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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 08-10-2016, 5:53 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,725
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
That same argument could be applied to reason for CCW issue to all non-prohibited persons. If it saves one civi life, is that not equally worth it?
They can import more.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 08-09-2017, 11:40 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Curious there are no updates on this case despite activity (appeal filed, etc.) over the past several months after the case was dismissed with prejudice in August 2016. Oh, it's now titled "Jordan Gallinger, et al v. Xavier Becerra".

I guess we're dependent upon Mr. Nichols to provide the relevant updates and documents: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4323
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 08-09-2017, 12:36 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,725
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Curious there are no updates on this case despite activity (appeal filed, etc.) over the past several months after the case was dismissed with prejudice in August 2016. Oh, it's now titled "Jordan Gallinger, et al v. Xavier Becerra".

I guess we're dependent upon Mr. Nichols to provide the relevant updates and documents: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4323
Or, you could put, "Jordan Gallinger, et al v. Xavier Becerra", into Google and get the documents.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 08-09-2017, 7:25 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,725
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here, I'll help:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1498096775
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1498096776
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 08-10-2017, 7:48 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Or, you could put, "Jordan Gallinger, et al v. Xavier Becerra", into Google and get the documents.
Where are the other four? Why do you snidely tell us that google will provide the docs and then just list two of the six?

Yes, if you add the names of those other four docs to the new case name google will provide them, but not before. In other words you have to know the names of those other documents filed in the case thus far in order for google to reveal their location, whereas Mr. Nichols provides them all in one simple location (as above: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4323) for those of us who may not have known to search for "Appellants’ Motion to Take Judicial Notice", or "CATO Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants", etc.

But, suit yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 08-10-2017, 9:52 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,725
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Where are the other four? Why do you snidely tell us that google will provide the docs and then just list two of the six?

Yes, if you add the names of those other four docs to the new case name google will provide them, but not before. In other words you have to know the names of those other documents filed in the case thus far in order for google to reveal their location, whereas Mr. Nichols provides them all in one simple location (as above: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4323) for those of us who may not have known to search for "Appellants’ Motion to Take Judicial Notice", or "CATO Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Appellants", etc.

But, suit yourself.
I apologize for attempting to assist you.

I shan't replicate that error in the future.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 08-10-2017, 12:16 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I apologize for attempting to assist you.

I shan't replicate that error in the future.
Good to know that your definition of "assist" is to provide lame information that doesn't really do what you claimed it would and that even you yourself, following your own "assistance", couldn't produce the documents you claimed you could.

I'd already provided a link to ALL the documents in one convenient location, so how was you providing a faulty "assist" that only produces 33% of the documents an "assist" to me?

Perhaps you meant to write:

"I apologize for attempting to assist OTHERS by providing faulty information that was far less useful than the other information/link already posted by the user above.

I shan't replicate that error in the future."

So... anyone have any guesses they'd like to share about the probability of, and rationale for, the success or failure of the appeal?
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 08-20-2017, 5:04 PM
retired retired is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 9,520
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
And the word I used was "fixed", as in not only "fixed" as in repaired. [pun]

But "fixed" as in crooked. Agreeing with your "Broken". Humorous double entendres not your strong suit I see.

Oh, never mind. When you have to break down a joke word for word, for people who just don't get it, it loses its zing.
Knock off the personal attack

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconLair View Post
yet witness', and THEIR families, who are more instrumental in putting away bad guys have to deal with the "get some for Johnny" gang with the same restrictions as everyone else

besides, the "get some for Johnny" mentality is usually during the course of a trial, or investigation, betting not 15-20 years later when these guys are grazing in the pastures

on a serious note, i think Ron Solo mentioned something in a post one day about running into a guy he had arrested before, don't remember the details, maybe im mistaken
I've only been retired a little over 14 years, so I'm not grazing yet. Beginning on Apri 1, 2018 tho, I'll be grazing in a pasture near you. I posted some time back that I've run into two I knew from my early years working custody (Sheriff's Dept., something we do prior to patrol). The first time I was in a dept. store in the local mall with my wife and two young children, when I heard a male yell out, Hey, Deputy ....". My wife immediately took off in the opposite direction (yes, she took the kids with her), while I, at the same time, began walking toward the voice to head him off. It was a former inmate who was with a group of a couple of males and females who all looked like gangbangers.

The other time was when I went to my cleaners to pick up my uniforms and saw a tatted up gang banger type behind the counter. My receipt of course had my name, but he didn't need as he called me by name when I walked in. Again, another former inmate, this time a trusty who had worked for me. Thankfully, he ran off approx. a month later after being in an accident while driving the company van. He wasn't at fault, so I surmised he had either a warrant or a parole or probation violation. Thankfully, I had no further contact with the former inmate.

Both incidents occurred outside the county I worked for. I lived in Riverside County in the first one and SB County in the second one.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dekul34 View Post
CA might have their hands tied anyway because federal law (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004) specifically allows retired LEO to conceal carry without a permit regardless of local laws... something about former inmates coming back to try to kill them years later. It's stupid since EVERYONE should have the right to carry but there it is.
That's incorrect. Honorably retired le who had at least 10yrs. in le, obtain a ccw permit good nationwide for one year under LEOSA. If they carry a concealed firearm, they must carry the permit if they travel outside of Ca. and in Ca. if they don't carry a dept. issued one or one issued by their local lea.

Last edited by retired; 08-20-2017 at 5:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 08-21-2017, 9:21 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 322
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I'm normally against any sort of crab in the bucket tactics, but it seems that these carved out exemptions are the norm now and something needs to change.

I'd like to see a ballot initiative for all exemptions to be removed from gun laws.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 01-30-2018, 8:45 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 989
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges

I think we know how this one is turning out.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 01-30-2018, 9:23 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 Jack-Booted Gov Thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 14,711
iTrader: 64 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Carter, Clinton, Obama; respectively.

Are you trying to say, Mr. Wolfwood, that the unbiased judiciary is partisan The cynic in me says upheld on appeal, petition for enbanc granted, upheld on en banc, petition for cert denied.

I'd buy a hat, wear it, then eat it if this went down in our favor.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------

Last edited by Ubermcoupe; 01-30-2018 at 1:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 02-08-2018, 5:25 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 989
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oral Arguments were held yesterday here is the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmwyYM2-ZMU
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 02-08-2018, 8:43 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,510
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In the 1st 5 minutes, looks like a loss.

The judge on the left asked about peace officer's superior training... My answer to that is increase the training requirements for civilians. Most people I say that to then further reject on some new basis, it was never about training.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 02-08-2018, 8:58 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,802
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Superior Training - LOL.

So a couple a years ago I am hanging and a CHP Motor SGT roll up, he has 5 service pistols on his bike and as we a shoot the chit, he proceeds to strip, clean and reassemble. Nasty little springs on the S&W's. I asked why he is cleaning them, because his officers don't know how to, also policy required them be shoot after cleaning before being carried again. He did all that because his guys DID NOT KNOW HOW.
__________________
"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
  #135  
Old 02-08-2018, 9:10 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,510
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah if it were me arguing I would have suggested that the legislature increase the civilian training requirements instead of an outright ban which showed what they really wanted.

Seems obvious that we will loose here.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 02-08-2018, 8:49 PM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 837
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Uh, uh, uh....Good lord...uh...Uh...

Is this what an attorney is supposed to sound like in court? That is an attorney, correct?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 04-13-2018, 10:09 PM
Running_Gunning's Avatar
Running_Gunning Running_Gunning is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 278
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Oh Boy! Are these judges for real, am i lost? At one point they were discussing Assualt Weapons, what does that have to do with anything? Sorry for me rambling.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 04-14-2018, 5:33 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 989
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

With Reinhardt dead they will have to put a new judge on the panel. I'll be curious to see whether they have oral arguments again. I doubt it but who knows.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 04-14-2018, 3:37 PM
Beendare's Avatar
Beendare Beendare is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 419
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
It might not immediately solve the defect in the law, but going forward it sets precedent. If the LE unions no longer are able to get their carve-outs, it's possible some of them might stop backing this garbage legislation and without LEO support (and maybe even active opposition), it just *might* slow down the onslaught we face on an annual basis.

If retired LEs get upset enough over having to act like the rest of the civilians, maybe they'll even influence their buddies who aren't out of the force yet to push union leadership to roll back legislation since they no longer receive deferential treatment under the law.

Frankly, this has been a long time coming - if it's too dangerous for your average regular Joe to own and keep, it's too dangerous for someone who no longer has arrest powers to have, regardless of what their training is. If training mattered and was good for life, then by virtue of my time in the Marines, I'd still be good to go to have a full-featured AR or something even more exotic. Since the state doesn't trust me to have that because I am not in the military then the same rules ought to apply to those that have mustered out of the police force.

And yes, we ought to attack the handgun roster on those grounds and on OSHA grounds - if they aren't safe by the standards set by the state, we can't let our officers risk potential injury by having them. LEO safety should come first. Once the state risks having to replace the duty weapon of every officer because these weapons aren't "safe", I think that you'll see alterations in the legislation. Otherwise think of the payout they'd face if a negligent or accidental discharge injured an officer - injury attorney's dream:

Attorney: "You knowingly provided an unsafe piece of equipment to my client?"

State: "Yes, well that is, er..."

Attorney: "No further questions your honor."
I like your logic...but then logic has long since left the room on our 2nd amendment rights in Ca.

Is this a dangerous dice roll?
__________________
You don't drown by falling in the water; you drown by staying there.”
― Edwin Louis Cole
------------------------
Things turn out best for people who make the best of the way things turn out-Art Linkletter
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 08-03-2018, 9:18 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 422
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Loss at Ninth Circuit Panel:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...3/16-56125.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 08-06-2018, 3:56 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,510
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Are we going to go for en banc or cert?
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 08-06-2018, 4:13 PM
SPGuy's Avatar
SPGuy SPGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 127
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
In the 1st 5 minutes, looks like a loss.

The judge on the left asked about peace officer's superior training... My answer to that is increase the training requirements for civilians. Most people I say that to then further reject on some new basis, it was never about training.
Since they have superior training shouldn’t they need less ammo then the typical civilian? Since they have superior training they have the superior hand over any criminal or civilian holding 10 rounds especially off duty So 10 rounds should be more then adequate.
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 6:27 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.