|
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 |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Jackson v. San Francisco
Quote:
Are McDonald and Heller enough to get this done? We can soon order ammo? Keep weapons ready? Discharge firearms in self-defense? http://calgunlaws.com/index.php/curr...on/82/919.html Thanks to the NRA and CRPAF for the diligence on this one. Nice not to be considered a lost cause...
__________________
Lucky you. Last edited by 2Bear; 12-09-2010 at 3:07 PM.. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
With respect to Jackson, Plaintiffs granted the City's request for an extension to file a responsive pleading pending Defendants' Motion to Consolidate this case with Pizzo. Plaintiffs are opposing the motion to consolidate, however, as the court has already declined to "relate" the two cases based on their differences, because Pizzo is stayed while the stay has been lifted in Jackson, and because Plaintiffs are dropping their state law claims, while Pizzo still includes state law challenges. Our office will be announcing more on this issue soon. In light of the City's insistence on proceeding with preliminary motions rather than address Plaintiffs' claims on the merits, Plaintiffs will file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stop the ordinances from being enforced so as to prevent further deprivation of Plaintiffs' civil rights while Plaintiffs respond to unecessary preliminary motions. Plaintiffs will seek recovery of all additional attorneys fees incurred in responding to these motions. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be filed very soon and will be released on Calguns and Calgunlaws.com as soon as it is filed. With respect to the discharge ban, the parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations - we will announce more details on this at the proper time. With regard to the ammunition and storage ordinances, please sit tight until the injunction hearing which we will announce soon.
__________________
CMonfort@michellawyers.com www.michellawyers.com www.calgunlaws.com Subscribe to Receive News Bulletins Last edited by CMonfort; 09-30-2010 at 10:15 AM.. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thanks for the reply. Keep up the good work.
__________________
Lucky you. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
For those of you that need a refresher Pizzo is a Gorski case. Here is what Gene said on 10-14-2009, about Pizzo Quote:
__________________
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
As expected, the Judge denied the City's Motion to Consolidate our case with Pizzo. With the stay lifted and consolidation successfully avoided, Plaintiffs will now move forward with a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
I'm more of a legal sparrow than a legal eagle. As such, I can't tell whether this is good news or bad news. Can someone enlighten me?
__________________
M. Zimmers Born-again Californian (for better or worse) |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
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. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
From my limited understanding, its less important to not work with another lawyer, and more important to just not work with Gorski
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
A quick summary as to why this is good: Jackson is not stayed pending Nordyke, while Pizzo is. So not only are we not tied to another case, but more importantly we are not tied to another case that is stayed. That means we can file our motion for an injunciton as soon as possible to relieve our clients of harm under these ordinances, and not have to wait for a ruling in Nordyke.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-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
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
I'm thinking of that laugh that Foghorn Leghorn had.....
__________________
"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." "Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson. "a system of licensing the right of self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause” Don Kilmer |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
It looks like this case isn't challenging the part of San Francisco law that stops many vendors from wanting to ship ammo to SF addresses. It is challenging the prohibition on selling ammo with expanding projectiles.
__________________
__________________ "Knowledge is power... For REAL!" - Jack Austin |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
that's very good news
Quote:
__________________
PM 4 Front Sight diamond "If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?" |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
You know,
1) reading about the various awards given to lawyers for their work, and 2) looking at all the die-hard banners in this country, I'm thinking gun-rights law is a growth industry and maybe I should attend law school. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Subtlety is lost on some people.
__________________
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. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I hear our air-gun ban goes back to turn of the century kids shooting milk-cart horses in the arse as they climbed the steep hills of SF. Heh. Kids those days v. these days...
__________________
Lucky you. |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
I don't think so. AB962 was found to be "unconstitutionally vague" because it only applied to "handgun ammo" but didn't define what "handgun ammo" was. The San Francisco law that many vendors interpret to mean no mail order ammo sales applies to all types of ammo. There is no vagueness in the law about what type of ammo it applies to.
__________________
__________________ "Knowledge is power... For REAL!" - Jack Austin |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Where can I even buy ammo in SF? I thought all ammo was banned and that is why Big 5 stopped selling ammo in SF.
"Further the suit challenges the ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition or any ammunition that is not suitable for "sporting purposes" in San Francisco." |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Ever since High Bridge Arms left Mission St. I don't think you CAN buy ammo in SF.
Ridiculous. There still is a webpage for High Bridge nostalgics: http://www.highbridgearms.com/english.htm
__________________
Lucky you. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Just found this as you were posting that... http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-09-0...n-shops-coggan Quote:
__________________
Lucky you. Last edited by 2Bear; 02-18-2011 at 7:28 PM.. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
I'd take shooting horses in the arse over texting and watching MTV any day.
|
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Where should we start the thread to chant "High Bridge: Open, open, open..."? "I keep hopin', hopin' hopin' that they'll open, open, open at the High Bridge Firearms store!" (Apologies to Mervyns™.)
__________________
Lucky you. |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
I was thinking more of the kids in Excelsior and Hunter's Point... Shooting each other in the arse.
__________________
Lucky you. |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
I see there is a hearing today on San Francisco's motion to dismiss:
Renotice motion hearing re 61 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed byCity and County of San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. (Kaiser, Sherri) (Filed on 2/17/2011) (Entered: 02/17/2011) |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
So does that mean he is a staunch defender of the right to keep and bear arms?
__________________
Dennis Murray Quote:
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
The MTD hearing was post-poned so that Plaintiffs' could file a supplemental brief addressing the City's amendments to its discharge prohibitions. That brief will be filed tomorrow. The hearing is now scheduled for April 28th.
So far so good on the Judicial front. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Stay, Denied City's Motion to Consolidate the Case with Pizzo (Gorski's case), and on its own accord granted Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a supplemental brief when the City amended its discharge ordinance and didn't mention it until their Reply. We shall see. Because the City has now tried to push Gorski's case ahead of ours, NRA has moved for Amicus status in Pizzo. That hearing is scheduled for May 5th. The Pizzo parties' Opposition briefs are due today. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Ah, thank you San Francisco for spending my tax dollars so wisely.
I keep sending letters to the Mayors office, City Attorney, the Board of Supervisors, etc. asking them to stop wasting the city's limited financial resources litigating nonsense laws but they don't listen! |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
I've been trying to find the time to talk to one of SF's board of supervisors that is friends with the family. We'll see if I a as persuasive as I think I am. heh.
__________________
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater “Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford ^ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|