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
  #121  
Old 11-13-2017, 1:45 PM
nedro nedro is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,923
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by emtmark View Post
Running a cubscout pack meeting that night dangit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sounds like the perfect opportunity.
They sell soda there, ya know.
__________________
Here in California; Law abiding Citizens are simply Useful Idiots and Criminals are a Protected Species.
<nedro>

"Venezuela didn't fail because they incorrectly implemented Socialism. They failed because they wholeheartedly implemented Socialism."
<Donald Trump>
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-13-2017, 1:47 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
They should never have started, it was already plain (Nordyke).

On your other questions, most of which misstate what I've said, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Ah, yes, I do seem to have misstated what you said. You said:

Quote:
For gun laws short of prohibitions, Heller is not helpful.
I "interpreted" that to mean Heller's proscription against bans against handguns in the home. But it seems, based on your objection, that you may really mean just prohibitions in general.

Fair enough, but what, then, constitutes a "prohibition" that Heller would address, as opposed to something else that Heller would not? Is the "assault weapon ban" a "prohibition" or something else? After all, that which it targets is prohibited, so by that measure, it's a "prohibition". But that which it targets is not all arms (or all firearms, or all rifles, for that matter), so it's certainly not a complete prohibition, if completeness in that which is targeted is necessary for something to be classified as a "prohibition" as you're using the term here.

Black's Law Dictionary is not helpful here, saying only this of the term "prohibit":

Quote:
Restraining a certain action (s) by a certain party, normally by the order of a legitimate legal authority.
(the definition it has for "prohibition" itself refers to a writ of prohibition, and not a law, so the above is the only alternative available)
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-13-2017 at 2:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-13-2017, 3:30 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,517
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
This isn't a University, and it isn't a school setting. What is wrong with cooperation?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-13-2017, 3:43 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,517
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
curtisfong still doesn't understand anything lol.
Yes, I do not understand this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
He has never once provided a useful, cogent, legally backed criticism of any CA gun law (or anti-gun court decision), as far as I know.
As far as your definition of "prohibition", apparently, it only applies to prohibitions that burden the right "primarily in the home" where somehow "primarily" means "solely" in legal speak. Yes, I do not understand why lawyers think redefining terms makes sense, unless they are willing to admit they do so due to personal public policy preference, and not logic.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 11-13-2017 at 4:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-13-2017, 4:31 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
On your other questions, most of which misstate what I've said, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
As noted, you said:

Quote:
For gun laws short of prohibitions, Heller is not helpful.
You'll have to pardon me for presuming that you meant that Heller would not be helpful beyond that which it directly held.

Since that is clearly not what you meant, then what you said clearly must mean that Heller is somehow going to be helpful beyond that which it directly held. So how are you determining which parts of Heller that are not in the holding itself would help versus which parts wouldn't?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-13-2017 at 5:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-13-2017, 5:50 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
On your other questions, most of which misstate what I've said, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
I don't expect you to do my "homework" for me. But I can't do homework without something akin to a "homework assignment". Got one for me that is relevant to my questions?

I don't mind reading. But I need some idea of what to read first.

Furthermore, it's your opinion that I'm asking about. How exactly is doing any "homework" supposed to help me determine that? What, do you think I'll somehow become clairvoyant if I do enough "homework" or something??

Or perhaps you instead believe that your opinion on this is actually objective fact (which would be a very interesting assertion)?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-13-2017 at 9:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-13-2017, 6:37 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,643
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default



Waiting for FGG to tell everyone how to win, “full auto for everyone”

Cause he has the magic bullet he won’t tell anyone about.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 11-13-2017, 6:58 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,517
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Waiting for FGG to tell everyone how to win, “full auto for everyone”
Literally nobody is asking for that.

What is wrong with

1) what gun laws in CA are both a burden and ineffective (personal opinion)
2) what subset of 1) is unconstitutional and why
3) what subset of 2) might you actually be able to challenge (and win in CA) and why

As far as I can tell, FGG feels 1) is Ø

Logic majors (not lawyers, who are trained in legal logic, not real logic) are free to draw their own conclusions about 2 and 3.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 11-13-2017, 7:56 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,229
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

You are asking logical questions not legal ones Curtis.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 11-13-2017, 8:15 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,517
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
You are asking logical questions not legal ones Curtis.
Exactly why I never have and never will see eye to eye with most lawyers. They're trained to ignore and despise anything but legal logic, which (intentionally) bears no resemblance to real logic.

Just like the language of law looks like English. It's not. So if you try to speak English to a lawyer, you're told you're ignorant and stupid, and if you try to interpret the law as if it was English, you're told (again) that you are ignorant and stupid.

And that you "don't get it lol™".

There is a minuscule minority of lawyers that seem to be able to grasp this, and apply it when talking to the lowly stupid commoners.

Some of which have degrees in real actual science. And aren't actually dumb.

BTW both 2) and 3) are certainly legal questions, even if 1) is not.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 11-13-2017 at 8:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 11-13-2017, 8:23 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,229
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Lawyers will never admit they work in an entirely political arena of abstract thought that has no rational basis. Re-ligating it with them over and over again is pointless, just let them think they are being objective and there is something to their system.

I have a masters in science and can do calculus and have engineered many things, I think I am capable of advanced thought. Never been able to comprehend the law on any level. It's not logical, it's not morals, it's not rational, and it's not ethics. It's the law. The only thing it even remotely bears any resemblance to is "business", but at least those guys have economics and some math to back it up.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 11-13-2017, 8:28 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,517
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
just let them think they are being objective and there is something to their system.
I would be fine doing just that if they didn't constantly admonish the rest of us over how stupid we are.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 11-13-2017, 8:35 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,643
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I would be fine doing just that if they didn't constantly admonish the rest of us over how stupid we are.
You take things to personal. FGG has been pretty fair with people except for the marquis speaker in the event represented in this thread. Even that COULD be considered “constructive criticism” Albeit, I don’t think it’s meant that way.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 11-13-2017, 8:40 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,517
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
FGG has been pretty fair with people
Concluding every insult with "lol"™ makes them fair?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 11-13-2017, 8:45 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,643
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Concluding every insult with "lol"™ makes them fair?
Meh, laughing is good for the soul
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 11-13-2017, 8:54 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,643
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Concluding every insult with "lol"™ makes them fair?
Besides, you and KC come running every time FGG posts. Like a starving horse to sweet cob.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 11-13-2017, 9:11 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Besides, you and KC come running every time FGG posts. Like a starving horse to sweet cob.
He is fun to engage, if you enjoy debate and like learning things.

As I said, I'm done with criticizing him. There are a couple of reasons for that. One, of course, is that I'm absolutely terrible at it, thanks to a memory that is the worst you've ever seen (enough so that I'm basically already "prepared" to deal with Alzheimer's). But the second is that, in the end, you just have to accept people for who they are, and make the most of their presence. It's not like FGG doesn't bring anything positive to the table -- he does. He makes you work for it, but it can be very rewarding in the end. And that makes him worthwhile to engage, even if it can be frustrating.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 11-13-2017, 9:28 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Just like the language of law looks like English. It's not. So if you try to speak English to a lawyer, you're told you're ignorant and stupid, and if you try to interpret the law as if it was English, you're told (again) that you are ignorant and stupid.

And that you "don't get it lol™".
I wouldn't begrudge them their use of language if the effect were substantially less ambiguity, as it is in the sciences.

But it's not. We know this precisely because of the sheer scope of disagreement, by people who are fluent in the language, about the very meaning and scope of even the most fundamental legal decisions (such as Heller) written in that very language.

That renders the justification for the use of that language to be mere sophistry and reveals the intent of the language to be dishonest. For if the purpose of intentional use of a different language that looks the same as another is not greater clarity, then it must be either for the purpose of introducing ambiguity, or for the purpose of creating an artificial hurdle for those who wish to understand the law to jump, or perhaps both.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-13-2017 at 9:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 11-13-2017, 9:35 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,229
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I wouldn't begrudge them their use of language if the effect were substantially less ambiguity, as it is in the sciences.

But it's not. We know this precisely because of the sheer scope of disagreement, by people who are fluent in the language, about the very meaning and scope of even the most fundamental legal decisions (such as Heller) written in that very language.

That renders the justification for the use of that language to be mere sophistry and reveals the intent of the language to be dishonest. For if the purpose of intentional use of a different language that looks the same as another is not greater clarity, then it must be either for the purpose of introducing ambiguity, or for the purpose of creating an artificial hurdle for those who wish to understand the law to jump, or perhaps both.
Just politics, which is basically a form of business. Look at what lawyers do on an economic basis and it all becomes clear what's really going on.

Case and point, we all ask questions about what is and is not legal in terms of registration. If it weren't for people talking about their experiences here and us painstakingly hashing it out day by day, no one would know. The NRA, any institution, and no lawyer on this here Calguns could tell us jack ****. We had to do it ourselves.

So who are the real experts on the law? Didn't see any guides produced by any organization, they simply yelled at us like I was yelled at the local NRA meeting a month ago. They told me I was giving legal advice and I should shut the hell up. Guy was pounding his fist on the table because we organized a few threads on what the options were and how registration worked, lol.

The gun institutions and lawyers are completely out of touch.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 11-13-2017, 9:48 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Yeah, it does, judges interpret, that's what happens in the legal system, in every type of case and there is disagreement more often than not.
In what way is this not an admission that the legal system is arbitrary and capricious, if "interpret" is not strictly limited in its meaning to purely consistent application of well-defined and well-understood meanings and principles in purely consistent ways to the law and facts?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-14-2017 at 4:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 11-13-2017, 10:01 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,815
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
They're trained to ignore and despise anything but legal logic, which (intentionally) bears no resemblance to real logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Lawyers will never admit they work in an entirely political arena of abstract thought that has no rational basis.
...
Never been able to comprehend the law on any level. It's not logical, it's not morals, it's not rational, and it's not ethics. It's the law.
The logic is not the problem. What you call "legal logic" is actually quite similar to mathematics - it's precise and it's axiomatic.

The problem is that the framework is based on creating the axioms out of the legal precedent written in English, which is not only inherently imprecise, but subject to cherry-picking which parts of the ruling to elevate to the axioms. Once the cherry-picking is done, the rest of the process is very precise and formal, so it provides an appearance of objectivity and rigor simply because the derivation is correct, but all it does is mask the arbitrariness of the initial step - the political interpretation of the ruling.

In case of FGG, he is part of the system, a clique of attorneys and judges who control the CA legal system both physically and intellectually. No surprise that he used the same "initial conditions" as the rest of his clique, so his predictions turned out to be true. At least in CA-9. At least for now.

However, this doesn't validate the "initial conditions," merely the derivation process. Consider the outcome if the "CA legal clique" started with the "shall not be infringed" and built a framework on expansive strict scrutiny, at least for the most common categories such as "carry in public," "common firearms," "common magazines," "reciprocity," etc. We could easily have gun laws that mimic abortion or election laws.

Well, the name of the game is to change this "legal clique." I am happy to say that it's exactly what Trump is doing. We'll get the same rigorous derivations, but from jurists who use different initial conditions. Then we'll have attorneys on the other side doing their own little victory dance about how they were right all along. In the meantime, to Bader-Ginsburg: tic-toc.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 11-13-2017, 10:02 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,643
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
In what way is this not an admission that the legal system is arbitrary and capricious, if "interpret" is not strictly limited in its meaning to consistent application of well-defined and well-understood meanings in consistent ways to the law and facts?
Are you really asking this? Not busting your chops, but still asking, really?
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 11-13-2017, 10:10 PM
BobB35 BobB35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Why do you argue about the legal system. It has been proven time and again, it will mean whatever some judge says it means and by now precedent will support any of those positions. Just look at the what has passed constitutional muster in the last 100 yrs. Locking up American citizens, expansion of the commerce clause, and on and on.

They key to the law most people dont' get is that it's meaningless unless it is backed up by the use of force. Right now people accept arbitrary and capricious rulings from "Judges". In my lifetime I do not believe they will continue to. The judiciary has overstepped and now the simmering is beginning. Too many people think nothing can change....hint...there is a reason we don't speak Latin.

When the US Dollar is no longer the reserve currency of the world the excrement will hit the rotating air movement device and all of this legal BS will get a serious dose of reality.

Just my opinion, but I think I'm right. Plan accordingly.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 11-13-2017, 10:32 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Are you really asking this? Not busting your chops, but still asking, really?
Hey, he's the one who stated what I quoted. As far as I can remember (which as we've clearly seen, doesn't mean a whole lot), I've never seen him state such a thing before.

External observation is sufficient to reveal the characteristics of the legal system in that regard. But I'm not asking him about what that reveals. I'm asking what his view is in light of his statement, and am asking him to justify that view.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-14-2017 at 4:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 11-13-2017, 11:19 PM
FUCA2AFTW FUCA2AFTW is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just as economists are beholden to profit, so too are lawyers beholden to politics. See SCOTUS rulings on Dred Scott, Obamacare, etc., for confirmation.

This is interesting melodrama, BTW.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 11-13-2017, 11:19 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,517
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
it will mean whatever some judge says it means and by now precedent will support any of those positions.
This is what you cannot get lawyers to confess - that our legal history is so long and complex, there is precedent for ANY and every decision. Period.

In scientific terms, it would be equivalent to having experiments that simultaneously produce very single possible outcome, making no posited hypothesis untenable.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 11-14-2017, 3:52 AM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,537
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WatchMan View Post
WOW! This thread managed to bring out all the old schoolers, even the recently stealthy FGG! Good to see. Have to say, this whole thing has really become better than any reality TV show could every strive to be.

Unfortunately, it's our rights at stake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUCA2AFTW View Post
Just as economists are beholden to profit, so too are lawyers beholden to politics. See SCOTUS rulings on Dred Scott, Obamacare, etc., for confirmation.

This is interesting melodrama, BTW.


Like listening to an oldies station playing all the greatest hits from times gone by. All my old favorites.

Seems amazing how everyone clicks back into their old roles, attitudes, arguments. Maybe this is like Thanksgiving Dinner with relatives you only see once a year, everyone saying the same things they've said since you married into this family.

This is the best, most interesting CalGuns thread I've seen in a couple of years.

Only way it could be better is if Gene and the old CGF board played a couple of their old tunes.
__________________
A Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CA Legislature Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, lots of reporting on current CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
CalGuns Foundation https://www.calgunsfoundation.org
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 11-14-2017, 3:59 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The logic is not the problem. What you call "legal logic" is actually quite similar to mathematics - it's precise and it's axiomatic.
Maybe. Maybe not. What we do know is that it at least sometimes yields results that differ from what formal logic yields when applied to the same things (it would be formal logic otherwise).

If the law were some abstract thing like philosophy, where the pronouncements were followed strictly as a matter of choice, then the use of "legal logic" would not be a problem. The use would yield results that its adherents would choose to follow or not, and that would be the end of it.

But it's not. Because it is enforced at gunpoint (or, previously, the tip of a sword), the law has direct and imposed effect on real world people doing real world things in the real world. And since formal logic is an embodiment of rules that the real world follows, any conflict between "legal logic" and formal logic results in real world consequences that must differ from what "legal logic" claims. This renders "legal logic" invalid right at the point the law hits the pavement. And this is why "legal logic" is improper to use even in the legal arena.

Legal practitioners who issue decisions on the basis of "legal logic" do so by choice. The rules they operate under are of their own making and/or are subject to change by them. Courts choose to issue the decisions they do. They are not compelled to do so. Nobody points a gun at their collective heads.


Quote:
The problem is that the framework is based on creating the axioms out of the legal precedent written in English, which is not only inherently imprecise, but subject to cherry-picking which parts of the ruling to elevate to the axioms. Once the cherry-picking is done, the rest of the process is very precise and formal, so it provides an appearance of objectivity and rigor simply because the derivation is correct, but all it does is mask the arbitrariness of the initial step - the political interpretation of the ruling.
This is true as far as it goes. The problem is that it's not just the axioms that are arbitrary. The "logic" itself is arbitrary as well, since it diverges from formal logic and, thus, from the rules the real world follows, and is chosen by the people who use it for the purpose of issuing decisions as they see fit.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-14-2017 at 4:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 11-14-2017, 8:59 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,815
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The "logic" itself is arbitrary as well, since it diverges from formal logic and, thus, from the rules the real world follows, and is chosen by the people who use it for the purpose of issuing decisions as they see fit.
All the decisions I've seen were consistent in their derivation and used proper logic to come to the conclusion. The problem was that they arbitrarily picked their initial conditions.

For example, the latest Peruta decision is consistent with the following initial conditions: (1) The question in Peruta is about concealed carry, (2) Heller allows long standing prohibitions. From there, the panel deducts that concealed carry is not a right and therefore any regulation up to and including a total ban is permissible. This is along the lines of FGG claiming that as long as we can buy *one* gun there is no infringement.

Of course, a different panel could (and did) use different initial conditions and come to a completely different conclusion. It's enough to change condition (1) to what plaintiffs were actually asking (a broader interpretation of the overall scheme), and change condition (2) to the more important part in Heller where they determined that (a) 2A is an *individual* right, and (b) that "bear" means to "carry" in ordinary sense.

The easiest way to look at these decisions is to eliminate the "middle part" which is the derivation, since it's almost always correct. Instead, we should just get back to the initial conditions and determine which ones the court chose. This choice, more precisely the existence of this choice, is what many attorneys don't recognize as making the process political. They only see the correct derivation and say "it's how the law works." Well, we need to get the initial conditions sorted out by SCOTUS.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 11-14-2017, 9:25 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,241
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
All the decisions I've seen were consistent in their derivation and used proper logic to come to the conclusion. The problem was that they arbitrarily picked their initial conditions.
If they use proper logic, and consistently do so, then I have no problem with the logic itself that they employ. It is only if and where the logic they use diverges from proper formal logic that it becomes improper.


Quote:
The easiest way to look at these decisions is to eliminate the "middle part" which is the derivation, since it's almost always correct. Instead, we should just get back to the initial conditions and determine which ones the court chose. This choice, more precisely the existence of this choice, is what many attorneys don't recognize as making the process political. They only see the correct derivation and say "it's how the law works." Well, we need to get the initial conditions sorted out by SCOTUS.
That certainly seems like a good approach, and I think you're quite insightful on this. My initial thought is that it is improper for the court to "choose" an initial condition in the first place. Law (and most especially the Constitution!) has purpose intended by its authors, and the penning of the law (or the Constitution) is the means by which that intent is communicated. That is a starting condition, and the only proper one. The rest is the result of derivation.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 11-14-2017, 10:54 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,517
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

I agree to some extent.

Interpreting "primarily in the home" as equivalent to "exclusively in the home" is not a simple change in initial conditions. In fact, precedent is most often not even an initial condition, but the result of two (often differing) derivations, both when it was composed as a finding, and much later when it is eventually interpreted for application.

I might say the difference is primarily, not exclusively, altering the initial conditions.

No, the problem is not just the initial conditions. The problem is everything; from the axioms, to the derivations, to the language, to the lack of formal logic at every level.

There are innumerable conflicting and even self contradictory examples of each that can be cherry picked to generate just about any result, like a Mad Lib.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 11-14-2017 at 11:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 11-14-2017, 11:25 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,815
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Interpreting "primarily in the home" as equivalent to "exclusively in the home" is not a simple change in initial conditions.
If you want to be technical, whether it's "primarily" or "exclusively," neither defines what happens *outside* the home. Some courts used this approach.

The problem is that when dealing with *other* rights, the courts tend to take a much more expansive view and can easily justify, e.g., that "primarily" implies that the protections apply somewhere else, which by definition must be "outside."

If the courts were consistent in the strictness of the interpretations across different rights, then we wouldn't have this discussion. It's just that some courts relegated 2A to the "lower right," just as some justices predicted. That's a purely political decision, no matter how much they try to find an "objective" reason for treating 2A differently. Saying "guns are dangerous, so we have to be more careful" is a typical example of trying to objectivize a purely subjective opinion, then use it to alter the course of justice.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 11-14-2017, 11:33 AM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,196
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Back on topic...

Do we know if he Hoffman Show will be recorded?

If so, I'd like to buy the DVD or BluRay.
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf
I see the gulf of Mexico
As tiny as a tear
The coast of California
Must be somewhere over here, over here
Greatful Dead
“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 11-15-2017, 5:19 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,196
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Bump...

...for AAR...

eta...Does anybody want to post some details about Gene's presentation??
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf
I see the gulf of Mexico
As tiny as a tear
The coast of California
Must be somewhere over here, over here
Greatful Dead
“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain

Last edited by -hanko; 11-16-2017 at 7:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 11-16-2017, 10:31 PM
GW's Avatar
GW GW is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 14,390
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

I missed it
How did it go?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 11-16-2017, 10:50 PM
Adeodatus's Avatar
Adeodatus Adeodatus is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mountain View
Posts: 2,207
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW View Post
I missed it
How did it go?
It went really well in my mind.

Had a massive breakthrough with my anti gun criminal law professor who I brought. He learned a lot and has a greater respect for our side now. I got to sit him down for a minute with Don Kilmer and they connected well. My professor now wants to bring Kilmer to SJSU as a guest speaker on firearms law for his classes. So some serious progress was made.
__________________
Certified Instructor for NRA Basic Pistol

Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:00 PM
FUCA2AFTW FUCA2AFTW is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Adeo that's great!
Awesome that you convinced him to go.
I can't imagine how he must've first reacted when you invited him...!
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 11-16-2017, 11:56 PM
Adeodatus's Avatar
Adeodatus Adeodatus is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mountain View
Posts: 2,207
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FUCA2AFTW View Post
Adeo that's great!
Awesome that you convinced him to go.
I can't imagine how he must've first reacted when you invited him...!
Thanks! I had been non stop debating him since the Vegas shooting when he called me out in class. He was very surprised when I invited him to "see the other side" and quickly challenged me to "see the other side" as well.

It all starts with hearts and minds. He may never go full pro gun, but it's a start. I've made big progress here and this will help my future projects on campus.
__________________
Certified Instructor for NRA Basic Pistol

Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 11-17-2017, 12:37 AM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,090
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adeodatus View Post
It went really well in my mind.

Had a massive breakthrough with my anti gun criminal law professor who I brought. He learned a lot and has a greater respect for our side now. I got to sit him down for a minute with Don Kilmer and they connected well. My professor now wants to bring Kilmer to SJSU as a guest speaker on firearms law for his classes. So some serious progress was made.
Very, very cool.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 11-17-2017, 12:45 AM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 679
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Really did want to come, but just got home about 30 minutes ago from an out of state trip for a family funeral.
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 10:09 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.