|
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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
It doesn't really matter what happened at oral arguments. They are largely meaningless theater. What matters is the arguments in the briefs, and the logic the panel can find in there to arrive at the conclusion that they want to arrive at. Namely: guns are bad, and no way are we going to be the ones to open the door for all you crazies to be legally carrying in public.
I predict a loss, which is good because we then have a straight shot at SCOTUS instead of getting all caught up in an en banc review.
__________________
Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own. |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Well, we need at least one win for a circuit split. So far we're losing at all Circuits. SCOTUS could choose not to take up certiorari on something that has no split. Add to that that B.O. has 4 more years to spin SCOTUS in the leftist direction and you have Heller/McDonald as the high water mark very much in danger.
__________________
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
In regards to the San Diego case, I have a feeling all that will come from it is that Sheriffs will be required to explain WHY they are denying a CCW permit. I haven't listened to the other arguments but it seems counsel for SD was trying to blame the State law, protect his Sheriff and at the same time say that because guns are bad there is no reason to argue the constitutionality of the State law and by proxy what the Sheriff is doing.
Like I said, I dont think anything other than a reason for denial will come from this case. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Callahan is our only potential friend being a Wilson/Bush appointee, but Kennedy was suppose to be a conservative friend as well.... |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Peruta
Mr. Clement seemed to be on the ball, especially, considering the limited scope of their argument. Was it just me, or did Mr. Chapin representing San Diego state that the statute was an unconstitutional burden, and the sheriff offered relief from that burden? It seemed that he was dodging all questions, and really had no counter argument to Mr. Clement. Towards the tail end his arguments became a purely emotional appeal. Richards Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss? Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal. Baker Mr. Holcomb - not reassuring in any sense of the word. Ms. Van Aken - orals were just as disorganized Mr. Holcomb. Guns are scary - only those with a badge should carry them. In summary, I would love to read the defenses' briefs, none of them seemed like they had prepared anything at all. It doesn't seem like there's any way we can lose either Peruta or Richards. Therefore, echoing everyone else, I predict a loss across the board. Now that we've listened to all of that, let's wait for the ruling, and kcbrown to be correct. The real world does not tolerate optimism! Where's my sammich? I need to prepare for me nap.
__________________
Treat every stressful situation like a dog. If you can't eat it, play with it, or hump it ... PISS ON IT, and walk away. Last edited by live2suck; 12-06-2012 at 8:19 PM.. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
You could be right. However i bet a little bird from Scotus left a message telling the Ninth to try to get this one right so we can put an end to this mystery of carry
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
In the HI case. Does it make sense to only issue gun carry rights to police that actively pursue people that may lead to a deadly confrontation with guns being involved?
How can that be better than issuing carry permits to people who do not pursue people, only citizens that are pursued by criminals will use their gun and only when left no other choice but grave bodily harm or death imminent? Obviously I'm going down the wrong path, if they disarmed the police the argument would be a moot point and that's not what we are after. JMO: SD = win CA = could go either way. HI = back to the drawing board. It reminded me of when I fought a speeding ticket in court. If I would of defined the "why" I was not guilty I would of had a chance. It seems the case is more about getting one person his permit and not about overturning the policy of may issue w/just cause. No disrespect intended toward Mr. Holcomb. I wasn't there.
__________________
"one test is worth a thousand opinions". |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
I would say the only thing that Gura missed (and he only missed slightly) is that when UOC was dicussed vs LCC, he didn't stress the point enough that an unloaded firearm is not a firearm, it's dead weight and that any form of unladed carry is not carry of anything but an expensive throwing weapon. Opposition set him up perfectly for it with his weak dictation of new and existing laws, but Alan didn't pick it up in his final few minutes. Other than that, I agree with the many here that say he did a stellar job!
__________________
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
[QUOTE=live2suck;9867314]Peruta
Richards Mr. Gura hit it out of the park. For those of you disappointed in his argument, what did he miss? Mr. Whiteside was downright disturbing. He seems to have no understanding of current CA carry laws; was he just trying to make stuff up so the judges would think we have some form of carry? I could swear he told me LOC in my car was perfectly legal. I was thinking the same thing. The way he was describing it, if you can legally have the gun (LOC at your private property and drive to the gun range) at the starting point and the ending point of your drive you could carry in your car. It made my head spin. Don't try this at home BTW LOL |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
Not only that, but toward the end of his diatribe he said that the "new" penal code would require locked, unloaded, not in glovebox when transporting in a car, intimating that the existing penal code does not. This is another part where Gura should have driven home the point that "transporting" firearms is not the same as "bearing" them. Opportunity missed. I think a carjacking scenario would have been appropriate...."please goood criminal sir, do you mind waiting until I unlock my firearm, load it, and then we can carry on with your crime????" All in all the point that unloaded and locked is completely worthless was not explored enough. Prieto's counsel presented all of the legal methods of transporting arms as evidence of not substantially violating the 2A right, when in fact anything other than loaded and readily at hand is in fact a substantial curtailment of the right. Gura should have jumped all over that.
[QUOTE=MrBrent;9869276] Quote:
__________________
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It was so hard to not stand up during the oppositions argument and shout out "So, my life is worth LESS if I'm outside of my home??!?!?". I bit my lip pretty hard. |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
I have to somewhat agree with Bulgron at the top of the page, orals are a very small part of the appeal process, the briefs are where the real case is made so an appellate lawyer who is horrible in court can still win.
What watching the orals does do is let us see the issues involved in a slightly more clear way because a 20 page brief may only have one paragraph on the key legal theory that determines the case (with the rest being setup material). |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Among other things, I was really shocked to hear him say, "Y'know.." three times. Not going to earn a spot on the debate team with that, right? He brings in results, and that's what matters. I just assumed such a person would be a public speaker out of The Devil and Daniel Webster or something. Agreed on the Yolo thing, I caught a couple things that made me scratch my head, did some CGN wiki-reading, and was, "..this guy is spewing bull****!" Why don't the judges call him out on that stuff? Are you allowed to just puke out whatever lies you want during orals without repercussions? Quote:
If so, did you witness any of that during these orals?
__________________
|
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-07-2012 at 3:37 PM.. |
#61
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The judges will carefully cherry pick from each to support the ruling they wanted to give from the start, in the hopes that it is good enough to have SCOTUS deny certiorari. |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
I didn't think anyone claimed Gura was a master orator, spellbinding and riveting. What they claim is that he's a master litigator, knows how to cut to the chase, knows his case inside and out, and probably knows his opponent's case better than the opponent.
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
After listening to it twice i still came up with a WTF? So i replayed it again and well i could find no correlation to the private land and the bar comment. Funny thing though is that an LTC holder is generally not allowed to carry loaded in a place that primarily serves alcohol. Usually sheriffs rules. |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
The correlation is made very explicitly beginning at 26:00. At 26:35 he says "(a) it has to be unloaded, (b) you have to have permission of the owner or the tenant as the case may be."
|
#65
|
||||
|
||||
San Diego's attorney was attempting to do some spectacular rhetorical gymnastics. The sheriff doesn't burden the right, the statute does, but the statute pertaining to concealed carry is not unconstitutional? LOL
Hawaii's plaintiff's attorney seemed very discombobulated. He didn't seem to be very prepared to argue his case, which is suprising considering he had just heard 2 other attorneys argue more effectively on the broader issue. The "good news" is that his request before the court was only for a preliminary injunction against the law Hawaii was trying to implement, rather than challenging a sheriff's policy or the statute itself. Here's a picture of the Baker attorney:
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell "You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton Last edited by Ryan_D; 12-07-2012 at 7:58 PM.. |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
To me that means if the judges ask stupid questions and seem to enjoy listening to the anti-gun lawyer talk about how bad guns are, they are going to vote against us. If they ask questions about the law, scrutiny and historical meaning of the second amendment, I get optimistic but at the reversible 9'th, I never know what to think. The orals seemed to go well but the briefs are what counts and I've read briefs that sound like a slam dunk wind up losing so I don't know what to think there either. |
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Again: They. Don't. Care.
They'll pick what they want out of the briefs to support the conclusion they already wanted to come to from the start. Until SCOTUS says otherwise, the 9th can do whatever it wants to. |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
I must admit I did find myself feeling a touch optimistic overall at how the panel asked questions. They seemed to question the defendants more frequently and ask questions that in reality should have been easy to answer, but because the answer was detrimental to defendant's position, required a longer discussion. Unfortunately, it IS the 9th Circus, so that optimism didn't last long. The Panel seemed less focused on the nature of the challenge necessarily, and more focused on what level of scrutiny counsels thought they should apply.
|
#70
|
||||
|
||||
That depends on the judges involved.
We got incorporation in Nordyke, that was the ninth circuit. It was taken back and stayed pending McDonald v. Chicago enbanc which was a clear case of an anti-gun judge messing with a correct ruling and hiding behind an enbanc vote but that's different than a pannel who didn't seem like a bunch of antis handing down an unconstitutional decision. And once again, not all judges in the 9'th are anti-gun. They might not care but it didn't seem that way to me. |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
I do like that the Panel seemed willing to at least consider that A.) a right to self-defense was part of the core right to KABA and B.) that a right might claim a higher priority than a state's interest in a particular situation.
Not to throw stones, but I also understand the CGF people being displeased with parties' decision in the San Diego case to not challenge the statute as well, from a strategy standpoint. IMHO it would have made S.D. counsel's job immensely more difficult to do both. |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You should come to Oral Arguments some time, Fabio. The rest of the Michel team managed to make it.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
#73
|
||||
|
||||
Where was that cute lawyer with the nice legs?
I didn't see her there. Wait a second, is she Fabio? Damn, I never though I would want to throw Fabio a bone.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by wash; 12-08-2012 at 12:24 AM.. |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
IIRC (which I often don't), Gura has mentioned before that we are best served in litigation in his opinion by narrowing the scope of what we're asking for and tailoring the argument such a fashion that we are focused on one or at most two specific arguments/concepts, which make it more difficult for the court to rule against. (my analysis of the above, NOT from A. Gura) By throwing in everything and the kitchen sink, we allow the court to pick and choose what it wishes, essentially providing the court with room to maneuver in ruling against our interests. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#76
|
||||
|
||||
In regards to Alan Gura's speaking skills, he did not seem as polished as McDonald v. Chicago but I am sure he prepared and rehearsed like crazy for that one.
For Richards he was certainly well prepared on the legal matter but probably didn't rehearse as much. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
I agree. Just like the rulers of this state. The US Constitution is just paper for wiping in the rest room.....and nothings going to change that for decades if at all.
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We were able to answer the courts questions, and more importantly help elicit some very good questions from the panel. I love the arm chair quarterbacks who don't have too much of an idea what is going on, but are dead set on bashing not only my friend, but my counsel. I'll take opinions of the people we talked to there and others like esqappellate.
__________________
Lawyer, but not your lawyer. Posts aren't legal advice. Last edited by Funtimes; 12-08-2012 at 6:59 AM.. |
#79
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Gura did exactly what he needed to do for this case. The ramblings, lies, and missteps of all 3 defense attorneys should not serve them well. If the court remains rational and fair and not with a sinister agenda, then we should win.
Being present at the hearings was quite an experience and hearing Gura and Clement was soul lifting. I am hopeful that we will win, if not at the Circuit then at the SCOTUS. We have the best on our side and they have the worst. Thanks to Calguns for the great luncheon afterwards. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|