|
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 |
#241
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
To me, this whole concept goes right back to what is being challenged in yesterday's cases. The sheriff should NOT be able to qualify/disqualify based on his/her 'feeling' that a particular firearm is/is not appropriate. Further, establishing arbitrary numbers of firearms that can be listed isn't supported in PC and needs kicked to the curb. In a nutshell, the sheriff's only discretion should be to decide whether or not an applicant is permitted to own/purchase firearms. If that is true, the sheriff is mandated to issue a permit IMHO. . |
#242
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Any idea as to when text versions might become available? The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
I'm hoping they release the video version today... that way I can show my wife where DarkSoul and I kept mouthing the words "DAFUQ?" when some of the opposing counsel's arguments were completely detached from reality.
|
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Yolo Counsel says I can LOC to the range and back!
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves. Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join. NRA Member JOIN HERE/ |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
NRA rocks in legislative actions. they need to get out of the court room in most cases and focus on working with those who right the laws. Halbrook rocks at research and writing books....that is his contribution. Documenting the history, the reasons why etc the 2nd is not just a "cool idea" BUT a CRITICAL part of being free. Gura rocks in the court rooms. that is his contribution. It's not really a problem if people just stick to what they excel at. it actually makes us stronger. It's the playing in pools you aren't trained to swim in that is a problem NO MATTER how well intentioned. We aren't going to win on good intentions. We are going to win by putting the right people in the right places and supporting them so that they are able to EXCEL at what they do best. I have actually seen a lot of complaints about egos in a few threads lately. irony is a lot of the complaints are from people who are supporting people in over their heads due to....ego. the sad truth is very, very few people can put aside ego and focus on the end goal. but that is exactly what we need to do. put aside delusions of grandeur and let the most qualified lead the charge in their area. IF you think you have what it takes to pickup the torch after them...find out how you can start working WITH that person and LEARNING from them. Because at some point as great a job as Gura has been for us, there will reach a time when he will need to step aside and let the next "wave" take over. That is what people like Halbrook needs to do for Gura. they had their day and in their day they did good work, but their day is past. Some day Gura will need to do this for someone else. Ideally we should be attacking the "restoration" of the 2nd amendment on three fronts. For illustration only...it could (should?) look like this Gura coordinating litigation NRA coordinating legislation Someone else coordinating and training "average joes" how to talk to people and get them on board. both gun owners and non gun owners. Last edited by 1859sharps; 12-07-2012 at 10:23 AM.. |
#247
|
||||
|
||||
Perhaps; how much legislation has $250Mil/yr gotten you?
-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. |
#248
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
Kevin |
#249
|
||||
|
||||
I've listened to the audio of the arguments. Please understand that I do not wish to cast stones at anyone. Certainly Mr. Gura has been a rock star on 2A related issues. However, what were the team's impressions of the panel's position toward Gura's arguments? I too noticed that Yolo counsel seemed to be obfuscating around the edges about the "exceptions" for carrying. One of the things that I also noticed, which the Panel jumped on and Mr. Gura seemed to later assert as well is Yolo's left-handed admission that a core right to self-defense exists. Did the Panel seem to be amenable to accepting that premise? It seemed as though they realized that if a right to self-defense existed, that they would be strongly compelled to find that the Yolo Sheriff was burdening that right. Something I didn't hear, but do wonder if it might have helped our case is a brief recitation of SCOTUS ruling periodically even as far back as the 1950s that the "government" and "the police" are under no statutory duty to provide protection, safety, or security to members of society, and are not legally or financially liable for failing to do so. Would this have helped our case asserting a right to self-defense to make these rulings part of the oral arguments, or is this information additionally contained in briefs filed with the court, but not part of the oral arguments for the sake of expediency? Even if that is so, I would have liked to hear that point made during oral arguments. Again, not trying to denigrate or second-guess anyone, just legitimate questions I have/had and was hoping someone could provide a bit of information about. I admit that while I like our position and Mr. Gura's ability, I'm not altogether confident that the 9th Circus will see things "our" way...
__________________
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 |
#250
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#251
|
|||
|
|||
If, as a member of the armed forces, you should fail to make adequate preparations to secure your AOR due to inadequate intel or resources - as long as you did your duty competently you are not held criminally responsible. You still may be subject to personnel actions of considerable severity if your actions did not meet the standards you were expected to meet.
This is roughly how it will be for police officers and departments. And I know that most people would accept that argument as a fairly good one. But they don't take it far enough in another aspect to understand why the argument probably would not work in court. Let us assume that our leadership and taxpayers do not provide the structure or resources to maintain an military force adequate to the defense of our country. This does not automatically authorize the individual citizen (or a group of citizens) to form a military-style unit and start defending our borders or our vital interests overseas. That duty to defend is neither absolute and is also not able to be assumed by the individual. I think sticking with the incorporated right to self-defense is the right way to go. Invoking a lack of duty to protect every individual as either the justification or a justification of an armed citizenry is mistaken and will invite scrutiny issues we don't need. You could end up where if you live in a neighborhood in which no murders have occurred in the last two years - you have no RKBA because the LEA has been maintaining adequate security for you. You could end up where they start looking at individual blocks and saying that since no one has been murdered on your block in the last few years - the cops have been taking the responsibility of defending you and you have no RKBA. One could imagine their saying no one has been murdered in your particular house - so you have no RKBA. Personally, I'd not use that argument. I see no good coming from it.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
I don't understand how that would have helped the case. It is off topic. He only had a short time and needed to stay focused on the core of the case and that was the restriction on the fundamental right. They need to rule on the constitutionality of a severely restricted good cause, when a CCW is the only way one can exercise that right in California. I think Gura did extremely well and did not let the defense attorneys nonsensical ramblings distract him. Much of the defense discussion was off topic.
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
Honestly, does it matter? Every time I read threads like this, it seems like the state/government council just makes things up as they go and we still lose.
|
#254
|
|||
|
|||
Gura made excellent arguments, but damn if Clement didn't nail it with his closing:
"Something odd is going on here. The Supreme Court issued two watershed opinions, Heller and McDonald. Not only has nothing changed, but California's taken this as an invitation to pass act 144 to make it less easy to have access to a handgun. I think this court really does have to send a message that those Supreme Court decisions cannot be resisted, they have to be applied." |
#255
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
On another note, did anyone hear the fantastically craptastic pile of crap that Prieto's lawyer spewed about California law and how apparently "unburdensome" the regulations are? Seriously, I nearly threw my laptop into a wall. |
#257
|
||||
|
||||
I only mention the issue about government not having a duty to protect citizens in the context of, "Okay, if there is no duty to protect by the government, I must be responsible for my own protection. However, the same entity which would claim no statutory duty to protect is also denying me the ability to protect myself under their current issue policy."
I don't profess to be a legal beagle, IJS it seems like an argument can be made that if you're going to deny me the right to be safe and secure in my own person, it is unfair to also claim no duty to provide protection. Sort of "No only do we not have to protect you, but you can't protect yourself either." Perhaps yesterday was not the right time or place for the argument. Maybe that's more of a public relations discussion than a legal one. Kind of a "Someone has a duty to protect, right? If you pay taxes, one would assume you can expect the police to protect. However, many court cases affirm the opposite. The alternative is to be prepared to protect yourself. Under current CA law, that is very nearly impossible to do."
__________________
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 6:27 PM.. |
#259
|
||||
|
||||
¡two weeks!
__________________
I hate people that are full of hate. It's not illegal to tip for PPT! |
#260
|
||||
|
||||
We're getting too diffuse here.
Please take further discussion to http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=653230
__________________
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|