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
  #81  
Old 10-11-2017, 1:25 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,001
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! The city literally did everything by the book in accordance with all applicable laws and their actions were validated by the state trial and appellate courts and now federal court lol. "it's thievery!!!"
Quote:
When cops become nothing more than thieves. At the behest of the political agendas of the petty politicians. It is time for some serious legal repurcussions.
When what "was" the citizen's police.
Willingly embrace the role of nothing more than bought and paid for State Enforcers for their political masters anti 2A agendas. A circular parasitic symbiotic relationship. Of mutual corruption to deny citizens rights. Yes that is thievery from any moral or ethical viewpoint.

Sadly it is the agenda driven political masters of today's "State Enforcers". That get to proclaim that it is "legal theft" of personal property.

What in bygone years passed as "The Justice System" in this state. Has slowly morphed into the "Legal System". With no freak'n element of any type of Justice involved.

Other wise, where is the Justice, when politicians, cops, and courts all band together to deprive a person of their property because of the actions of a third party?
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-11-2017, 8:40 PM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 950
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
When what "was" the citizen's police.
Willingly embrace the role of nothing more than bought and paid for State Enforcers for their political masters anti 2A agendas. A circular parasitic symbiotic relationship. Of mutual corruption to deny citizens rights. Yes that is thievery from any moral or ethical viewpoint.

Sadly it is the agenda driven political masters of today's "State Enforcers". That get to proclaim that it is "legal theft" of personal property.

What in bygone years passed as "The Justice System" in this state. Has slowly morphed into the "Legal System". With no freak'n element of any type of Justice involved.

Other wise, where is the Justice, when politicians, cops, and courts all band together to deprive a person of their property because of the actions of a third party?
True on all points. It sounds to me you must be thinking of the Caswell case in Tewksbury, MA. I went to school with Julie C and used to work at the Chinese restaurant across the street from her family's motel.

As I wrote in more than one publication regarding the Caswell case, the right action here, the equitable and just resolution, both for the plaintiff and for society in general, would be for everybody involved on the state side, including the police, DAs, and the judicial officials, to be hanged in a public location.

The purpose of government is to secure the liberties of the people. Government should not conspire to violate civil rights and steal property.

Once again I compliment FGG for a clear, blunt and correct analysis. OTOH, she { last time I used 'he': I am being gender neutral on average } is a bit too much like a prison camp guard carping about just following orders.
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 04-09-2019, 2:14 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,001
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default WHAT ABOUT MRS. RODRIGUEZ?

Her suit against San Jose seems to have fallen through the CalGuns legal discussion cracks.


March/April Issue of CRPA "FIRING LINE".

Mentions;

Quote:
Oral arguments before the 9th Circuit, were held on Jan 14, 2019.

A decision is currently pending.
Violations of the 2nd...4th...5th...& 14th.

Deserve more attention on CG.

My "Google Fu" is very lacking. Couldn't find anything current. Maybe the Legal Dudes here can help bring attention back into focus.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 04-09-2019, 2:32 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,364
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

don argued it a couple months ago
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 04-14-2019, 7:46 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,001
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
don argued it a couple months ago
Yet, the last update here is over a year ago.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 07-23-2019, 12:02 PM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Another loss. The Ninth Circuit will apparently bend over backward to make arguments for the government that the government lawyer didn’t make in their own briefs, or file their own cross-appeal on. They will also create new exceptions to the 4th Amendment if necessary.

Here’s the link. There is another unpublished memo disposing of other claims that the court couldn’t be bothered to address.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...3/17-17144.pdf
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Unconsciously borrowed from: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." — Judge Learned Hand

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.

Last edited by Lex Arma; 07-23-2019 at 12:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-23-2019, 1:42 PM
Solidsnake87's Avatar
Solidsnake87 Solidsnake87 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 4,363
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Is this being appealed?
__________________
Quote:
Replying to craigslist for casual encounters is like pokemon with STDs. Gotta catch em all
Quote:
If Hell ever needed a operations manual all it would need is a copy of California's laws
.
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-23-2019, 3:09 PM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Probably. Have to talk to clients.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Unconsciously borrowed from: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." — Judge Learned Hand

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.

Last edited by Lex Arma; 07-23-2019 at 3:10 PM.. Reason: Clarification.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:08 AM
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

Another stinker down the drain!! Lol.

From 2015....

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
2A was already litigated in state court, does anyone want to take a stab at explaining why this would not prevent 2A from being re-litigated in federal court?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Sure, they shot their wad in state court and collateral estoppel / res judicata bars them from re-litigating.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 07-24-2019, 10:43 AM
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

Again, from 2015 lol:

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
It is a 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment case because a persons personal effects and property are taken without due process of law.
This is a sort of segue to the next question which is, if the firearms are subject to a valid existing forfeiture order, what is the nature of the plaintiff's ownership interest in the forfeited firearms, if any? The 33850 DOJ paperwork isn't any sort of determination that the applicant is the owner of the firearms or is entitled to unqualified possession / return of the firearms. The DOJ has only a ministerial duty to process the 33850 application for a "person who claims title" to the firearm and fills out the application correctly, and then issue a determination that the person is eligible to possess firearms. But the issuance of the 33850 paperwork says nothing about the validity of the person's claim to title, and it certainly imposes no requirement on the law enforcement agency who has custody of the firearms to return the firearms to a person who does not actually have title. Similarly, if the firearms are subject to a valid existing forfeiture order -- and assuming that the applicant still has some ownership or possessory interest in the firearms post-forfeiture -- I don't see any reason why the agency's return of the firearm could not subject to conditions and qualifications consistent with the forfeiture order. Nothing in 33850 says that the agency must return confiscated firearms unconditionally to any person with 33850 paperwork under all circumstances. The argument that 33850 would somehow trump a forfeiture order is kind of clever but at the same time really dumb.
and...

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
If your property has been forfeited, whatever ownership interest you may have your right to possession is not what it used to be. Custody and control of the firearm is now in the hands of the PD by the authority of the W&I Code and the trial court order, which was resoundingly validated by the state appellate court. Filing 33850 papers doesn't change that so if the plaintiff waltzes into the PD with her 33850 papers demanding unconditional return of the firerms, the PD has the prerogative and authority to say no, we are holding the firearms under a court order and not you. Even though we haven't seen the trial court order we know that it says at least that much, and that the PD is in the driver's seat as far as the ultimate disposition of the fireams.
vs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9th Circuit
Obtaining gun clearance releases from the California Department of Justice and re-registering the guns in her name may have made Lori eligible for the return of her firearms, but that eligibility did not supersede any existing prohibitions on returning the firearms—including, in this case, the trial court’s order that Defendants could retain the guns under California Welfare & Institutions Code § 8102. See Cal. Penal Code § 33800(c) (“Nothing in this section is intended to displace any existing law regarding the seizure or return of firearms.”). In other words, completing the procedures outlined in § 33800 et seq. did not give Lori an additional property interest in her guns, so she was not due any additional process

No Duh!!!
__________________

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 07-24-2019 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 07-24-2019, 11:18 AM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Again, from 2015 lol:



and...



vs.




No Duh!!!
Your superficial understanding of the case neatly coincides with a court that is hostile to its version of disfavored Constitutional Rights. Congratulations. You’re a genius. Enjoy licking the boots of your overlords.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Unconsciously borrowed from: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." — Judge Learned Hand

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 07-24-2019, 11:26 AM
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 Lex Arma View Post
Your superficial understanding of the case neatly coincides with a court that is hostile to its version of disfavored Constitutional Rights. Congratulations. You’re a genius. Enjoy licking the boots of your overlords.
So, how many years ago could your client have gotten the guns back (by cooperating with the sale to an FFL then re-purchasing the guns from the FFL)? lol.

I guess it was just dumb luck that I stumbled on the reasons why this case was so ill-advised, given my superficial understanding. Hate to say it but "I told you so"!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 07-24-2019, 11:35 AM
foxtrotuniformlima foxtrotuniformlima is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,081
iTrader: 196 / 100%
Default

This is messed up on so many levels.

A question for Don - if this had been any other item would they treat it the same? I mean if a car was involved and there are 2 owners listed does the 2nd owner lose their interest in the car if it is seized for some reason?

And what are they going to do with them?

( This PD seizures are so wrong I can't hardly stand it )
__________________
Try knocking on the door.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 07-24-2019, 12:03 PM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
So, how many years ago could your client have gotten the guns back (by cooperating with the sale to an FFL then re-purchasing the guns from the FFL)? lol.

I guess it was just dumb luck that I stumbled on the reasons why this case was so ill-advised, given my superficial understanding. Hate to say it but "I told you so"!
I don’t discuss details of a case in a public forum. As I said, you have a superficial understanding of the matter. Sad, but not unexpected, to see you are still a troll after all these years. Your mom’s couch must be really comfortable and the hot-pockets haven’t killed you yet. But, have a nice life.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Unconsciously borrowed from: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." — Judge Learned Hand

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 07-24-2019, 12:13 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 Lex Arma View Post
I don’t discuss details of a case in a public forum. As I said, you have a superficial understanding of the matter. Sad, but not unexpected, to see you are still a troll after all these years. Your mom’s couch must be really comfortable and the hot-pockets haven’t killed you yet. But, have a nice life.
Your repetitive claim that my understanding is "superficial" is funny and more than a little superficial itself lol. By the way, mom died 30 years ago, and my diet is a lot cleaner than "hot-pockets." If you want to make this about health and fitness, I guarantee you would lose that as well!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-24-2019, 12:18 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

Forgot something, your client could have had the guns back 6 years ago. That's about the same amount of time the Nordykes could have been running gun shows in Alameda with guns secured with cables before the 9th circuit's final decision. Good job. Lol.
__________________

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 07-24-2019 at 12:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 07-24-2019, 12:18 PM
Lex Arma's Avatar
Lex Arma Lex Arma is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 351
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrotuniformlima View Post
This is messed up on so many levels.

A question for Don - if this had been any other item would they treat it the same? I mean if a car was involved and there are 2 owners listed does the 2nd owner lose their interest in the car if it is seized for some reason?

And what are they going to do with them?

( This PD seizures are so wrong I can't hardly stand it )
This is the Ninth Circuit. Their imagination for undermining a meaningful Second Amendment neatly overlaps with their cheerleader Mr. Fabio-Gets-Goosed. Their perfidy knows no bounds.

Now, I am probably going to sign off from this particular thread for a while. I appreciate your question and your interest. But Mr. FGG (as usual) pollutes the process and generally stinks up the place.
__________________
Donald Kilmer (Lex Arma) - Reason or Force.

If civic virtu does not reside in the people - no constitution, no bill of rights, no legislative body and no court will be able to preserve our liberties.

Unconsciously borrowed from: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." — Judge Learned Hand

NONE of my posts on this website are legal advice.
I get the top bunk.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 07-24-2019, 12:19 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 Lex Arma View Post
But Mr. FGG (as usual) pollutes the process and generally stinks up the place.
The only thing that stinks is this case!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 07-24-2019, 7:45 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 FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
33850 is procedural; with respect to the 8102 order, the plaintiff has no more coming out of the 33850 process than she did going into it. If you think otherwise, please feel free to locate where exactly in the 33850 process that the 8102 order was superseded, modified, trumped, etc.
The ninth circuit judges are very astute...err, "superficial":

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9th Circuit
Lori’s state law claim mirrors her procedural due process claim, as she asserts that Penal Code § 33800 et seq. creates an independent cause of action entitling her to the return of her firearms. Because we conclude that the procedures under § 33800 et seq. do not supersede a determination that it would be unsafe to return the firearms under Welfare & Institutions Code § 8102, Lori’s state claim falls with her procedural due process claim.
The best the plaintiff could have hoped for would have been the federal court tossing the federal claims and leaving open the possibility of litigating state law interpretation (33850/8102) in state court. (If the state appellate court really meant that the plaintiff could get the guns back if she filled out a 33850 application, why wouldn't you pursue that claim in front of the same friendly court in the first place instead of the 9th circuit? lol) But 9th circuit decided everything thereby shutting the whole thing down. Only thing left to do is to lick the boots of the San Jose overlords!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 04-08-2020, 8:24 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 40,183
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solidsnake87 View Post
Is this being appealed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Arma View Post
Probably. Have to talk to clients.
Evidently 'yes' - see https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/0...se-conference/

See also https://www.ammoland.com/2020/03/saf...iscation-case/ and the cert petition https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1582322020
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 04-09-2020 at 9:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 04-10-2020, 3:53 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,001
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Good News Indeed.

Cops stealing citizens guns has got to stop!
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 04-11-2020, 7:24 AM
Super Chicken's Avatar
Super Chicken Super Chicken is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: L.A.
Posts: 319
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Tagged
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 04-11-2020, 7:27 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,364
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The ninth circuit judges are very astute...err, "superficial":



The best the plaintiff could have hoped for would have been the federal court tossing the federal claims and leaving open the possibility of litigating state law interpretation (33850/8102) in state court. (If the state appellate court really meant that the plaintiff could get the guns back if she filled out a 33850 application, why wouldn't you pursue that claim in front of the same friendly court in the first place instead of the 9th circuit? lol) But 9th circuit decided everything thereby shutting the whole thing down. Only thing left to do is to lick the boots of the San Jose overlords!

What do you think of the cert petition?
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 04-21-2020, 11:41 AM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Posts: 1,858
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default SCOTUS ASKS SAN JOSE FOR RESPONSE TO SAF’s RODRIGUEZ GUN RIGHTS CASE

The U.S. Supreme Court has instructed the City of San Jose, California to respond to a writ of certiorari from the Second Amendment Foundation in the case of Lori Rodriguez, et al. v. City of San Jose, which involves the city’s confiscation of legally-owned firearms and the city’s refusal to return them.

The city was advised that the Court had directed the Clerk of the Court to request a response from the city on or before May 20.

https://www.saf.org/scotus-asks-san-...n-rights-case/
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 04-21-2020, 1:51 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,801
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Possibly SCOTUS looking to do some long overdue 2a housekeeping...
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 04-21-2020, 4:09 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,001
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
What do you think of the cert petition?
I think Mr. GOOSED flew south for the winter. And hasn't yet returned. He's been MIA for 8 months.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-15-2020, 9:32 AM
Frito Bandido's Avatar
Frito Bandido Frito Bandido is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 709
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Bump Stock

https://www.saf.org/scotus-asks-san-...n-rights-case/
__________________
When shopping at Amazon.com, enter Shop42A.com in the address bar, and Amazon donates money to the Calguns Foundation.


Last edited by Frito Bandido; 06-15-2020 at 9:36 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-15-2020, 9:47 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,364
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/19-1057.html

looks like the response is due on the 22nd of June now
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-15-2020, 1:58 PM
Fyathyrio's Avatar
Fyathyrio Fyathyrio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 911
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just a guess, but since this is both a 2A & 4A case, they won't touch 2A issues if they even bother to grant cert.
__________________
"Everything I ever learned about leadership, I learned from a Chief Petty Officer." - John McCain
"Use your hammer, not your mouth, jackass!" - Mike Ditka
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Earl Jones
The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06-18-2020, 2:34 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,095
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

San Jose City filed a response,

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...on%20FINAL.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 06-29-2020, 11:17 PM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,531
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So is this case dead or what? It is now the end of June...
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 06-29-2020, 11:21 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,364
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsandrockets View Post
So is this case dead or what? It is now the end of June...
we are waiting on the last brief to get filed
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 06-30-2020, 6:28 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,095
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
we are waiting on the last brief to get filed
I thought all briefs were due June 22. there was one filed on the 17th.

I've been assuming it's held.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 07-01-2020, 8:50 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,364
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I thought all briefs were due June 22. there was one filed on the 17th.

I've been assuming it's held.

The plaintiff is allowed to reply to the brief filed by the city on the 17th
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 07-01-2020, 3:51 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,095
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/...c/19-1057.html

Quote:
Jul 01 2020 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
Looks like they will be looking at it in Sept.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 07-02-2020, 5:00 AM
gunsandrockets's Avatar
gunsandrockets gunsandrockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,531
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....c/19-1057.html

what a tease, and how pointless now.

I'd almost feel better if the Court had rejected the Rodriguez case. At least then we would have a better idea what ground we stand on during these perilous times.

Because now even if the Court actually decides to hear the case next term and even if the Court makes a ruling favorable to gun-rights, it will be too late. A ruling sometime between February 2021 and June 2021 is too late.

We needed these waters calmed NOW. Before the 2020 election. Before the passage of new draconian laws. Before the Democrats try to pack the Supreme Court. Before the Democrats have a chance to try to rig our political-system into a one-Party parody of the Republic.
__________________
Guns don't kill people, Democrats kill people
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:05 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