|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
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!
__________________
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
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.
__________________
------------------------- |
#123
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
__________________
PM 4 Front Sight diamond "If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?" |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Hey wishful thinking doesn't hurt anyone Last edited by SPGuy; 06-20-2017 at 7:44 AM.. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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.. |
#127
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
#129
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is one of those comments that will no doubt be deleted by the mod(s). Maybe if I gave them money? |
#131
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
[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. |
#133
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#134
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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? |
#136
|
||||
|
||||
"Don't spend it all at once"
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#137
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#139
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#140
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#141
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#145
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
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.. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Nothing today but some commentary from scotusblog live blog:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#152
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#153
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Peruta v. County of San Diego (CCW) [Filed for cert to SCOTUS, 1/12/17] PART II
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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.. |
#155
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#156
|
||||
|
||||
Now is the time and Peruta is the tool
Quote:
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. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#159
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
An example involving SCOTUS and Race
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._v._Cruikshank |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|