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
  #321  
Old 05-03-2018, 12:04 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As a caveat, noted by CA, the AG simply stated the patents expired not that the technology was mature. Nothing here was about engineering.
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 05-03-2018, 1:57 AM
solidfreshdope solidfreshdope is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 565
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deschoots View Post
Here you go fellas, the 4/4 recording is now available:
http://jcc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer....12&clip_id=688


We need better representation. Although half the time it felt like the state was arguing in our favor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Welcome to the United Snakes.
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 05-03-2018, 11:50 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 953
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidfreshdope View Post
We need better representation. Although half the time it felt like the state was arguing in our favor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
The guy arguing is one of the top lawyers in the country and the NSSF's lawyer. None of your money is gong to fund him either. The NSSF's lawyers are all paid by gun companies.
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 05-05-2018, 10:52 AM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 924
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just saw the orals and don't feel to good about our side. I'm a bit late to this case, but I just don't understand why the maxim of impossibility is the angle being argued? I suppose my issue is I don't see how they can prove dual-site micro stamping is an "impossibility". Expensive, reduced safety/functionality, questionable profitability, a destruction of image/reputation of a gun mfg, stupid business decision, highly likely a product failure, sure... but I think strictly technologically "impossible" is a term too far. This isn't comparable to Lazarus and raising the dead. One of the Justices even acknowledged that expensive etc etc does not mean impossible.

I understand that going after the constitutionality, while purer and cleaner, would likely end poorly at the 9th. I also understand they left the door open to redirect on constitutionality. What am I missing here with this approach?
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 05-06-2018, 11:14 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 276
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I just got around to watching the oral args and WOW.... that was embarrassing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidfreshdope
Although half the time it felt like the state was arguing in our favor.
Not really. That state was essentially asking the lawyer "Why didn't you file a constitutionality challenge. Or a due process challenge. Or ANY other challenge. Are you that dumb?"
And the lawyer's response? "We'd be happy to amend our complaint if possible [we done effed up]"

The justices are going to tear this case a new punch-hole. Precisely because, as one pointed out, if the state has the authority to issue a complete ban, why can it not issue a ban with [impossible] conditionals? It's equivalent in every way. Assuming the conditionals are impossible. A key moment was when the judge mentioned "we assume it's constitutional until proven otherwise". He's telegraphing. They will, similarly, assume dual microstamping is possible until proven otherwise. Like his analogy of the state only certifying self-driving cars that have been to the moon and back. Economically impossible? Yes. Impossible? No. The judge also asked "how much money has been invested into researching dual microstamping?" Lawyer response? "I don't know". That video was the 20 minute professional equivalent of laughing the NSSF lawyer out of the room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood
The guy arguing is one of the top lawyers in the country and the NSSF's lawyer.
If that's the best we have, God help us.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 05-07-2018, 2:16 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 291
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
Just saw the orals and don't feel to good about our side. I'm a bit late to this case, but I just don't understand why the maxim of impossibility is the angle being argued? I suppose my issue is I don't see how they can prove dual-site micro stamping is an "impossibility". Expensive, reduced safety/functionality, questionable profitability, a destruction of image/reputation of a gun mfg, stupid business decision, highly likely a product failure, sure... but I think strictly technologically "impossible" is a term too far. This isn't comparable to Lazarus and raising the dead. One of the Justices even acknowledged that expensive etc etc does not mean impossible.

I understand that going after the constitutionality, while purer and cleaner, would likely end poorly at the 9th. I also understand they left the door open to redirect on constitutionality. What am I missing here with this approach?
I couldn't make it to the end of the argument. Too depressing. And I agree. Now maybe I am an idiot (please don't tell my boss), but I interpret the "certification" issue completely differently than the NSSF counsel, who siad it was "just a patent issue not relevant here." Wait, doesn't it make sense to read the statute in its entirety to suggest that the certification was supposed to occur, not just when ANY microstamping technology was generally available, but technology that complied with the dictates of the statute, i.e. that stamps in two places? And since that tech does NOT exist, didnt't the AG's office abuse its discretion in certifying that the conditions of the statute had been met?
Whatever. I also think that there was a disconnect between what NSSF wanted and what the Court seemed to think it wanted. NSSF appears to be seeking to enjoin application of the statute until the requisite technology,. unencumbered by patents, is available, but it not a facial attack on the entire statute as requiring an impossibility. The former is comprehensible, the latter clearly not. And the latter is a loser, imho.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 05-11-2018, 1:49 PM
bobbodaggit bobbodaggit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Roseville
Posts: 250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It's not all bad. The Court wasn't buying the impossibility argument standing alone. They'll probably dismiss the complaint with opportunity to amend in a constitutional or statutory challenge in conjunction with the impossibility one, or in a worse case, the court would dismiss it outright with no opportunity to amend, in which case the plaintiffs could just file a new lawsuit and make the impossibility, constitutional, and regulatory challenges.

DOJ, being aggressive as they are, asked for the supreme court to dismiss the lawsuit, without leave to amend the complaint AND with a legal finding - pre trial - that the law withstands any constitutional challenge on the extremely high rational basis deference standard - basically if the government has a 'rational basis' for doing something, it could. With no evidence taken. What chutzpah. The likelihood of that happening is slim, despite it being Gavin Newsom's wet dream.

Last edited by bobbodaggit; 05-11-2018 at 8:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 06-08-2018, 1:52 AM
JaredKaragen JaredKaragen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 187
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

do we have to break down to the argument over assumptions now?

Is there evidence, and proof to back up it CAN be done...


With guns being a part of any equation; why do people all the sudden flip a retard reverse-logic switch? I just don't get it. Arguments and everything. The uneducated have a literal inverse of logic. It's astounding.
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 5:40 AM.




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.