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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5841  
Old 02-02-2016, 8:30 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,985
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
What I meant was that you agreed with the conclusion, not the methodology.
Which conclusion specifically, the one where the en banc panel waits until a Democrat is elected and a new Supreme Court justice appointed and then affirms the panel opinion?
__________________
  #5842  
Old 02-02-2016, 8:36 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,218
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
A group of judges does not need approval from anyone to cite to District of Columbia v. Heller, to abrogate the existing Peruta decision:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ..For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues...Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Emphasis added)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sd_t2 View Post
Given Scalia and Thomas' recent dissent and scolding of the majority regarding the assault weapons ban back east a few months ago, I think it's safe to say that the emphasis above refers to the type of weapon rather than an invitation to disregard Heller.
The above is the language from the Heller decision. Folks wrongly believe Heller is a panacea for the gun control statutes. It is not. That language cited above will be the core analysis in the decision reversing Peruta. Simply wishing, "like a good neighbor, State Farm,er the Supreme Court, is there," is not a substitute for reading the glaring exceptions created by the Court in Heller. This issue has been reviewed ad nauseum in this forum. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...4&postcount=30

Last edited by sarabellum; 02-02-2016 at 8:53 PM..
  #5843  
Old 02-02-2016, 8:38 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,218
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
You are reading it as if you were an anti. That interpretation is a an intellectual stretch and while the courts might use it, it doesn't follow from Heller. (I'm not playing the game "if court says so it is so.")

Mathematically, if you pull the negative of "one cannot carry at any place" in front of the sentence it becomes "there exists a place where one cannot carry." That's a far cry from "one cannot carry at any place" which is how the courts are reading it. It's an extremist copout to say "we can ban all because court said that some might be banned."
Mathematically? This is law- application of rules to facts. It's comical when people act like the express language in a case or statute is not explicit. If the court of superior jurisdiction, especially the Supreme Court, issues a decision, that decision is binding on all lower courts, otherwise our system of stare decision makes no sense. See e.g. Auto Equity Sales v. Sup. Court, 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 (1962); see also Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 781 (2015)(The doctrine of stare decisis provides that today’s Court should stand by yesterday’s decisions.).

Last edited by sarabellum; 02-02-2016 at 9:10 PM..
  #5844  
Old 02-02-2016, 9:32 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
That I was wrong, it was just a guess/hunch, I don't have a crystal ball lol. What do you think I would say?!
That your experience with the decision making of the courts is not the solid predictive foundation that you believed it to be, and that as a result, at least for the behavior of the courts with respect to 2A cases, you'll have to modify it or, in the event it proves sufficiently inaccurate, toss it and find something better to base such predictions upon.

And that maybe, just maybe, I'm actually on to something.

That's what an intellectually honest person would do. Predictive mechanisms (whatever they may be) that make incorrect predictions get modified to correct them, or tossed in favor of better ones. If the approach I'm using (don't laugh too hard ) yields better predictions than yours, and yours cannot be properly modified to account for its failure, then mine is logically the one to adopt until something even better is discovered.

Of course, the converse is true as well. If your prediction ends up being right and mine is wrong, then it disproves the predictive capability of the approach I'm using, and I'll be looking for something better -- I'll be looking for why mine failed. Of course, I'll then be asking you to explain the fundamental principles of the predictive method you're using, since it will clearly show itself to be superior to mine, and I'll want to know why.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #5845  
Old 02-02-2016, 9:36 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
↑↑↑ These are the answers. A group of judges does not need approval from anyone to cite to District of Columbia v. Heller, to abrogate the existing Peruta decision:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
As that seems to be the lynchpin of the argument, how is it that the natural reading of that is not "not a right that protects every possible combination of weapon, manner, and purpose".


Quote:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Emphasis added)
That can be read in two different ways. The first, less sensible one is that they meant "prohibiting the carrying of dangerous weapons and unusual weapons". Since weapons are by definition dangerous, that would render the term "bear" in the 2nd Amendment null and void, in direct contravention of Marbury v Madison.

The second, more sensible one is that they meant "prohibiting the carrying of weapons that are simultaneously dangerous and unusual". And if you read Blackstone as cited, you'll see that the context of the discussion centers around affray.


Quote:
The Supreme Court's majority opinion penned by Scalia in DC v. Heller hands the tools to the 9th Circuit to eviscerate Peruta.
Honestly, it is very difficult to pen something in such a way that it cannot be interpreted improperly by someone determined to twist the meanings of words and phrases to suit their goals. But such is precisely what the 9th Circuit is surely up to here. So it's not really that Heller gives the 9th Circuit the means to eviscerate the right, so much as it is an artifact of the language used for legal decisions that does so. Legal decisions would have to be written in a language with the precision and specificity of mathematics in order to be impossible to intentionally misinterpret.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-02-2016 at 9:39 PM..
  #5846  
Old 02-02-2016, 9:43 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
Mathematically? This is law- application of rules to facts. It's comical when people act like the express language in a case or statute is not explicit. If the court of superior jurisdiction, especially the Supreme Court, issues a decision, that decision is binding on all lower courts, otherwise our system of stare decision makes no sense. See e.g. Auto Equity Sales v. Sup. Court, 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 (1962); see also Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 781 (2015)(The doctrine of stare decisis provides that today’s Court should stand by yesterday’s decisions.).
The problem with that, of course, is that it elevates stare decisis above the Constitution itself. Which is to say, when a past decision flatly contradicts the Constitution, it is stare decisis, and not the Constitution, that wins.

And that is quite obviously improper, seeing how it is the Constitution, and not stare decisis, from which the Court's power flows.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #5847  
Old 02-02-2016, 9:53 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Kc, don't hold your breath for Fabio to be nice to you, or admit he agrees with you even if he does. That's just not how he rolls. He's got lots of great insights, but much like a current presidential candidate, modesty and giving credit to others is not his strong suit.

Stay happy with the number of people that are coming around. Remember, your brand is "the dark side", and after every denial of cert, every bad decision, all it takes is a poll "when are you joining the dark side" and targeting persuadables, including long time members, to ask them when their breaking point is.

Fabio will never give you credit; it's sad I know, but be content with the changed minds you've created, and the ones you will soon capture. You don't need to convert all the jedi or citizens, just enough, my dark lord.
  #5848  
Old 02-02-2016, 9:55 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,865
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Which conclusion specifically, the one where the en banc panel waits until a Democrat is elected and a new Supreme Court justice appointed and then affirms the panel opinion?
The one where we get a really, really bad ruling.

I don't buy much into KC's "methodology," but the pattern of outcomes is beginning to suggest quite a bit of politics or ideology. Unless there is another explanation why "gay marriage" cases get resolved in two weeks, while we're still waiting after 7 years to get some circuit court decisions.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #5849  
Old 02-02-2016, 10:04 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,865
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
Mathematically? This is law- application of rules to facts. It's comical when people act like the express language in a case or statute is not explicit. If the court of superior jurisdiction, especially the Supreme Court, issues a decision, that decision is binding on all lower courts, otherwise our system of stare decision makes no sense. See e.g. Auto Equity Sales v. Sup. Court, 57 Cal. 2d 450, 455 (1962); see also Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 781 (2015)(The doctrine of stare decisis provides that today’s Court should stand by yesterday’s decisions.).
The court has only said:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
There is nowhere where the court said: "Therefore, a ban on all weapons in all manners and for all purposes is valid." That's the reading by the anti gun coalition and it's neither supported by the language, history nor a court precedent.

Let's compare to abortions: "The right it not unlimited. It is not a right to get an abortion with any tool, by anyone and anywhere" - clearly a state can ban abortion by a local butcher using a rusty spoon in the backyard. However, that in no way implies that TX can have a may-issue abortions where the local religious leader decides whether a woman has a heightened reason to wish to get an abortion.

Until the court explicitly states that foreclosing the right to carry is a legitimate option, your reading of the "not unlimited" is not supported by precedent and is completely arbitrary. In addition, it's not supported by linguistic or mathematical rules. That's why I call it a "stretch."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #5850  
Old 02-02-2016, 10:10 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,865
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The problem here is that Heller clearly puts "keep" as the core of the right and "bear" is at the same level in the same sentence, so it is (should be) equally the core of the right.

Scalia had a nice tidbit about misreading of "keep and bear" where he said something along the lines of "it would be akin to interpreting 'he picked and kicked the bucket' to mean 'he picked the bucket and died' - bizarre."

Clearly all the indications are that "bear" is the core of the right and we cannot get Peruta decision soon enough so we can appeal to SCOTUS. This case will be the final test on what SCOTUS is doing on "carry" since the question will be very simple: "Is 'bear' the core of the right?"
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #5851  
Old 02-02-2016, 10:19 PM
glockman19 glockman19 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 10,527
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The problem here is that Heller clearly puts "keep" as the core of the right and "bear" is at the same level in the same sentence, so it is (should be) equally the core of the right.

Scalia had a nice tidbit about misreading of "keep and bear" where he said something along the lines of "it would be akin to interpreting 'he picked and kicked the bucket' to mean 'he picked the bucket and died' - bizarre."

Clearly all the indications are that "bear" is the core of the right and we cannot get Peruta decision soon enough so we can appeal to SCOTUS. This case will be the final test on what SCOTUS is doing on "carry" since the question will be very simple: "Is 'bear' the core of the right?"
Then we can move to the final four words..."Shall Not Be Infringed".
  #5852  
Old 02-02-2016, 10:26 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,985
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That your experience with the decision making of the courts is not the solid predictive foundation that you believed it to be, and that as a result, at least for the behavior of the courts with respect to 2A cases, you'll have to modify it or, in the event it proves sufficiently inaccurate, toss it and find something better to base such predictions upon.
I'm not claiming any "predictive mechanism" other than guesses and hunches lol. So right or wrong I will keep on guessing, I'm not too concerned about modifying my "method" to make better guesses. It's not too hard in any event to predict bad outcomes when all you have is Heller to work with, it's very pro-regulation.
__________________
  #5853  
Old 02-02-2016, 10:28 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The one where we get a really, really bad ruling.

I don't buy much into KC's "methodology,"
Eh. It seems to work. It's clearly going to be simplistic. All models are, really, because they all have simplifying assumptions built into them. That'll remain the case until we can simulate the universe on a subatomic scale, and even then you be dogged by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for setting up your initial conditions.


Quote:
but the pattern of outcomes is beginning to suggest quite a bit of politics or ideology. Unless there is another explanation why "gay marriage" cases get resolved in two weeks, while we're still waiting after 7 years to get some circuit court decisions.
Exactly.

The fundamental principle I'm operating under here is that people in positions of power will exercise that power to achieve their personal goals to the degree they can, limited only by the consequences to them imposed by the universe or by others in positions of greater power over them. And as most federal judges don't really have, in any practical sense, people in positions of greater power over them (there can, of course, be exceptions), they can issue whatever decisions they want with no fear of negative consequences to themselves. It thus logically follows that the political beliefs of an individual judge will be a good predictor of how that judge will decide issues that have political characteristics. It also logically follows that the greater the import to them of the issues in the case before them, the more strongly their political and personal beliefs will shape the resulting decision.

Put more simply, people in power who have the means, motive, and opportunity to do something will do that something. And the judges involved here have all of those things, in spades. Nothing represents a potential threat to those in government like an armed population. And nothing gives the population the ability to resist the machinations of those in government like being well-armed. And finally, there is little those in government like less than having those they govern refuse to do their bidding.


In the end, my "model", such as it is, is really just the application of logic to the nature of power and those who wield it. Seen that way, what, really, is there to dispute?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #5854  
Old 02-02-2016, 10:31 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I'm not claiming any "predictive mechanism" other than guesses and hunches lol.
So then, in essence, you argue that "guesses and hunches" are better than a more methodical approach to making predictions about how judges will decide issues (at least, 2A issues). Is that right?

Don't get me wrong, guesses and hunches are quite valuable. Intuition is of great use in quickly narrowing down avenues of investigation when attempting to come up with a predictive mechanism. But it is not a replacement for predictive mechanism. It's better than nothing, but not better than a real predictive mechanism.


Quote:
So right or wrong I will keep on guessing, I'm not too concerned about modifying my "method" to make better guesses. It's not too hard in any event to predict bad outcomes when all you have is Heller to work with, it's very pro-regulation.
Well, okay, then explain the good outcomes we've had.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-02-2016 at 10:43 PM..
  #5855  
Old 02-02-2016, 11:00 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The one where we get a really, really bad ruling.

I don't buy much into KC's "methodology," but the pattern of outcomes is beginning to suggest quite a bit of politics or ideology. Unless there is another explanation why "gay marriage" cases get resolved in two weeks, while we're still waiting after 7 years to get some circuit court decisions.
IVC, no lawyer, or anyone that's basically a lawyer, is going to agree with anything KC has to say, even if they do. Their training is
1. Supposed to render them superior
2. Trains them in the exact realm that we're arguing, so they're supposed to see more dimensions
3. Makes the idea of just DECIDING an outcome anathema and repugnant to all their training.

So the LAST people who will endorse KC are people with legal training. Even if KC had accurately predicted outcomes since 2000, no legal types would give him credit. Nature of the beast. Admitting that all their training is powerless, or makes them LESS able to see patterns than an outsider is anathema to them.

Indeed, WHY would the rulings be consistently bad? Because before Heller, there was no floor. After Heller, the floor is lower than we thought. That's the dumbed down version that legal types will say.

But they WON'T go one step further and ask WHY the judges we have use the fact that the floor is low to make their ruling as LOW as possible. Why? Because, like I already said.

What lawyer has signed onto the KC pessimism/judges are being political/there is no hope for the courts (for the foreseeable future), we need to pursue other avenues?

Anyone? There's a lot of people that agree with KC, or are starting to, but I'm unaware of any lawyers that agree with him. They'll fight to the bitter end.

Smart people like Fiddletown, and others, don't endorse ANY other options besides courts, and maybe decades+decades of cultural change. Why? Because, the political realm is one they don't understand as well, and represents risks they can't account for, thus it makes them risk averse. Just like lawyers think the civil rights act and civil rights laws are a victory, when a large majority of black folks still live in similar conditions (yeah, they can vote, but school segregation, neighborhood segregation, jobs available, etc.) to where they were 60 years ago. Civil rights legislation sounds great, and theoretically it's VERY strong and allows huge penalties... but the fact is, it still hasn't changed the landscape that much.

Legal resolutions and actual resolutions. Two different things.

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 02-02-2016 at 11:04 PM..
  #5856  
Old 02-03-2016, 12:11 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,865
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Even if KC had accurately predicted outcomes since 2000, no legal types would give him credit. Nature of the beast. Admitting that all their training is powerless, or makes them LESS able to see patterns than an outsider is anathema to them.
Except for Moore and Peruta, which are the two bright spots...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #5857  
Old 02-03-2016, 12:14 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,865
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Eh. It seems to work. It's clearly going to be simplistic. All models are, really, because they all have simplifying assumptions built into them. That'll remain the case until we can simulate the universe on a subatomic scale, and even then you be dogged by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for setting up your initial conditions.
I have and still do object to your mixing of in-sample and out-of-sample data for model validation, but we don't want to add another 10 pages of the same old.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #5858  
Old 02-03-2016, 12:53 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Except for Moore and Peruta, which are the two bright spots...
I'll have to go back and look. I don't remember if I made any predictions at all about Moore at the appellate level.

But I did predict, against many who insisted that I would be incorrect, that Madigan would not appeal the decision to SCOTUS, on game theoretical grounds.


As for Peruta, well, firstly, the original decision was the reason I ditched my original predictive mechanism in the first place, and secondly, I'm one of the very few around here who really predicted that the 9th Circuit would take the case en banc, and the only one (that I've seen, at any rate) who could give an actual foundational reason as to why it would -- using the predictive mechanism that came out of the ashes of my Peruta miss. And finally, thanks to that en banc action, Peruta is no longer a bright spot, but instead is another dark one.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-03-2016 at 12:58 AM..
  #5859  
Old 02-03-2016, 12:56 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
I have and still do object to your mixing of in-sample and out-of-sample data for model validation, but we don't want to add another 10 pages of the same old.
Fair enough, but I'll say just this: old data doesn't validate a model -- a model simply has to be consistent with the old data. Which is to say, consistency with old data is a prerequisite for any properly predictive model. The model's validation comes from new data that is compared against predictions that the model made before the data came in.

Perhaps that will help clear things up a bit on that front. If not, it may prove instructive to take it to PM.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-03-2016 at 12:59 AM..
  #5860  
Old 02-03-2016, 1:45 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Perhaps that will help clear things up a bit on that front. If not, it may prove instructive to take it to PM.
Only if I'm included! I want to stay subscribed to all KC updates.
  #5861  
Old 02-04-2016, 8:36 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 606
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I was reviewing todays 4th Circuit Ct. Appeals decision in Kolbe v. O'Malley, and was wondering how it fits into the predictive model that many members have adopted regarding Peruta and the 2nd Amend in general.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...an_Opinion.pdf

Last edited by Elgatodeacero; 02-04-2016 at 9:32 AM.. Reason: Moved non-Peruta related comments to Nat'l Forum.
  #5862  
Old 02-04-2016, 5:56 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,496
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Only if I'm included! I want to stay subscribed to all KC updates.
Ya... I like it when KC and Fabio get going.
I don't always agree with them, I often simply don't want to admit that they might be correct, but you can always learn something.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
  #5863  
Old 02-04-2016, 6:01 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,496
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I was reviewing todays 4th Circuit Ct. Appeals decision in Kolbe v. O'Malley, and was wondering how it fits into the predictive model that many members have adopted regarding Peruta and the 2nd Amend in general.
3 judge panel, so similar to Peruta... if MD doesn't request en banc, we have a split decision and Highland Park gets appealed to the SCOTUS.
Likewise, wait for Newsom's act to pass (admit it, you know it will), then we go full-frontal assault to the 9th.

VERY helpful that this decision included magazines and applies strict scrutiny to both.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.

Last edited by Cokebottle; 02-04-2016 at 7:51 PM..
  #5864  
Old 02-04-2016, 6:16 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,865
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
3 judge panel, so similar to Silvester... if MD doesn't request en banc, ...
They did, as expected...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #5865  
Old 02-04-2016, 7:02 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,747
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I was reviewing todays 4th Circuit Ct. Appeals decision in Kolbe v. O'Malley, and was wondering how it fits into the predictive model that many members have adopted regarding Peruta and the 2nd Amend in general.

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/...an_Opinion.pdf
How does it fit in. Well, it's Traxler who penned the majority opinion on the issue of scrutiny. Traxler is a Clinton appointee. What makes him a little more interesting is that he's also a G.W. Bush appointee. His initial district court appointment was by Bush, and his appellate court appointment was by Clinton.

Regardless, however, it means that we have finally gotten a Democrat nominee at the appellate level to side with us! And I must say, the intellectual honesty in the opinion is quite refreshing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolbe v Hogan
The meaning of the Constitution does not depend on a popular vote of the circuits and it is neither improper nor imprudent for us to disagree with the other circuits addressing this issue. We are not a rubber stamp. We require strict scrutiny here not because it aligns with our personal policy preferences but because we believe it is compelled by the law set out in Heller and Chester.
Traxler may well have had a personal preference to write an opinion that looks a lot like Friedman, but refrained from doing so. If this opinion that he wrote really isn't a reflection of his personal beliefs (save, perhaps, for those that compel him to be intellectually honest), then he stands as one of the very few judges that we've seen in action who will write 2A opinions on the basis of an honest intellectual inquiry rather than his personal preferences.


In any case, as of now, the mere fact that a given appellate judge has been appointed by a Democrat is not a guarantee (indeed, it never was, it's just that it wasn't until now that there was evidence to this end) that said judge will side against us. Unless I can find a solid distinctive indicator that works to separate those who side with us from those who don't (it's at the point now where I'm skeptical that I'll be able to find one that is logically justifiable), it becomes a statistical matter.

And suddenly, IVC's statistical knowledge becomes highly relevant.


What say you, IVC? Interested in coming up with a statistical predictive model of the appellate courts? A purely logical approach that falls due to a single failure no longer appears feasible. I won't mince words -- I don't like purely statistical models because they generally seem to fail to give insight as to why things are the way they are (the use of nominating party at least had a logical connection back to individual political preferences). But that doesn't make them any less valuable for predicting outcomes, and I may paint with too broad a brush by that statement regardless.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 02-04-2016 at 7:07 PM..
  #5866  
Old 02-04-2016, 7:50 PM
ojisan ojisan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 11,033
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

I wonder if Thomas and the Ninth panel will have to look at things a bit differently now, with strict scrutiny in mind.
If they decide against Peruta, they may be setting them selves up for being overturned at a later date.
__________________
  #5867  
Old 02-04-2016, 8:10 PM
1EasyTarget 1EasyTarget is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 54
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Like that is anything new to the 9th Circus. I don't think the judges in the 9th really care if they are overturned occasionally. After all, 99% of the time, they aren't. That is a lot of legislating from the bench right there.
  #5868  
Old 02-04-2016, 8:22 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,496
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Ya... "Most Overturned Circuit" is a badge of honor for them.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
  #5869  
Old 02-04-2016, 8:52 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,000
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1EasyTarget View Post
Like that is anything new to the 9th Circus. I don't think the judges in the 9th really care if they are overturned occasionally. After all, 99% of the time, they aren't. That is a lot of legislating from the bench right there.
Yup and they can just blame the size of the court with it's strange 11 judge panel en banc rules. It's easy for them to take zero accountability.

Last edited by wireless; 02-04-2016 at 8:56 PM..
  #5870  
Old 02-04-2016, 10:25 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,312
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Whether this has any affect on CA9, would depend on whether they care about other circuits pointing out how crappy their decisions are - doesn't seem to have bothered them in the past
  #5871  
Old 02-04-2016, 10:33 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,496
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
Whether this has any affect on CA9, would depend on whether they care about other circuits pointing out how crappy their decisions are - doesn't seem to have bothered them in the past
We need one more favorable district to rule like the 4th so we can take the 9th with the 7th to SCOTUS.


Oh wait... there are no states with AWB or mag limits in the 5th, 6th, or 8th, 10th, or 11th

New Jersey in the 3rd, New York in the 2nd, and Massachusetts in the 1st.

Any pending cases there?
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
  #5872  
Old 02-05-2016, 11:02 AM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,629
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Whether this has any affect on CA9, would depend on whether they care about other circuits pointing out how crappy their decisions are - doesn't seem to have bothered them in the past
Reply With Quote
Oh they care but only when other courts rule in a way they already plan to rule .
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
  #5873  
Old 02-05-2016, 4:20 PM
thedrickel's Avatar
thedrickel thedrickel is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lost in the wheels of confusion
Posts: 5,514
iTrader: 137 / 100%
Default

SCOTUS will not grant cert for Peruta. The en banc reversal will stand.
  #5874  
Old 02-05-2016, 6:11 PM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 606
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I think all the negative vibe team folks are misreading the delay in issuance of the Peruta en banc opinion.

My tea leaves suggest Judge Thomas has not convinced a majority of the panel, and he will sign a dissent.

The position of the moon further supports the view that the majority panel will issue strict scrutiny/Kolbe type guidance to district court, remand, and district court will rule the open carry ban is unconstitutional. Nothing will change regarding concealed carry. Legislature will hold amusing and unproductive emergency session.

It almost writes itself, and you can take that to the bank.

El Gato
  #5875  
Old 02-05-2016, 6:23 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,855
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I think all the negative vibe team folks are misreading the delay in issuance of the Peruta en banc opinion.

My tea leaves suggest Judge Thomas has not convinced a majority of the panel, and he will sign a dissent.

The position of the moon further supports the view that the majority panel will issue strict scrutiny/Kolbe type guidance to district court, remand, and district court will rule the open carry ban is unconstitutional. Nothing will change regarding concealed carry. Legislature will hold amusing and unproductive emergency session.

It almost writes itself, and you can take that to the bank.

El Gato
Do you have any extra tea? I didn't know they had medical LSD/strong hallucinogen issuance in california. Hook a brother up!
  #5876  
Old 02-05-2016, 6:37 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I think all the negative vibe team folks are misreading the delay in issuance of the Peruta en banc opinion.

My tea leaves suggest Judge Thomas has not convinced a majority of the panel, and he will sign a dissent.

The position of the moon further supports the view that the majority panel will issue strict scrutiny/Kolbe type guidance to district court, remand, and district court will rule the open carry ban is unconstitutional. Nothing will change regarding concealed carry. Legislature will hold amusing and unproductive emergency session.

It almost writes itself, and you can take that to the bank.

El Gato
Without commenting on how likely this is to occur, I must say it would be a perfect way for the courts to get the monkey off their backs, at least for the time being. Just make it somebody else's (the state legislature's) problem. They restore UOC, with all manner of controls, and as you say, no change to CCW. Done.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
  #5877  
Old 02-05-2016, 8:09 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,391
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I think all the negative vibe team folks are misreading the delay in issuance of the Peruta en banc opinion.

My tea leaves suggest Judge Thomas has not convinced a majority of the panel, and he will sign a dissent.

The position of the moon further supports the view that the majority panel will issue strict scrutiny/Kolbe type guidance to district court, remand, and district court will rule the open carry ban is unconstitutional. Nothing will change regarding concealed carry. Legislature will hold amusing and unproductive emergency session.

It almost writes itself, and you can take that to the bank.

El Gato
¿Y lo que hace el gato de acero se basa en la lectura de las hojas de té?
  #5878  
Old 02-05-2016, 10:18 PM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 3,278
iTrader: 70 / 100%
Default

I will open carry everywhere the second it becomes the court approved form of carry in CA. I hope all of you (in CCW restricted counties) would do the same.

Would I rather carry concealed? Of course. However, if given no opportunity to do so I will OC and make every damn pansy liberal so uncomfortable the legislature and Sheriff Smith will be forced to address it.
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
  #5879  
Old 02-05-2016, 10:39 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,865
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
I think all the negative vibe team folks are misreading the delay in issuance of the Peruta en banc opinion.

My tea leaves suggest Judge Thomas has not convinced a majority of the panel, and he will sign a dissent.

The position of the moon further supports the view that the majority panel will issue strict scrutiny/Kolbe type guidance to district court, remand, and district court will rule the open carry ban is unconstitutional. Nothing will change regarding concealed carry. Legislature will hold amusing and unproductive emergency session.

It almost writes itself, and you can take that to the bank.

El Gato
I like an optimist. Someone else to share my being bashed by the pessimists.

Rock on.

__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #5880  
Old 02-05-2016, 10:48 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,865
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
What say you, IVC? Interested in coming up with a statistical predictive model of the appellate courts? A purely logical approach that falls due to a single failure no longer appears feasible. I won't mince words -- I don't like purely statistical models because they generally seem to fail to give insight as to why things are the way they are (the use of nominating party at least had a logical connection back to individual political preferences). But that doesn't make them any less valuable for predicting outcomes, and I may paint with too broad a brush by that statement regardless.
In a nutshell, what you are trying to "model" is the strength of the personal ideology against fiduciary duty, which is a euphemism for "judicial corruption." Unlike political, judicial corruption is rarely about material benefits, but instead about imposing the cultural values and moral norms.

So, you are modeling an intractable problem because the only meaningful data about corruption is the outcomes of the very cases you're trying to predict. You cannot infer this corruption by looking at other unrelated issues since guns, gun culture, assault weapons, civil ownership of firearms, UN style gun control, ideals of a gun free society, etc., are all highly emotional issues which can affect jurists who are on the fence.

I am seeing this corruption much more than I though I would because I believed, albeit somewhat naively, that the judges would have enough of a peer pressure and career considerations to keep in check their emotions. To that extent I have changed my view where I am now much more cynical about motives of some of the judges.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Closed Thread

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 3:56 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical