Avatar
Wojtek Wojtek is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,322
iTrader: 141 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Yolo counsel literally made stuff up as he went.

-Brandon
Like I said, fantastically craptastic.
  #257  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:21 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 only mention the issue about government not having a duty to protect citizens in the context of, "Okay, if there is no duty to protect by the government, I must be responsible for my own protection. However, the same entity which would claim no statutory duty to protect is also denying me the ability to protect myself under their current issue policy."

I don't profess to be a legal beagle, IJS it seems like an argument can be made that if you're going to deny me the right to be safe and secure in my own person, it is unfair to also claim no duty to provide protection. Sort of "No only do we not have to protect you, but you can't protect yourself either."

Perhaps yesterday was not the right time or place for the argument. Maybe that's more of a public relations discussion than a legal one. Kind of a "Someone has a duty to protect, right? If you pay taxes, one would assume you can expect the police to protect. However, many court cases affirm the opposite. The alternative is to be prepared to protect yourself. Under current CA law, that is very nearly impossible to do."
__________________
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 6:27 PM..
  #258  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:50 PM
Wojtek's Avatar
Wojtek Wojtek is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,322
iTrader: 141 / 100%
Default

When are decisions expected to be due in these cases?
  #259  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:30 PM
thedrickel's Avatar
thedrickel thedrickel is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lost in the wheels of confusion
Posts: 5,371
iTrader: 128 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wojtek View Post
When are decisions expected to be due in these cases?
Ątwo weeks!
__________________
I hate people that are full of hate.

It's not illegal to tip for PPT!
  #260  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:55 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,126
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

We're getting too diffuse here.

Please take further discussion to http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=653230
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

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.


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 4:29 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.