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 02-26-2013, 11:08 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
However, they have been exceedingly good at kicking dirt on a multitude of other gun rights organizations, including the NRA.
If you ran such an organization, would you be receptive to criticism?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:08 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 798
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Will there will be a new and better organization forming in the future? Will its leaders be receptive to criticism where CGF was not?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...7#post10651737

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...6#post10657526
LMAO - Your rhetorical questions are starting to become the joke of the 2A section. Try some new material.
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:10 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

IOW, no, you would not?

You'd rather viciously trash detractors?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:10 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 798
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
If you ran such an organization, would you be receptive to criticism?
Wanna try some other logic fallacies on me with your retarded line of questioning?
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:12 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

So in other words, you have no interest in open discussion. You're incapable of introspection. You are hostile to criticism. You openly deride detractors and are dismissive of people who point out your flaws.

I'm not seeing how you provide anybody with a superior alternative.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 02-26-2013 at 11:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:23 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 798
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
So in other words, you have no interest in open discussion. You're incapable of introspection. You are hostile to criticism. You openly deride detractors and dismissive of people who point out your flaws.

I'm not seeing how you provide anybody with a superior alternative.
You obviously have not spent enough time reading the history of my posts if you think that I have no interest in open discussion. Rather, it was the attempt at open discussion and the subsequent smack-down by CGF members that helped form my perspective. Actions and words have consequences. The accusations toward me about capabilities of introspection and hostilities toward criticism really have nothing to do with the questions you asked, my responses, nor the topic of this thread. So far, you have been incapable of pointing out the flaws of anything I've said, especially since the vast majority of your rants against me are either non-sequitor or are fatally flawed due to simplistic post hoc ergo propter hoc logic fallacies.

I am not going to further respond to your nonsense posts in this thread unless they are on-topic because I'm starting to feel bad about the job Librarian has before him.
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:47 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Keep in mind that many courts and especially those in urban areas in California are filled with activist judges who have their mind made up before a lawyer ever opens their mouth. Unless its a slam dunk case where a judge is basically forced to agree or risk their appointment, these cases take many appeals.

And don't forget Heller had to go all the way to the SCOTUS and it took years!

Last edited by Moonshine; 02-26-2013 at 11:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:49 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,991
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
No, winning gun rights is at the top of the list and kicking dirt on 2A organizations is at the bottom.
I'd actually believe you if your next sentence wasn't:

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
CGF has not secured a single "gun right" despite all of their failed litigation. However, they have been exceedingly good at kicking dirt on a multitude of other gun rights organizations, including the NRA.
Yep, right back to kicking dirt after denying it is your priority, without even another sentence about anything else, anything at all, in between.
__________________
"if you had friends, you wouldn't need to play computer games" - Sid Meier on original Civilization being single player only

Last edited by stix213; 02-26-2013 at 11:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:54 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 798
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
No, winning gun rights is at the top of the list and kicking dirt on 2A organizations is at the bottom.

CGF has not secured a single "gun right" despite all of their failed litigation. However, they have been exceedingly good at kicking dirt on a multitude of other gun rights organizations, including the NRA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
I'd actually believe you if your next sentence wasn't:



If you can show me a single "gun right" that CGF has secured as a result of their litigation, I will slow my roll on this subject.
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:55 PM
AlexDD AlexDD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 903
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I don't see the harm in the case other than the expenses of the proceedings.

What is perplexing to me why would anyone want to take on zoning restrictions. If agencies can place all sorts of proximity restrictions on strip bars (1A) then why can't those same restrictions be placed on gun shops (2A)?

If a City wants to place heavy restrictions on a use across the board, they generally can unless the state passes legislation from doing so. Look at the recent legislation AB1616 regarding home based baked goods the legislature recently carved out that restricted cities from not prohibiting. Further, the massage industry also had legislation that prohibited requiring conditional use permits. These would never happen for us in the gun world!

I would expect more stringent land use regulation regarding establishment of gun shops in areas hostile to 2A with all sorts of conditions that would make it more expensive to operate.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:55 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,063
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Some of us actually take the litigation seriously, and want to see better cases filed. I'm not sure how that view is inconsistent with placing "winning gun rights at the top of the list".
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 02-26-2013, 11:57 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,063
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDD View Post
I don't see the harm in the case other than the expenses of the proceedings.

What is perplexing to me why would anyone want to take on zoning restrictions.
If they appeal we can end up with another Silveira/Peterson type disaster. Other than that, and the expense, my only issue is the pointlessness of it, as you mention. And maybe also the constant attacks on more successful groups.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 02-27-2013, 12:01 AM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 798
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDD View Post
I don't see the harm in the case other than the expenses of the proceedings.

What is perplexing to me why would anyone want to take on zoning restrictions. If agencies can place all sorts of proximity restrictions on strip bars (1A) then why can't those same restrictions be placed on gun shops (2A)?

If a City wants to place heavy restrictions on a use across the board, they generally can unless the state passes legislation from doing so. Look at the recent legislation AB1616 regarding home based baked goods the legislature recently carved out that restricted cities from not prohibiting. Further, the massage industry also had legislation that prohibited requiring conditional use permits. These would never happen for us in the gun world!

I would expect more stringent land use regulation regarding establishment of gun shops in areas hostile to 2A with all sorts of conditions that would make it more expensive to operate.
AlexDD, I think that is a pretty balanced view on the whole subject. It doesn't appear that, on the 2A civil rights front, much damage was done. But it's clear that it was a poorly conceived attack on zoning restrictions and a waste of funds. If nothing else, hopefully it can be chalked up to lesson learned.
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 02-27-2013, 12:05 AM
Reelemup's Avatar
Reelemup Reelemup is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,408
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunndeal View Post
If you're so unimpressed with CGF's litigation record why are you here? You've only been a member for 3 months and somehow we're supposed to give a **** what you think?
Hey Jon new members can be valuable too !
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 02-27-2013, 12:13 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,991
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
If you can show me a single "gun right" that CGF has secured as a result of their litigation, I will slow my roll on this subject.
Can you show me a single "gun right" that Gura secured before Heller? That was a 5 year running case, while CGF has hardly even existed that long. You act like a losing case at district level is something to be ashamed of with anti-gun CA justices, even though of course Heller was a loser at district level. McDonald was even a loser at the 7th circuit.

To my knowledge there is no significant CGF litigation that has reached the end of the road yet, but you're calling the game now as if they have already failed.
__________________
"if you had friends, you wouldn't need to play computer games" - Sid Meier on original Civilization being single player only
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 02-27-2013, 4:20 AM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
Yeah, I'm confused as well. Sigh. Nothing hurts like gun rights advocates eating each other.
Which is exactly what that post was designed to promote. I doubt he is an actual gun rights advocate.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 02-27-2013, 8:39 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
You obviously have not spent enough time reading the history of my posts if you think that I have no interest in open discussion.
You may have an interest in open discussion, but from reading your posts you certainly aren't interested in criticism.

Let me offer some:

If you expect to make allies, it would be helpful if you didn't consistently display the same negative attributes you continually accuse others of having.

You need to work on your delivery. It really is that simple. You insist that it is CGF's fault that others are dismissive of your point of view, that you were censored. Well. You aren't being censored now. You've got carte blanche. And your wonderful personality isn't winning you any allies. Instead of blaming others for that, maybe it is time you tried a different approach, or found somebody else to speak for you.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 02-27-2013, 10:12 AM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 798
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
You may have an interest in open discussion, but from reading your posts you certainly aren't interested in criticism.

Let me offer some:

If you expect to make allies, it would be helpful if you didn't consistently display the same negative attributes you continually accuse others of having.

You need to work on your delivery. It really is that simple. You insist that it is CGF's fault that others are dismissive of your point of view, that you were censored. Well. You aren't being censored now. You've got carte blanche. And your wonderful personality isn't winning you any allies. Instead of blaming others for that, maybe it is time you tried a different approach, or found somebody else to speak for you.

Wow, that's almost word for word what I wrote in a post quite some time ago about CGF's display of leadership in this forum section. So I think I have a pretty good understanding of yours and a few others position on this topic - It's OK for certain CGF individuals to act like that, but not others. I'm crystal clear on your position now and you're not going to get me to change my approach or my opinion. So stop trying. And stick to the topic of this thread...I keep trying to stay on topic, but you keep dragging it back to a personal disagreement with me.

ETA: I said once in this thread that I was not going to respond to you on off topic posts. I forgot I wrote that last night. This time I mean it.
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda

Last edited by moleculo; 02-27-2013 at 10:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 02-27-2013, 4:39 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,954
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post

ETA: I said once in this thread that I was not going to respond to you on off topic posts. I forgot I wrote that last night. This time I mean it.
/StompsFoot
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 02-27-2013, 4:46 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It's just legal probing. Testing the edges. Not at all a defeat. I am usually gloomy about our CA outlook but this doesn't bother me one bit.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 02-27-2013, 5:37 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,629
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
It's just legal probing. Testing the edges. Not at all a defeat. I am usually gloomy about our CA outlook but this doesn't bother me one bit.
What about the three people who put time and money into opening a gun store? How do you think they feel about this "legal probing"?
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-27-2013, 6:28 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,954
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
What about the three people who put time and money into opening a gun store? How do you think they feel about this "legal probing"?
I know exactly how they feel.

They didn't try to open the store because CGF asked them. CGF heard about their troubles and offered to assist, with no promises of outcome except that it would be a long hard slog.

So, where before all avenues were foreclosed, they had a second chance.

Of course, it's a shame that you, Moleculo and Tincon didn't get there before CGF. I'm sure that y'all would have won this lickety-split.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-27-2013, 6:33 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,629
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
I know exactly how they feel.

They didn't try to open the store because CGF asked them. CGF heard about their troubles and offered to assist, with no promises of outcome except that it would be a long hard slog.

So, where before all avenues were foreclosed, they had a second chance.

Quote:
Of course, it's a shame that you, Moleculo and Tincon didn't get there before CGF. I'm sure that y'all would have won this lickety-split.
See, the animosity? This ain't right^^ I was posting in regards to another post AND Keeping it on topic. My only point was that the post i responded to was saying that it was basically a "gomer bull"

My reply was to simply remind him that there were people involved!! An attorney could easily advised them of the risk of a variance hearing. (maybe CGF did, I don't know)

Point is, it was more than a test case to the people trying to open a legit gun store.

Why do you guys take everything in a negative way? I'm not a lawyer so no i could not help them.

Keep in mind, CGF is not a law firm either.

Last edited by taperxz; 02-27-2013 at 6:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-27-2013, 7:00 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,954
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I saw who you were responding to.

The variance hearing happened months before CGF was involved or even had knowledge of the matter.

Why do you keep jumping to conclusions and blaming CGF?

Again, perhaps you, and Moleculo and Tincon should put your heads together and create some sort of organization that could get out in front of issues like this. Then you could avoid all this caterwauling about how CGF has screwed this up.

Honestly, it seems that y'all have the time.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-27-2013, 7:04 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,629
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
I saw who you were responding to.

The variance hearing happened months before CGF was involved or even had knowledge of the matter.

Why do you keep jumping to conclusions and blaming CGF?

Again, perhaps you, and Moleculo and Tincon should put your heads together and create some sort of organization that could get out in front of issues like this. Then you could avoid all this caterwauling about how CGF has screwed this up.

Honestly, it seems that y'all have the time.
JD, this is more than that. This is OUR right people are PLAYING with.

Remember in the 70's and 80's when the SF Giants were just the complete laughing stock of the league? I was still a Giants fan!! I still critiqued their play however. I wanted to see better of the team i was rooting for.

Anyway, this is my best analogy. ONLY you guys are taking it personal.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-27-2013, 7:10 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,063
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Why do you keep jumping to conclusions and blaming CGF?

Again, perhaps you, and Moleculo and Tincon should put your heads together and create some sort of organization that could get out in front of issues like this.
Why do you keep dragging me into your comments?
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-27-2013, 7:11 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,629
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Why do you keep dragging me into your comments?
Thats kinda how i feel too.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-27-2013, 7:13 PM
oldyeller oldyeller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,460
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Default

Hey Laz, welcome to calguns
__________________
Wanted- Dillon XL650 blue press parts/conversions
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-27-2013, 7:26 PM
zvardan's Avatar
zvardan zvardan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 658
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

The question I have is, at what point do zoning restrictions impede on 2a rights? If every city effectively zones out gun stores (or makes it exceedingly cost prohibitive), and the nearest store to me is say, 3 hours, is that in itself not a case?
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-27-2013, 7:29 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,063
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zvardan View Post
The question I have is, at what point do zoning restrictions impede on 2a rights? If every city effectively zones out gun stores (or makes it exceedingly cost prohibitive), and the nearest store to me is say, 3 hours, is that in itself not a case?
On those facts there absolutely would be a case.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-27-2013, 7:38 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 946
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zvardan View Post
The question I have is, at what point do zoning restrictions impede on 2a rights? If every city effectively zones out gun stores (or makes it exceedingly cost prohibitive), and the nearest store to me is say, 3 hours, is that in itself not a case?
Ezell.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-27-2013, 8:12 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
What about the three people who put time and money into opening a gun store? How do you think they feel about this "legal probing"?
I agree with you, it sucks to put that time/money/opportunity in to opening the store to have it yanked. The problem is the rule from the city seems valid (legally) but I'm pretty stupid so I could have missed something. I understand the measurement dispute, but it would seem that whoever the business manager of the partnership was should have recognized the marginality of what they were getting in to and should have not gone any further. It was clearly right on the edge of the 500 feet, so why would you take the risk??? I am not sure what was being thought.

When I look at these things, I think of it as: What if it was a slaughter house? Or a chemical plant? There are zoning rules for all of that, that local communities set, and should be allowed to set. No one, not the state or the federal government should be telling a local community how to zone their land as a basic principal. Now, clearly there are violations, such as "no American Indian owned shops in X zone" would clearly be a violation and thus invalidate the law. But in this case, I fail to see how the law is invalid OR how the measurement is invalid.

The probing I refer to is actually by the CGF etc. They should have known darn well there was a good chance of loosing this case. They have lost a few of these, so clearly if they gave the owners the wrong impression that is the real tragedy in my opinion.

I would have frequented the shop in San Leandro actually, so it's too bad for me but sad for the owners. I just don't see it as a 2A/14A issue, its really a zoning issue.

Last edited by rootuser; 02-27-2013 at 8:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-27-2013, 8:38 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,629
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
I agree with you, it sucks to put that time/money/opportunity in to opening the store to have it yanked. The problem is the rule from the city seems valid (legally) but I'm pretty stupid so I could have missed something. I understand the measurement dispute, but it would seem that whoever the business manager of the partnership was should have recognized the marginality of what they were getting in to and should have not gone any further. It was clearly right on the edge of the 500 feet, so why would you take the risk??? I am not sure what was being thought.

When I look at these things, I think of it as: What if it was a slaughter house? Or a chemical plant? There are zoning rules for all of that, that local communities set, and should be allowed to set. No one, not the state or the federal government should be telling a local community how to zone their land as a basic principal. Now, clearly there are violations, such as "no American Indian owned shops in X zone" would clearly be a violation and thus invalidate the law. But in this case, I fail to see how the law is invalid OR how the measurement is invalid.

The probing I refer to is actually by the CGF etc. They should have known darn well there was a good chance of loosing this case. They have lost a few of these, so clearly if they gave the owners the wrong impression that is the real tragedy in my opinion.

I would have frequented the shop in San Leandro actually, so it's too bad for me but sad for the owners. I just don't see it as a 2A/14A issue, its really a zoning issue.
Yep! I am glad you see the light on this case.

What i don't understand is WHY? CGF could not see the light and tell the clients that it would be best to find another store?

WHY? would CGF spend donated funds from people who trusted their judgement, looks to them to GAIN 2A rights and want to see results in the advancement of 2A rights? Especially now that we know CGF was not involved until after the variance hearing!!!

They are not lawyers, they are self proclaimed volunteers from right here on CGN who formed a Non profit called CGF and now claim they are experts at 2A litigation. Bottom line. They were all first time posters just like we all were here.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-27-2013, 8:52 PM
eaglemike eaglemike is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,409
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Yep! I am glad you see the light on this case.

What i don't understand is WHY? CGF could not see the light and tell the clients that it would be best to find another store?

WHY? would CGF spend donated funds from people who trusted their judgement, looks to them to GAIN 2A rights and want to see results in the advancement of 2A rights? Especially now that we know CGF was not involved until after the variance hearing!!!

They are not lawyers, they are self proclaimed volunteers from right here on CGN who formed a Non profit called CGF and now claim they are experts at 2A litigation. Bottom line. They were all first time posters just like we all were here.
You really should set up an organization that can run as you think it should.
(and be as open to second-guessing as you think CGF should be) BTW - I almost NEVER tell people what they should do - but you make it clear you see these things far more clearly than the CGF crew.

I can see the issues with the case. Not sure it should be described as a loss - "suffer a setback" perhaps.
__________________
Don't be a Jake!

It's a muzzle BRAKE, not a muzzle break. Or is your muzzle tired?
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-27-2013, 9:32 PM
jdberger's Avatar
jdberger jdberger is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,954
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Yep! I am glad you see the light on this case.

What i don't understand is WHY? CGF could not see the light and tell the clients that it would be best to find another store?

WHY? would CGF spend donated funds from people who trusted their judgement, looks to them to GAIN 2A rights and want to see results in the advancement of 2A rights? Especially now that we know CGF was not involved until after the variance hearing!!!

They are not lawyers, they are self proclaimed volunteers from right here on CGN who formed a Non profit called CGF and now claim they are experts at 2A litigation. Bottom line. They were all first time posters just like we all were here.
Remind me to invite you to the next meeting we have with potential plaintiffs. 'cause really, it's important to all of us to make sure that you have the opportunity to vet them, their story, the legal strategy and the potential outcomes.

wait - wait -wait....I have a better idea:

CGF will issue a press release, make a presentation and then have an online poll where everyone who has ever donated to the Foundation can vote on the Plaintiffs, strategy, etc....

I'm so bringing that up at the next Directors meeting.

*********

And Tincon, I keep referencing you because you've set yourself out as someone much more knowledgeable than all the pedestrian non-lawyers who make up the BoD of CGF. After all, it's you who have introduced yourself to us, we didn't seek you out.
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky.

90% of winning is simply showing up.

"Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green


NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-27-2013, 9:42 PM
odysseus's Avatar
odysseus odysseus is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 10,405
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

These threads of late from some members all smell of personal vendetta more than they do normal conversations and inquiries.
__________________
"Just leave me alone, I know what to do." - Kimi Raikkonen

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.' and that `Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.'
- John Adams

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-27-2013, 9:58 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,629
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdberger View Post
Remind me to invite you to the next meeting we have with potential plaintiffs. 'cause really, it's important to all of us to make sure that you have the opportunity to vet them, their story, the legal strategy and the potential outcomes.

wait - wait -wait....I have a better idea:

CGF will issue a press release, make a presentation and then have an online poll where everyone who has ever donated to the Foundation can vote on the Plaintiffs, strategy, etc....

I'm so bringing that up at the next Directors meeting.

*********

And Tincon, I keep referencing you because you've set yourself out as someone much more knowledgeable than all the pedestrian non-lawyers who make up the BoD of CGF. After all, it's you who have introduced yourself to us, we didn't seek you out.
You certainly wouldn't have any worse results by doing that.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-27-2013, 9:59 PM
goober's Avatar
goober goober is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: da sloo
Posts: 4,938
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by odysseus View Post
These threads of late from some members all smell of personal vendetta more than they do normal conversations and inquiries.
^this
__________________
Live between Santa Cruz and SLO? Want to get involved?
Check out the Central Coast Calguns Community Chapter
And join the Central Coast Region Social Group!
NRA Life Member - CRPA Life & Board Member - SAF Life Member - Monterey County Carry Initiative Sponsor
Statements posted here are the sole opinions of the author and not those
of CGN, CGF, CRPA, or any other institution or agency unless otherwise noted.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-27-2013, 10:13 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,063
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Just so I'm clear where the line is, is any post that is not a worshipful acclamation of CGF evidence of a "personal vendetta"? I'm sorry CGF filed a bad case and had a loss but they did, and since they didn't post about I did. If that means I have a "personal vendetta", then I guess I do. That this was also the latest in a long string of losses also seems worth discussing. If that topic is verboten for some reason, I would like to know why.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.

Last edited by Tincon; 02-27-2013 at 10:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-27-2013, 10:18 PM
odysseus's Avatar
odysseus odysseus is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 10,405
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Just so I'm clear where the line is, is any post that is not a worshipful acclamation of CGF evidence of a "personal vendetta"?
That's pretty much creating a false dilemma, and to paint yourself as more the heroic character that is being criticized for speaking. I did not say that in the least. Using words also like "worshipful" is really just disingenuous - unless you actually believe that unreasonable position you draw.

However I did say that it smells a certain way, and yes it does. So be it, it is just an opinion. If it is indeed a fact, then you should just come out with it clean who you are and why, since you have already eluded in other posts that you have a long knowledge and history of things on CGN, as well as CGF.
__________________
"Just leave me alone, I know what to do." - Kimi Raikkonen

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.' and that `Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.'
- John Adams

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
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 4:10 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.