|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
At 9:03 in arguments, the Court specifically asks whether or not Gura is asking for a remand (this was regarding Sheriff Prieto's policy RE: CCW policy guidelines, and the specificity or vagueness of regulations contained within the Sheriff's policy). (Unrelated to this specific comment, but the panel did seem to be entertaining the notion that there may be a core right to self defense outside of your home or stationary property at about the 22:38 mark) At 32:20 the Panelist mentions that lower courts have not had the opportunity to weigh in on new statutes, and specifically states "...no one wants us to send it back, what's your position?" To which the Yolo counsel replies generally about Plaintiff has included new and old statutes, and that the Court could "...affirm without sending it back." Additionally, Yolo counsel states that "...we would agree that, under CA law in a 1983 case that the Sheriff is a state actor, acting on behalf of the State, not the Counties."
__________________
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 |
#82
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Congratulations, enjoy your "gotcha" moment. However, the context of the statements made (particularly when you include into thoughtful consideration that the 9th Circuit specifically told BOTH counsels to be prepared to discuss whether a remand might be necessary due to the issue of proper/improper notice) throughout the course of the arguments was the Panel more or less asking in not quite so many words whether the counsels felt that there might be a reason to remand, and both times they were referencing the idea of the state being present in the court to participate (and by extension, the question of notification comes into play. If the state had not been notified by either party in this particular case, I feel relatively certain that the 9th Circuit either would have post-poned argument pending notification, or remanded for the same reason). However, the point is moot since Mr. Gura did provide proper notification.
__________________
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 |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Put all of the people in California in a room, and 80% of them would vote to not issue. It, after all, is NOT the sheriffs that vote for the stateg legislature, or we would be laughing. OK, over simplification, using Pareto analysis (aka the 80:20 rule) but close enough to be realistic.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner. All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
The first instance (3:30) was discussed a few posts back; the state could be involved as an intervening party on appeal, no remand required and no discernible reason to remand for this reason. When the panel mentioned remand it was unrelated to the AG notice. The premise of the inflammatory thread that engendered this thread was that a remand was inevitable in Peruta because of the AG notice; predictably, this did not play out at oral arguments.
|
#85
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
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 |
#86
|
||||
|
||||
No gotcha intended, I wanted to know where they said it because I didn't hear it.
Quote:
Quote:
|
#87
|
||||
|
||||
So because the Court's notice RE; state participation didn't specifically mention he word "remand" that means A.) they weren't considering it, and B.) they would have no standing to order one if they so chose?
__________________
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 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
How do you think the President is voted in? Its NOT the people but the electoral college. I just crack up when posters who live in forbidden counties cry the blues about not having an LTC but do nothing to convince the constituency in their county and those running for office that issuing is a good thing. ITS YOUR COUNTY! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
OH! BTW! Our Sheriff is a democrat of Hispanic decent. Also issues for the good cause statement of "self defence" AND spent most of his career as a San Francisco police officer.
Last edited by taperxz; 12-07-2012 at 6:44 PM.. |
#90
|
||||
|
||||
Everything suggests the panel's interest was in the state's participation in the appeal. The panel could invite the state to participate in the appeal, in either case, based on 28 USC 2403. No purpose whatsoever would be served by vacating the judgment and remanding so that the AG could be notified. In the Peruta case, notifying the AG would have been inconsistent with the plaintiff's litigation position, which was clearly articulated in a variety of briefs and other documents filed in the case.
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#92
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The problem is, we're playing by their rules, and they keep changing them when it doesn't work in their favor.
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858 Godwin's law |
#93
|
||||
|
||||
I don't remember which case, (not worth going back and listening to all of them) but one of the judges asked is they wanted a remand or this court to dicide the case. The lawyer said they didn't want a remad.
|
#94
|
||||
|
||||
My question was about remand because of the AG notice.
|
#96
|
||||
|
||||
I contend that remanding or “sending it back”, as the panel sometimes verbalized it, would not have even come up had it not been for lack of notice in Peruta. So you dodged a bullet (maybe) and now you are dancing in the streets shouting; “I told you so!”
__________________
Take not lightly liberty To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it "I will talk with you no more. I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud) |
#97
|
||||
|
||||
he must of left SFPD in digust because of the backwards thinking in San Francisco.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A contact the governor https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend. NRA Life Member. |
#98
|
||||
|
||||
I'm so freaking sick of the pissing contest here. Despite all his previous rabble rousing, in this one case, I don't believe Fabio was being inflammatory. I didn't recall any suggestion of remand due to notice issues either.
But this is the point at which we have arrived due to the unnecessary and volumous infighting: That Fabio can't even ask someone to clarify or verify a basic point of fact without being suspected and accused of playing gotcha. He may have brought that on himself, but so have we. We are ALL responsible for the character and tone of the dialog here. Me, you, Fabio, Gray, Gene, Brandon, Kes, etc, etc. We either engage in it or tolerate it. Either way it continues. And we look like a bunch of too-smart, testosterone-laden teenagers instead of the incredible community of civil rights activists that we are. We get exactly the forum and community we demand, no more, no less.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights. Magna est veritas et praevalebit |
#99
|
||||
|
||||
|
#100
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Many of the changes of state laws comes from groups within the state with no affliction with the NRA. What has all that money done for national reciprocity? Or changed the laws in DC? The NRA has yet to fix many of the laws they help craft. The SAF has done more to secure 2A rights than the NRA in the past 100+ years. Quote:
I agree. This topic should have stayed dead but it was given new life. There are far too many ego’s and hurt feelings now to get meaningful change within the community, we are simply going to have to hope that the changes we seek happen out of this chaos, or hope that some of the ego’s shallow their pride and rise above. I am placing money on the former. |
#101
|
||||
|
||||
what interests me is the notion that someone could be issued a LTC in one county for 10 consecutive years, then move to another county, use the exact same "good cause" and be denied. That in itself seems to be an obvious constitutional deficit. Also, the fact that two people with identical records and personal history, using identical good cause statements, could have different outcomes for issuance because they live in different counties seems to create a class system among the citizenry. If it's a fundamental right of all US citizens, then it shouldn't matter what state you live in, let alone what county...
i know that's what we're trying to fight right now, but i haven't heard those points brought up yet so i figured i'd add them in case someone needed some clarification, or some ammo when debating with anti's.
__________________
Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame. People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Governments, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ |
#102
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member |
#103
|
||||
|
||||
I used to find the bickering a bit dis-concerning, but in truth I think the in-fighting forces us to strengthen our stances & our arguments. It's not like the other side isn't going to argue against us & if anything, a variety of different takes on our side shows just how truly big-tented our side can be overall.
Our opponents, the true opponents in the matter of restoring our natural rights march lock-step & barrel... simply put, they want all guns & individual rights to be squashed. Period. If your delicate egos & sensibilities cannot handle someone on your side questioning your stances, beliefs or willingness to fight, then you're truly not prepared to face the opposition backed fully by the state & possibly the majority of the masses. This is nothing less than an uphill battle that only steepens more towards the top. So put on your "big boy" pants, we've got a lot more distance to cover before the Heller 5 are no more & I guarantee that Obama isn't going to appoint anyone that sympathizes with our side.
__________________
‘‘Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?’’ — Patrick Henry |
#104
|
||||
|
||||
The first thread was not intended to be informative. The claims made in that thread by the OP and others were a total load and the criticism in this thread is well-founded.
|
#105
|
||||
|
||||
Correct. It was a bait and there were two ways to handle it. Take the bait, or put an end to it by a two sentence post on Peruta's counsel position. You are way too experienced to have taken the bait accidentally. Not that I blame your choice, just pointing it out...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member Last edited by IVC; 12-08-2012 at 12:32 PM.. Reason: spelling |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It is healthy to have a robust and intense argument over the facts, the law, tactics, and strategy. It is not at all healthy to be attacking the person unless they are clearly not pro-liberty or they are considered clearly incompetent (e.g. Gorski, Birdt, and Nichols). Attack the opinion or facts all you want. Disagree vociferously over tactics and strategy. But lay off the personal attacks - they do no one any good.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#107
|
||||
|
||||
Lame threads and claims are the reason for the Fabio persona, why would I handle it any other way?
|
#109
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Take not lightly liberty To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it "I will talk with you no more. I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud) |
#110
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Remember my reference to the Imp of the Perverse? And another reference to Occasions of Sin? Let us all resolve not to Post Bait, and if some Bait might be posted, Not To Take The Bait. Bait either conceals a hook, or is a setup for Bad Things. Try actually answering questions in as straightforward a manner as possible. Don't be coy, don't drag things out -- and if someone should be dragging things out, consider that as Bait, and Do Not Take The Bait. Over time, each member develops a 'style' of expressing him or herself. Let us further resolve to ignore stylistic expression and focus instead on content.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#111
|
||||
|
||||
Didn't the OP title start the tone of this thread ? A personal statement of a member being wrong? For that, seems like bait (as Librarian and others pointed out).
I've read and re-read this thread, and not sure I learned much. But, man, we need to team up on pro-2A rights. I believe that with the lame duck we have, it's could be percieved as an open invitation to clamp down on 2A rights. Sorry, kinda extrapolating off topic here, but I'm worried. . |
#112
|
||||
|
||||
We need a "bait" smiley to go along with the dead horse and waving Gura.
|
#114
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#115
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What would have happened if Chuck had gotten his way and pulled ahead of Richards for oral argument separately as he wanted back at appellate docket 44 or so? Reminds me that I need to upload that so we can see who exactly was stirring the pot.... See, the sad thing is that some people litigating for your rights keep winning even though they have to fight both the anti-gunners and the pro-gunners. Witness Heller where NRA-ILA tried to torpedo Parker with Seegars, Hanson v. DC which was torpedoed by NRA-ILA's Heller II, and of course McDonald. How did NRA-ILA count to 5 without Thomas exactly? Hanson is particularly pernicious for we Californians. We were challenging the California Handgun Roster in the DC Circuit... Quote:
Look, I'm an NRA member and I want my NRA money spent wisely. I watched Chuck fly himself and about 8 staffers from his office to San Francisco for Peruta. None of them did a thing at oral argument because that was Clement and his staffer's gig. I'm sure NRA got a bill for north of $20,000.00 on top of whatever else Clement charged. Oh, but the one thing he did do is behave in an unprofessional manner to a very hard working CGF volunteer. It's not bait. It's shame watching people waste money and time to do things shoddily. -Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Last edited by hoffmang; 12-08-2012 at 8:50 PM.. Reason: Docket at 44 was already posted... |
#116
|
||||
|
||||
Just to add. He did it in the courtroom, unleashing a torrent of profanity, with witnesses.
|
#117
|
||||
|
||||
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CGF only pays the attorneys. Gene, Brandon, Bill, etc al are not attorneys.
|
#118
|
||||
|
||||
Like he did when he started a thread saying the Prince 50 would be deemed illegal?
|
#119
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This really sums up where I'm at. I'm a diplomat at heart; I get it from my dad. I've got a counseling background. I don't want to yell, b*tch, or fight; I want to work together and WIN. And I feel no need to compare d**ks with anyone. For instance, I was the volunteer/grassroots coordinator for StopSB249. I built an amazing, cross-state volunteer network in roughly 48 hours with the help of a lot of amazing volunteers and volunteer CGF "staff". I'm proud of the part I played in helping kill SB249 (and immensely proud of all the volunteers who stepped up to the plate to make this work! You guys rock!). So understandably, I was pretty pissed when groups like GOA prematurely declared victory and claimed they had lead the charge with all the groups, blowing off the work we did (or worse, claiming to have been leading/coordinating our and everyone else's work). But I didn't say a damn word at the time (this is the first time I've mentioned it on CGN, and I'm mentioning it solely to prove a point). Y'know why? Because I didn't need anyone to pat me on the back and say I had the biggest ****. SB249 got killed. I don't really care what percentage of that victory is mine and whether or not so and so took credit for it. It died in 2012, and I (and Brandon, and Howard, and Andrea and Frank and Jonathan and Steve and all my volunteers and everyone else) are ready and waiting to take it on if it rears its ugly head again. That's good enough for me. Maybe GOA or CRPA or NRA-ILA or CGN C3 or some other group really did do most of the work and I'm mistaken. Or maybe we all did equal parts. Or maybe they're all full of crap and StopSB249 was the only reason it didn't pass. Who knows? Who cares? (Hint: I don't) That being said, I'm also a California gun owner, which means I'm tired of the political theater. I'm tired of the GOP claiming to be the party of gun rights when the majority of the worst gun control bills in my state were written and/or signed by Republicans (the Mulford Act? the AWB? the .50 cal ban?). I'm tired of the bickering, I'm tired of bad cases being pushed by idiots and screwing up MY rights, I'm tired of d**k measuring. I'm tired of gun rights (a civil and individual right) getting pigeonholed into an OFWG/GOP thing (Hi guys, I'm a liberal gun rights activist and honestly it'd be nice to be able to read CGN for more than 30 seconds without someone growling about "DEM STOOPID LIBRALS!". You wouldn't like it if every third post of mine was about how christians are stupid, so "do unto others", m'kay? ) I want to see good cases pushed well. I'm sticking with the guys who gave us Heller and McDonald, who are big tent and big picture, and who are getting things done. Work with whoever you'd like; as I said, I really don't care, as long as you don't mess it up for the rest of us. But don't mess it up for the rest of us, and if you are and get called on it, don't get all pissed. That was quite the "Git off mah lawn!" rant, oy! Now will someone please answer two questions for me? 1) Who the hell is Mike Schwartz? And 2) Who blew up swearing at who? |
#120
|
||||
|
||||
wztched hearing from overflow room
Since I was watching from overflow room, I missed the drama among our side.
I am not a lawyer, so I can only give you a personal observation of orals. Here is my take. Paul Clements was very good, he addressed the state AG issue head on, this was a concern of mine. I didn't think much of san Diego's council. One advantage I did have in the overflow room was that I had a small screen to watch the lawyers as they talked. His words with lawyer talk, his body language showed he was in trouble. Alan Gura was also very good, although I personally like Alan better, I would have to say that Paul was slightly better at orals. The attorney for Yolo county answered with legal BS and from how I read his body language, he was in trouble. The last attorney was the Hawaii attorney. Truthfully he wasn't good in orals, he was kind of bland and in over his head. The attorney defending Hawaii was better at orals only because she was a BSer and lose with "facts. The judges actually asked good questions, what actually concerned me is none of our lawyers closed with the following statements, and if I missed it, so be it. If the core of the second amendment is self defense and it is a right to be able to have functional arms ready in cases of immediate confrontation, then a firearm must be ready to be used instinctively while under attack. If a arm is non functional when the attack occurs, it is useless. In Heller the SCOTUS ruled that you had a right to have a functional "loaded' " gun in your home ready for immediate use in case of confrontation. The truth is in your home you probably would have more time to access your gun than you would while carrying in public and no one on our side made this point. No one on our side said the following: Since 1987, the number of states that issue CCW permits has gone from XX to 40, more people own guns, more people carry guns and overall gun related crime is down in spite of having one of the worse economies ever. We can argue stats all we want, but it is self evident carry license permit holders overall are not a meance to society, if anything, they ate probably a public benefit. The other sides arguments were all emotional at arguments and like it or not, humans respond to emotional arguments 24 x more than logical ones. I am sorry to see the in fighting, I don't know what the fix is if any. What I do know is Alan Gura had the guts to take on the Heller case in the first place and do what needed and should have been done decades earlier. What I do know is Alan Gura has a commitment to the whole bill of rights. In the long run, I think we will get carry. We might even get it with this panel in that no one may want to go en banc. Most likely we will see another stall action, especially if the SCOTUS takes a carry case. Nicki |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|