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
  #121  
Old 06-19-2017, 2:30 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,069
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any Kcbrown "all is lost" converts from the last few months? Would love to hear what in the last few months made you lose hope and embrace the revelation of the prophet Kcbrown.

The rescheduling?
The second relist?
Third?
Fourth?

I want to hear your story!
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 06-19-2017, 7:22 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Orange County CA / Dallas TX
Posts: 970
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

If they don't do "something" next week, and let it carry over to the fall term, then the odds that Norman is the cause of that rise dramatically.
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 06-19-2017, 8:16 PM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 4,167
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
If they don't do "something" next week, and let it carry over to the fall term, then the odds that Norman is the cause of that rise dramatically.
If they keep pushing it back in the fall like they are right now and don't deny, does it automatically die? Or are they forced to accept /deny in the fall?

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
__________________
PM 4 Front Sight diamond
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 06-20-2017, 7:41 AM
SPGuy SPGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 145
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
As I've asked a couple other posters making the same comment:

"Why would Thomas be writing a dissent?"

=8-)
Yeah it's Ginsburg writing the dessent on why it shouldn't be heard!!

Hey wishful thinking doesn't hurt anyone

Last edited by SPGuy; 06-20-2017 at 7:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 06-20-2017, 7:54 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPGuy View Post
Hey wishful thinking doesn't hurt anyone
I beg to differ. That's (or another term I won't be so "mean" as to write) exactly how we got where we are today with Peruta.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 06-20-2017, 8:48 AM
SPGuy SPGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 145
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
I beg to differ. That's (or another term I won't be so "mean" as to write) exactly how we got where we are today with Peruta.
Your comment is just asinine. How does me day dreaming hoping and praying really affect anyone or anything? How we got into this mess was inactivity in local and federal politics as well as getting outnumbered. Do I know that in all likelihood it will be denied? Yes. Do I go out and vote for my second amendment and for those who would help it? Yes. Do I lose every single time because I live in Los Angeles? Yes. Do I write to all of "my" representives? Yes. Do I get the same blowoff response every time? Yes. But if I can't hope or day dream life just sucks and is boring. There should always be hope and whimsy in life or it's just a sad life.

Just because you hope or think positive doesn't mean you can't also take action to try to make it happen. Maybe what you meant is inactivity is how we got here.

Last edited by SPGuy; 06-20-2017 at 9:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 06-20-2017, 8:52 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
I beg to differ. That's (or another term I won't be so "mean" as to write) exactly how we got where we are today with Peruta.
Wishful thinking by anonymous users on an internet forum is how we got where we are today with Peruta?
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 06-20-2017, 9:18 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPGuy View Post
How does me day dreaming hoping and praying really affect anyone or anything? How we got into this mess was inactivity in local and federal politics as well as getting outnumbered. Do I know that in all likelihood it will be denied? Yes. Do I go out and vote for my second amendment and for those who would help it? Yes. Do I lose every single time because I live in Los Angeles? Yes. Do I write to all of "my" representives? Yes. Do I get the same blowoff response every time? Yes. But if I can't hope or day dream life just sucks and is boring. There should always be hope and whimsy in life or it's just a sad life.

Just because you hope or think positive doesn't mean you can't also take action to try to make it happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Wishful thinking by anonymous users on an internet forum is how we got where we are today with Peruta?
I was referring to the "legal strategy" adopted by the litigation team for Peruta. I'm apparently not allowed to express "harsh" opinions about that strategy as it is deemed "off topic" or for some other reason deleted by a moderator, so I didn't write explicitly what I think that is, rather, that I see it as a version of "wishful thinking", which, thus far, has been what we see: FAIL.

Perhaps next Monday (after nearly 8 years and who-knows how much money) the results thus far will be reversed and the strategy will be proven a success. Otherwise we'll have to wait for another case to make it's way to SCOTUS and see if the strategy for that case is based on less "wishful thinking" and a more sound legal framework (i.e. one that five members of SCOTUS agree with. And I'll admit that it's possible that there is no such strategy or reasoning that five members of SCOTUS will support regarding the right to bear arms outside the home.).

Also, note that the Richards/Gura/SAF team declined to participate in the request for cert to SCOTUS. I don't know what their reasoning was for that decision, but it's possible that "wishful thinking" was not involved.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 06-20-2017, 9:30 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
I was referring to the "legal strategy" adopted by the litigation team for Peruta. I'm apparently not allowed to express "harsh" opinions about that strategy as it is deemed "off topic" or for some other reason deleted by a moderator, so I didn't write explicitly what I think that is, rather, that I see it as a version of "wishful thinking", which, thus far, has been what we see: FAIL.

Perhaps next Monday (after nearly 8 years and who-knows how much money) the results thus far will be reversed and the strategy will be proven a success. Otherwise we'll have to wait for another case to make it's way to SCOTUS and see if the strategy for that case is based on less "wishful thinking" and a more sound legal framework (i.e. one that five members of SCOTUS agree with. And I'll admit that it's possible that there is no such strategy or reasoning that five members of SCOTUS will support regarding the right to bear arms outside the home.).

Also, note that the Richards/Gura/SAF team declined to participate in the request for cert to SCOTUS. I don't know what their reasoning was for that decision, but it's possible that "wishful thinking" was not involved.
No offense but unless you have given money to the Peruta case you don't really have any right to criticize it or the legal strategy used to ligate it . I hear a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking by people who have no investment in these cases.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 06-20-2017, 12:09 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
No offense but unless you have given money to the Peruta case you don't really have any right to criticize it or the legal strategy used to ligate it . I hear a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking by people who have no investment in these cases.
I had no idea that any "right" I had to comment (or is it just "criticize"?) on anything was dependent upon my giving money to people. That's good to know. And coming from a lawyer, I know it must be correct.

This is one of those comments that will no doubt be deleted by the mod(s). Maybe if I gave them money?
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 06-20-2017, 2:07 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
No offense but unless you have given money to the Peruta case you don't really have any right to criticize it or the legal strategy used to ligate it . I hear a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking by people who have no investment in these cases.
The very rights of the people in question hang in the balance in these cases. Of course they have a right to criticize them, because they will be affected greatly by these cases.

As for a financial investment, that is automatically in play on the part of anyone and everyone who has contributed to CRPA.
__________________
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; 06-20-2017 at 2:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 06-20-2017, 2:50 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=surfgeorge;20260486]I was referring to the "legal strategy" adopted by the litigation team for Peruta. I'm apparently not allowed to express "harsh" opinions about that strategy as it is deemed "off topic" or for some other reason deleted by a moderator, so I didn't write explicitly what I think that is, rather, that I see it as a version of "wishful thinking", which, thus far, has been what we see: FAIL.

Perhaps next Monday (after nearly 8 years and who-knows how much money) the results thus far will be reversed and the strategy will be proven a success. Otherwise we'll have to wait for another case to make it's way to SCOTUS and see if the strategy for that case is based on less "wishful thinking" and a more sound legal framework (i.e. one that five members of SCOTUS agree with. And I'll admit that it's possible that there is no such strategy or reasoning that five members of SCOTUS will support regarding the right to bear arms outside the home.).

Also, note that the Richards/Gura/SAF team declined to participate in the request for cert to SCOTUS. I don't know what their reasoning was for that decision, but it's possible that "wishful thinking" was not involved.[/QUOTE]

Not sure, and a bit disturbing. SAF has seemingly pulled back on lawsuits, perhaps all the losses have taken their toll and they don't have resources like the NRA does.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 06-20-2017, 6:10 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The very rights of the people in question hang in the balance in these cases. Of course they have a right to criticize them, because they will be affected greatly by these cases.

As for a financial investment, that is automatically in play on the part of anyone and everyone who has contributed to CRPA.
Sure but I doubt a guy from Hawaii is actively donating to CRPA.

I personally donate to GOA because that is the organization that is best aligned with my world view. Larry Pratt personally responds to my emails or his son because I am a paying member. Why because I have a stake in GOA's future. I would not feel comfortable doing the same with CRPA because I am not a member.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 06-20-2017, 6:30 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,370
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post

Not sure, and a bit disturbing. SAF has seemingly pulled back on lawsuits, perhaps all the losses have taken their toll and they don't have resources like the NRA does.
I was surprised they were not interested in my taser lawsuits. Between me and Arsenal Arms we swept the east coast. I don't get why SAF did not want those cases.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 06-20-2017, 7:05 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I was surprised they were not interested in my taser lawsuits. Between me and Arsenal Arms we swept the east coast. I don't get why SAF did not want those cases.
["Larry Pratt personally responds to my emails or his son because I am a paying member."]
What did Larry and/or Erich tell you when they wrote you back?

Also, what level of donation would I have to make to which organization(s) in order to be allowed to comment, question, or "criticize" the legal strategies adopted by those organizations?

Say, for instance, I donated $1 (one dollar) to CRPA. What would I be allowed to say?
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 06-20-2017, 7:26 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Say, for instance, I donated $1 (one dollar) to CRPA. What would I be allowed to say?
"Don't spend it all at once"
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 06-21-2017, 10:39 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Sure but I doubt a guy from Hawaii is actively donating to CRPA.
If NRA is helping to bankroll the case then donations to the NRA count too.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 06-21-2017, 1:46 PM
Diamondi88 Diamondi88 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Wildomar
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So this is a pay to play thread now?


I feel I can ask this because I have contributed to NRA, NRA-ILA and CRPA.

Back on topic. I have yet to make my prediction on how this will go. Without pointing to any single source but a collection of everything I have read on this case.

I feel this case will be granted cert. I think there is a judge on the fence and needs more time to think and research the question before fully committing to the granting of cert. The question of the right to bear arms outside the home in some manner is fundamental to our freedom and the 2nd Amendment. SCOTUS not answering this question would be a travesty to our freedoms under the Bill of Rights.

Is this the right case at the right time? Who knows. All I know is it is the case we have right now before the courts and the one that needs supporting at this time. Norman or Grace may or may not have their time in the future. But this one is now.

This is just my wild guess and carries no more weight then anyone else's wild guess.


Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 06-21-2017, 2:17 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondi88 View Post
This is just my wild guess and carries no more weight then anyone else's wild guess.
That puts you in the minority, for sure, but that's what I'm guessing too. I'm confident enough that I'm willing to risk donating $100 to Lorax's shelter for neglected hermit crabs charity (or whatever) if I'm wrong
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 06-21-2017, 2:58 PM
canopis's Avatar
canopis canopis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 288
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondi88 View Post
I feel this case will be granted cert. I think there is a judge on the fence and needs more time to think and research the question before fully committing to the granting of cert.
...
This is just my wild guess and carries no more weight then anyone else's wild guess.
Here is my wild guess:

I think there are probably enough votes to grant cert (only 4 are needed). But I think that the justices who want to grant cert are not sure that there is a fifth vote to get to a majority once the case is heard. Imagine if the Court takes Peruta and then affirms the en banc Ninth Circuit. That's probably worse than refusing to hear the case.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 06-21-2017, 4:04 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canopis View Post
Here is my wild guess:

I think there are probably enough votes to grant cert (only 4 are needed). But I think that the justices who want to grant cert are not sure that there is a fifth vote to get to a majority once the case is heard. Imagine if the Court takes Peruta and then affirms the en banc Ninth Circuit. That's probably worse than refusing to hear the case.
Exactly! While we would like the court to grant cert and overturn the en banc panel and put an end to the purported intermediate scrutinty BS, a 5/4 affirmance would be a total disaster for the 2A and the country.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 06-22-2017, 2:42 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canopis View Post
Here is my wild guess:

I think there are probably enough votes to grant cert (only 4 are needed). But I think that the justices who want to grant cert are not sure that there is a fifth vote to get to a majority once the case is heard. Imagine if the Court takes Peruta and then affirms the en banc Ninth Circuit. That's probably worse than refusing to hear the case.
And BINGO! We have a winner....
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 06-22-2017, 7:49 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Affirming Heller v. DC

For that particular, how would that be worse?

=8-)
I'm pretty sure there is no point, in this late date, in asking the individuals, "gun rights" organizations, and their legal teams to give up on the quest for the Constitutional argument for concealed carry. They'll likely go to their graves insisting on it and continuing to claim that Heller, etc., state that the state can ban open carry in favor of concealed carry.

I suppose I should mention that given the "fluidity" of the courts these days that it's quite possible they could manufacture just such an opinion, however, banking on that as a legal strategy might not have been the wisest course.

But since I haven't invested financially (or invested enough, or something) in any of those cases, I'm not allowed to make such comments, so please disregard them.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 06-22-2017, 11:40 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,150
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canopis View Post
Here is my wild guess:

I think there are probably enough votes to grant cert (only 4 are needed). But I think that the justices who want to grant cert are not sure that there is a fifth vote to get to a majority once the case is heard. Imagine if the Court takes Peruta and then affirms the en banc Ninth Circuit. That's probably worse than refusing to hear the case.
Sure, clearly that's what's happening. This isn't a patent dispute between Apple and Samsung, that none of the judges have any personal feelings over it and they don't especially care about the outcome. No, this is something that everyone has personal feelings about, they all care about the outcome, more so than probably any other case that's asking for cert. So they're not going to grant cert without knowing what the outcome will be.

Conversely, if there were 5 solid liberals I'm also sure they would grant cert and delete "bear" from the BoR.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 06-22-2017, 1:58 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Nevada City, CA
Posts: 2,587
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Folks this all points to the need for a Legislative codification of Heller (no more 2A 2-step). Needs to address sales rationing/over regulation (arms, ammo, accessories) use of registration for confiscation, "features" and "less than standard" capacity limits, and a regime for "bear" outside the home. Some tweaks to NFA, GCA and Hughes Amendment would be good too. We also need to re-iterate Heller as the 9CA seems to think laws forcing people to disable their handguns in the home are somehow OK.
Since we have SCOTUS precedent allowing concealed bans when open is available, the language should clarify that if you ban concealed, LOC MUST be available. We know from experience what will happen (see Ohio where they went shall issue to avoid LOC).
On another front, as part of their regulatory power over the Courts, we need language defining "good behavior" for lifetime appointment Federal judges. Justice Sotomayors vow to uphold Heller under stare' decisis as "settled law" at her confirmation, followed by her refusal to apply Heller to the States/local government looks very much to me like she lied to Congress (a crime to gain confirmation. IANAL but I'd like to see some tightening on the obvious games - the 9CA ignores rules all the time.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 06-23-2017, 3:39 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 903
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Affirming Heller v. DC

For that particular, how would that be worse?

=8-)
You underestimate the libtards on SCOTUS....

We could get Cert granted and a subsequent loss stating that there is absolutely NO right to "bear" arms beyond our homes period!

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "open carry" is the right and "bear" extends beyond the home, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of Americans open carrying in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 06-23-2017, 4:05 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,942
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
You underestimate the libtards on SCOTUS....

We could get Cert granted and a subsequent loss stating that there is absolutely NO right to "bear" arms beyond our homes period!

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "open carry" is the right and "bear" extends beyond the home, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of Americans open carrying in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.
That would only hasten the Convention of States Project and put a fire under it. I would prefer we push the envelop on the issue. Make'em ban bear if they got the balls ...... I'm pretty sure Gingsburg and that wise Latina have a set .... I don't think Kennedy has the 'nads to go that far though
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 06-23-2017, 6:39 AM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,942
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Convention of States would most likely result in a further eroding of our rights...

If Sotomayor is sitting on a fence...further politics come into play...

...Puerto Rico.

Someone in the Uniparty is working a Puerto Rico related deal with Justice Sotomayor's "attentiveness" in mind.

=8-|
Risk vs Reward. It's a possibility, but not as far as the 2A is concerned, so I disagree on that point and it certainly isn't the 'Most Likely" outcome in my view. Free States have the Majority. Plus, having a strong 2A will ultimately protect the other fundamental rights, one way or another.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 06-23-2017, 7:35 AM
SPGuy SPGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 145
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I've got a question I've been wondering for a while now....it might be a completely noob question but why is it out of all the bill of rights it's only the second amendment that is truely regulated by the states instead of the Federal? You can't say "in Colorado you can use this word or phrase but you can't in Arizona according to the law." Or "wait you mean to tell me I have to house the national guard while my neighbor 2 miles away in Oregon doesn't cause my state says I have to?" How did this whole states have control thing really happen? I do believe this pertains to this thread but I will move it if I need to...

Imagine how red this country would be on Election Day if EVERYONES state was forced to follow Ca gun laws

Last edited by SPGuy; 06-23-2017 at 7:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 06-23-2017, 8:06 AM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Nothing today but some commentary from scotusblog live blog:

Quote:
1) When is the next possible release of orders?
2) Might it be the big, end-of-term orderlist?
3) How unusual would it be for the court to save a number of big orders - Masterpiece Cake shop, the 2A case - for the final release of the term?
by David 6:45 AM ↑0

Edith Roberts
There will be orders on Monday, and probably more after an as-yet-unnanounced clean-up conference. I don't think it would be that unusual to save the high-profile orders until the end.
6:45 AM

Quote:
So does this mean we'll have an answer as to whether they'll take Peruta by Monday?
by Ben 7:33 AM ↑0

Amy Howe
I think either Monday or Tuesday, yes. I can't remember whether I typed this earlier and am too lazy to look, but if Monday is the last day for opinions they will hold another conference that day and announce orders on Tuesday morning.
7:33 AM

Amy Howe
Mostly the orders from that day will "clean up" the cases that have been on hold waiting the outcome in merits cases decided on Monday, but as I recall last year they granted a few cases on that conference too.
7:34 AM
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 06-23-2017, 8:41 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
You underestimate the libtards on SCOTUS....

We could get Cert granted and a subsequent loss stating that there is absolutely NO right to "bear" arms beyond our homes period!

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "open carry" is the right and "bear" extends beyond the home, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of Americans open carrying in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.
It has ever been thus...

Even if SCOTUS silently agrees that "citizenship" is the right and the "right to vote" exists, I suspect some Justices simply can't cope with the image of African-Americans voting in say mid-town Manhattan, around D.C., etc. and deny the right while silently knowing they are wrong.

See: Dred Scott
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:43 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The Bill of Rights (First 10 - 12 or 13 actually) was a push by the States as a reminder to the new Federal Government IN WRITING that the Federal Government is to respect the preexisting rights of THEIR citizens in the several States and the preexisting rights of the States themselves.

And of course under the English tradition, States or "Authorites" could if they chose to regulate things like CCW, certain religious practices, education, appointments, occupational licensing, etc...

Put yourselves in the shoes of a States protecting the preexisting rights of your citizens AND your State and the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights starts to have more clarity.

=8-)
So what you're saying is that an Article V Convention will result in the repeal of the 14th Amendment.

Right?
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 06-23-2017, 3:46 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [Filed for cert to SCOTUS, 1/12/17] PART II

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
From the Articles of Confederation (13 State Unanimous Approval) to the Constitution (Only 9 Required - rest pressured by majority to go along).

^^^ That's a lowered standard right there already which resulted in more power given to the Federal government.

All of our Amendments to the Constittution have been by the proposal method in which the States are in control.

Articles of Convention is the mechanism that has never been used in which once kicked in the States are no longer in control.
Excuse me? The Constitution explicitly calls out the conditions of ratification:

Quote:
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof
So your claim here must amount to one that says that the individual states will not be in control of the conventions within them.


Quote:
THIS is exactly what the Uniparty wants - the ability as the elite with many liberal members rewriting the Constitution as they want it!
Please explain how it is that rewriting the Constitution helps the Uniparty when the Uniparty already has full control over the entire government.


Quote:
- Explicitly recognizing the new slavery that exists today - people declared as losing their rights EVEN after serving their jail sentence.
You mean like, say, their right to keep and bear arms? Oh, wait.


Quote:
- Explicitly recognzing the lost of rights that occur as a result of bureacratic procedure and law - not due proces in a Superior Court before a jury of one's peers.
You mean like, say, their right to be free at all? (Which is what is lost when one is branded a "terrorist", "enemy combatant", or whatever)


Quote:
- Explicitly recognizing the special classes that exist today who somehow have more rights than US.
Because, you know, transparency on that front is so much more effective at keeping the population quelled than is pretending that everyone is equal but actually acting otherwise.


Quote:
- Declaring certain rights to be "group" rights, not invididual rights.
How in the world does that help them if they can already simply decide that some nebulous thing like "public safety" completely overshadows the right in question?


Quote:
The Constitution is NOT the problem - the people in office are.
And the people who are in office got there how? You think that happened in a vacuum?


Quote:
You don't break A to fix B in this case. You toss B's arse out onto the street.
You can't do that if there isn't a means of doing that. Now we're talking about the "information" people use to decide who winds up in office, and who decides what choices they have on the ballot in the first place.


Quote:
Once that starts to happen, C, D and E's behavior will start to change.
Well, no, actually.

We've had over 100 years of this. That's over 100 years for the system to prove that it can protect liberty. Over 100 years of failure of the system to protect liberty. Do you really think the system will "heal" on its own without structural changes? Seriously???


Structural change is possible only through alteration of the Constitution. So the choice is between:
  1. Not altering the Constitution and letting things continue as they are, which guarantees that we wind up with tyranny.
  2. Altering the Constitution and taking the chance that we wind up with tyranny anyway.
Well, seeing how it is the former, and not the latter, which guarantees tyranny, it should be obvious that it is the former, not the latter, that we should be opposing. When the choice is between certain death and probable death, I'll choose the latter anytime. One would be insane to choose the former.

And yes, an alteration to the Constitution is necessary. That alteration is necessary because it is mechanism (not lofty declarations) that is required to ultimately avoid tyranny. I'm under no illusion about the probability that such changes will be enacted, but some chance of that is better than no chance, and you're arguing for the latter.

Yeah, I agree that if the states get the opportunity to alter the Constitution, it may well result in something like the repeal of the 14th Amendment, among other things. But if you don't take the opportunity then we will end up with tyranny, because that is the natural course of things when restrictions continuously pile up as they normally do in any society that doesn't have an effective and highly active mechanism that removes restrictions at least as often as they're created. And we don't have such a mechanism.
__________________
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; 06-23-2017 at 5:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 06-24-2017, 8:18 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

2,816 days down...

TWO DAYS to go!

Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 06-24-2017, 9:02 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,346
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Convention of States would most likely result in a further eroding of our rights...

If Sotomayor is sitting on a fence...further politics come into play...

...Puerto Rico.

Someone in the Uniparty is working a Puerto Rico related deal with Justice Sotomayor's "attentiveness" in mind.

=8-|
You need 38 states to agree on changing rights. Convention of the states would put us awfully close to fixing our rights to be the way our founders intended them to be. This idea of a "runaway convention" not only flawed but kind of absurd too.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 06-24-2017, 11:54 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,953
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Now is the time and Peruta is the tool

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
You need 38 states to agree on changing rights. Convention of the states would put us awfully close to fixing our rights to be the way our founders intended them to be. This idea of a "runaway convention" not only flawed but kind of absurd too.
I disagree. Leaving aside the argument that Progressive activists are the most likely attendees of such a convention, it is impossible to make the Second Amendment any more clear. If you changed it to: "The right to own and carry firearms cannot be restricted in any way whatsoever and this especially means by anyone who is a Democrat or Progressive", a Progressive Supreme Court would simply interpret "restricted" or any other prohibition to not include restrictions necessary for "public safety". As we know from our experience in California, "public safety" is a term that means anything they want. If some gang member could use a stolen gun to kill a child, they could say that confiscating your firearm is necessary for "public safety" because it might be stolen by a gang member. Might. It might also be used to defend yourself against that gang member but YOUR safety isn't important. Only the possible death of a theoretical child is.

The one and only way to preserve our right to keep and bear arms is through SCOTUS enforcing Heller and McDonald through reversing such abominations as the En Banc decision on Peruta. Now is the time and Peruta is the tool. The best legacy Kennedy could leave would be to vote to have SCOTUS hear Peruta in the Fall and then retire, letting the President appoint a Conservative to hear the case.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 06-24-2017, 12:27 PM
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I don't really understand all this talk about needing to amend the constitution. SCOTUS has already opined significantly in favor of the 2A right being an individual right to carry. I feel like many who post here never read the actual Heller decision in its entirety. I'd recommend doing that.

The current Peruta litigation is about enforcing the Heller opinion because the State has taken an intentionally narrow view that has split the lower courts by technicality, and/or is arguing the almost non-existent unincorporated-areas-carry will suffice to appease 2A. This is an argument without merit, tantamount to claiming 1A would be sufficiently protected if there were pockets of free speech zones scattered throughout unpopulated regions.

Long story short, we have good reason to be optimistic if SCOTUS hears the case because they have already issued an opinion on the core matter. Now they just need to direct the lower courts to apply that standard in enforcement with respect to some form of carry being mandated so the State will have to choose between legal open carry or shall issue CCW.

At this point we just need to wait and see if SCOTUS will take it up. Monday/Tuesday are the days it could happen this session. I think all this talk of a constitutional convention is ridiculous frankly.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 06-24-2017, 12:39 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by naeco81 View Post
I don't really understand all this talk about needing to amend the constitution. SCOTUS has already opined significantly in favor of the 2A right being an individual right to carry. I feel like many who post here never read the actual Heller decision in its entirety. I'd recommend doing that.
Mostly happy talk. It is highly doubtful that the necessary number of states will vote to have a convention. They have much more important things to worry about than whether they should help the poor sods in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Kalifornia have the right to carry concealed.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 06-24-2017, 1:01 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Mostly happy talk. It is highly doubtful that the necessary number of states will vote to have a convention. They have much more important things to worry about than whether they should help the poor sods in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Kalifornia have the right to carry concealed.
Depending on what such an amendment said, it could potentially help them too. I don't believe there are any states right now where the gun-owning populace is completely happy with the amount of firearms regulations. NFA, GCA, and FOPA affects all of us, after all.

I, for one, would like to see an amendment that says something like, "The right of the people to keep and bear all arms and related accessories, up to and including those which are in use by our nation's law enforcement and military infantrymen, being necessary to the rights of life and liberty and a secure state, shall not be regulated nor infringed by any national, state, or local government."

Wishful thinking, I know. Even though it's pretty clear to me that the above text is precisely what the Founding Fathers meant, apparently it has to be spelled out for the mouth-breathers who run this state.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.



Last edited by CandG; 06-24-2017 at 1:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 06-24-2017, 6:45 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 910
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default An example involving SCOTUS and Race

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPGuy View Post
I've got a question I've been wondering for a while now....it might be a completely noob question but why is it out of all the bill of rights it's only the second amendment that is truely regulated by the states instead of the Federal? You can't say "in Colorado you can use this word or phrase but you can't in Arizona according to the law." Or "wait you mean to tell me I have to house the national guard while my neighbor 2 miles away in Oregon doesn't cause my state says I have to?" How did this whole states have control thing really happen? I do believe this pertains to this thread but I will move it if I need to...

Imagine how red this country would be on Election Day if EVERYONES state was forced to follow Ca gun laws
Some long history behind that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._v._Cruikshank
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 1:35 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, 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.



Seams2SewBySusy