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
  #281  
Old 03-05-2013, 1:42 AM
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 kcbrown View Post
From his standpoint, both outcomes are wins. He's thinking on the national strategic level. Whether the strategy chosen is a wise one remains to be seen.

My perception is that Gene is focused on winning the game, not just the individual move, and is willing to make sacrifices in order to achieve that outcome. Your perception is, it seems, that winning the war requires winning most, if not all, moves, and at the lowest level possible.
My perception is that losing in district court is bad. I don't know how else to say it. I think I'm beating a dead horse at this point. You don't about trying to win by LOSING. Not in the law, not ANYWHERE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth View Post
And you know what, if Gene is not the lawyer then we all agree with you 100% here. We too have a real problem with your logic.
Gene asserts that he represents California Gun owners. I understand he is not a lawyer, but when he is representing the interests of gun owners at the state and national level, I ascribe to him the same responsibilities.
__________________
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
  #282  
Old 03-05-2013, 1:47 AM
tenpercentfirearms's Avatar
tenpercentfirearms tenpercentfirearms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Taft, CA
Posts: 12,845
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Can you? Did you make the 501(h) election? How much have you spent to influence laws passed by the legislature?
As far as I am aware we did make the 501(h) election. I will get back to you on any monies we spent on educating the legislature, AG, and/or Governor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I've posted cases, repeatedly. Here is a summarized list (not inclusive of all CGF's losses or other group's wins):

NRA/M&A 2A Cases:

Doe v SHFA Win with settlement agreement.
Jackson- Published standing ruling.
3 Cases before 9th Circuit (Peruta, Mckay, Jackson)
Defeated 1 Gorski Case and Potentially Another while minimizing harm to 2A (Mehl / Pizzo)

CGF 2A Cases:
Countless motions to dismiss granted against them. (see list)
No favorable procedural rulings.
No favorable settlement agreements.
1 Case before 9th Circuit (Richards).

NRA/M&A Vagueness Challenges:
Overturned AB 962 (Parker)

CGF Vagueness Challenge
AW Challenge Multiple Motions to Dismiss Granted against CGF (Haynie)

NRA/M&A Preemption Challenge
Overturned SF Prop H Handgun Ban and recovered $380,000 in fees w/ published appellate ruling. (Fiscal)

CGF Preemption Case
Motion to Dismiss granted against CGF. (San Mateo)

NRA/M&As Other theories to overturn gun laws / policies
Defeated prohibition on use of lead ammunition Environmental Law challenge. (CBD v. US Bureau of Land Management)

CGFs Other Theories to Overturn Gun Laws / Policies
Challenge to Santa Clara carry policies - Equal Protection. (Scocca v. Smith)
FAAA challenge to AB 962 Dismissed. (OOIDA)

So again the question was about influence and litigation success. You concede that CGF has no legislative influence (and doesn't want any apparently) and it is clear that CGF is not among the groups winning legal victories. So any more questions?
Funny, I don't see any cases there where the 2nd Amendment was expanded in California. I see a few that defended and again, some of those aren't necessarily NRA cases as Gray points out.

Seeing as we are still a relatively new foundation, we will not be able to satisfy those who want instant gratification in this long term fight. We will continue to disappoint you immediately. And even when we win some cases, you will still be unhappy with our results. I am comfortable knowing you won't be satisfied.

I can tell you these people are certainly happy we raised funds to successfully defend their rights.

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/abo...me-lately.html

Some people just want to focus on the negative, that is their right. I hope it brings you comfort. We will be moving on.
__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 03-05-2013, 1:51 AM
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 tenpercentfirearms View Post
Funny, I don't see any cases there where the 2nd Amendment was expanded in California.
Look harder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms View Post
Some people just want to focus on the negative, that is their right. I hope it brings you comfort. We will be moving on.
When all you have is losses it's difficult to be positive. I hope you move on to winning, but since you can't even concede that you have a problem, I doubt you will.
__________________
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
  #284  
Old 03-05-2013, 1:52 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
My perception is that losing in district court is bad. I don't know how else to say it. I think I'm beating a dead horse at this point. You don't about trying to win by LOSING. Not in the law, not ANYWHERE.
Okay, then answer me this:

What have you won at the national level if you win in district court and the other side doesn't appeal the decision?
__________________
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
  #285  
Old 03-05-2013, 1:55 AM
tenpercentfirearms's Avatar
tenpercentfirearms tenpercentfirearms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Taft, CA
Posts: 12,845
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Look harder.
It is your argument, you don't have to back it up. I am fine with your failure to produce evidence of your claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
When all you have is losses it's difficult to be positive. I hope you move on to winning, but since you can't even concede that you have a problem, I doubt you will.
Again, I guess you missed my link. Those were certainly wins. I guess I also missed where our cases were denied by the Supreme Court. Yeah, this thing is over. Throw in the towel boys and girls. We have been defeated.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Patience.
__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 03-05-2013, 1:56 AM
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 kcbrown View Post
Okay, then answer me this:

What have you won at the national level if you win in district court and the other side doesn't appeal the decision?
I'm assuming you are talking about a local matter here. If you are challenging a federal law the benefit is obvious.

So for a local matter: Persuasive precedent on a case of first impression. You also gain on the local level, which is the point of filing the lawsuit. It is actually a violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to file a lawsuit for any other reason.
__________________
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
  #287  
Old 03-05-2013, 1:56 AM
Stealth's Avatar
Stealth Stealth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 233
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Gene asserts that he represents California Gun owners.
From this Thread.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=708694

Guns: A Panel Discussion.
Featuring:

Charlie Beck, LAPD Chief
Marc Cooper, The Nation
Gene Hoffman, Co-founder, Calguns Foundation
Laurie Saffian, Women Against Gun Violence

So is this Gene again asserting he represents the Gun Owners again?

What side would you have Gene represent on this Panel?

Call it a guess by me, but I would say he is the Pro-gun person on this panel representing all Gun Owners in this state. I think he can safely make an assertion here.
__________________
NRA Member

stealth [stɛlθ] n > the act or characteristic of moving with extreme care and quietness, espically so as to avoid detection
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 03-05-2013, 1:59 AM
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 tenpercentfirearms View Post
It is your argument, you don't have to back it up. I am fine with your failure to produce evidence of your claims.
You really don't see how any of those cases increased the legal protections of CA gun owners? Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms View Post
Again, I guess you missed my link. Those were certainly wins. I guess I also missed where our cases were denied by the Supreme Court.
How many of your dozen losses which occurred at the pleadings stage have you appealed?
__________________
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
  #289  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:00 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I'm assuming you are talking about a local matter here. If you are challenging a federal law the benefit is obvious.
I'm talking about a local matter (e.g., a county ordinance or state law) that has national implications in the event the matter is appealed.


Quote:
So for a local matter: Persuasive precedent on a case of first impression.
Persuasive to whom?


Quote:
You also gain on the local level, which is the point of filing the lawsuit. It is actually a violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to file a lawsuit for any other reason.
Yes, you gain on the local level. Congratulations. Now, what have you gained at the national level, which was my original question?
__________________
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
  #290  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:01 AM
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 tenpercentfirearms View Post
As far as I am aware we did make the 501(h) election.
Please confirm this.
__________________
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
  #291  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:04 AM
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 kcbrown View Post
Persuasive to whom?
Federal courts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Yes, you gain on the local level. Congratulations. Now, what have you gained at the national level, which was my original question?
Can you give me some additional details of this hypothetical 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
  #292  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:05 AM
tenpercentfirearms's Avatar
tenpercentfirearms tenpercentfirearms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Taft, CA
Posts: 12,845
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
You really don't see how any of those cases increased the legal protections of CA gun owners? Really?
You are changing your argument. You said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
The answer is pretty obviously yes, as there are groups with actual lobbyists in Sacramento, groups which have won actual court victories defending and expanding 2A rights in California.
I see how they defended or increased legal protections, but expand no. Those are your words, not mine. I am glad to be a NRA life member and be supporting those cases. I am also happy to be a CGF support and defend cases that never made it anywhere because the charges were dropped and people were set free. Thankfully there is a layered approach for defending gun rights. Funds are not mutually exclusive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
How many of your dozen losses which occurred at the pleadings stage have you appealed?
You have it all figured out. List them for us.

You are on the offensive, I don't want to stop you. Go for it!
__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:08 AM
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 tenpercentfirearms View Post
You are changing your argument. You said,
I see how they defended or increased legal protections, but expand no. Those are your words, not mine.
I'm glad we can quibble over the meaning of these victories and the extent of the benefits they gave to CA gun owners. I wish there were some CGF victories we could have similar discussions about.
__________________
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
  #294  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:10 AM
tenpercentfirearms's Avatar
tenpercentfirearms tenpercentfirearms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Taft, CA
Posts: 12,845
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I'm glad we can quibble over the meaning of these victories and the extent of the benefits they gave to CA gun owners. I wish there were some CGF victories we could have similar discussions about.
In time there will be actual court decisions. I am not sure what your new angle will be then. Probably a low ratio argument. I am confident you will find something. Enjoy your efforts.

Until then, we will keep defending people wrongfully arrested and keeping them from going to prison.
__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:12 AM
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 tenpercentfirearms View Post
In time there will be. I am not sure what your new angle will be then. Probably a low ratio argument. I am confident you will find something. Enjoy your efforts.
Hey while you are looking into the future can you give me some quick picks for this week's lotto?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms View Post

Until then, we will keep defending people wrongfully arrested and keeping them from going to prison.
The same things that were happening on CGN before CGF ever existed...
__________________
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
  #296  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:13 AM
tenpercentfirearms's Avatar
tenpercentfirearms tenpercentfirearms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Taft, CA
Posts: 12,845
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Hey while you are looking into the future can you give me quick picks for this week's lotto?
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=716086

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
The same things that were happening on CGN before CGF ever existed...
Yeah list those out too! You are on a roll!

Here are ours again since you didn't mention them earlier.

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/abo...me-lately.html
__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation

Last edited by tenpercentfirearms; 03-05-2013 at 2:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:19 AM
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 tenpercentfirearms View Post
Yeah list those out too! You are on a roll!
Ok.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=237835

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...ad.php?t=27686

http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showt...t=57189&page=5

http://www.www.calguns.net/calgunfor...ad.php?t=33738

etc etc

Then of course there is this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
{Putting my CGF hat on...}

CGF is NOT a legal insurance company. It has never held out to be such.

Nor are NRA, CRPA, etc.

[In fact there's pretty much NO insurance for various legal travails - it would be hard for actuaries to cost a policy since there'd be "usage bias": insureds would end up skirting things so close to the line there'd be continuous payouts, raising rates to impossible levels. NRA *does* offer some self defense insurance which does pay out *after* criminal matters resolve favorably.]

CGF has always said it may or may not selectively defend an individual for any particular matter, for any reason.

CGF generally does take cases/drive matters that stop overextension of the law or assertion of invalid gun law. These typically have, in the past, resolved around AW matters, magazine issues, and certain civil rights matters involving aspects of carry or LE threats to legit gun owners or other intersections of civil rights and gunrights. Other subarenas of gun law may be defended too.

CGF may / may not take a 'good' case on one specific aspect if there are other coloring behaviors that could compromise the situation. Remember that plea deals are often 'package' gigs, so defending one particular element of conduct may be moot or actually interfere with rest of a defendant's defense: a defendant's interests in case resolution need to be regarded as "in the whole", and fighting on one issue if it aggravates penalties on the other is unhelpful to all.

I will note that while CGF has a civil rights mission, representation of someone is ALWAYS in that individual's DIRECT interest. It cannot be otherwise, for ethical reasons. No risk can be imparted to the defendant's case's outcome for some highfalutin' downline strategy: get the dude out of the cooler and back to his guns as optimally as possible can be the only strategy.

CGF has offered significant aid in defense of certain matters even when it felt it couldn't represent the "whole case" and this has resulted in favorable outcomes in the matters we were involved in (i.e, an AW charge dropped even if a separate CCW issue were not found to be supportable by us - or, say, invalid gun charges associated with a pot bust.)

However, just because CGF does not drive representation of a particular individual does not mean that individual is 'guilty' of anything: the individual may have ALREADY chosen representation, and we can't interfere with nor steer that other than trying to offer aid/knowledge in various technical gun law matters, for example.

Also, the converse of the above may also be true: we may very easily have to take an "Ugly" case where there IS significant color and 'defend the gun' if the DA is incorrectly using certain matters as escalators, etc. - and there's a risk of some gun-related legal concept accidentally "getting traction". Let's take an absolutely ugly worst-case example: someone shoots someone with an alleged "SKS is an AW" rifle, the purported AW status is somehow used as a penalty escalator or driving the case, say from 2nd to 1st degree. If that gun really isn't an AW, we're likely gonna be in the mix somehow. And I know that stance may be unpopular with some, but it has to happen to stop things from getting traction.

You will all note that OLL drama is at a low. There's a reason for that ;-)

If you have not gone way way out in left field and run on a slew of assumptions, and have a BulletButtoned OLL rifle that is otherwise a legal gun - but where PD/DA is asserting AW status, you can safely assume we will back you. If you are a buyer or FFL having drama with legitimately Roster-exempt handgun situations, we can back you. If you were popped for a pre-2000 hicap mag, we can back you. If your Mossberg 500 "Cruiser" is regarded by a cop as an SBS, we will back you. Etc. etc.
__________________
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
  #298  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:26 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Federal courts.
Which federal courts?

And "persuasive" precedence isn't of much value when the subject is one for which opinions tend to be strong. Just because it's "persuasive" in legal parlance doesn't mean it's "persuasive" in common parlance, especially in the face of said strong opinions. Courts can and do ignore "persuasive" precedent, even in cases of first impression, when they have their own strong opinions on the subject (else there wouldn't be any circuit splits, such as that which now exists between the 7th Circuit and the 2nd Circuit as regards carry in public).


Quote:
Can you give me some additional details of this hypothetical case?
I haven't fully thought that through. I don't yet have something specific in mind. For the moment, please proceed as if the case details are not relevant (they shouldn't be for this discussion, since your statement about winning was an absolute one and left no room for maneuver).
__________________
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
  #299  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:31 AM
tenpercentfirearms's Avatar
tenpercentfirearms tenpercentfirearms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Taft, CA
Posts: 12,845
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Now I am confused. The very first link you provide is to a CGF sponsored case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=237835

Quote:
In case you weren't aware, at this very moment, one of our fellow Californians is on trial. Thesues needs our support, and for most of us the only way to do this is financially.

My goal is to give his defense fund a $5,000 boost in one day. I think this is a modest goal.

As many of you already know, the CalGuns Foundation is facilitating donations to this cause. Any excess funds not used for Thesues' case will be donated to CGF.

Please visit my thread over on OpenCarry.org for more information about the case: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/33669.html

If you want to go directly to the donation website hosted by CGF, please click the following link: http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ind...pen-carry-case
Then you make a little more sense with the next two causes. They were pre-Calguns Foundation. I definitely remember Matt Corwin as I donated to that one too.
I also remember this one a this was kind of the thread that started the idea behind CGF, but it quickly went no where.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Man what a track record for defending people who have been arrested. Two cases. Now the good news is I am glad we did that pre-CGF. Those good things don't have to be a negative and can be celebrated.

We still have this list.

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/abo...me-lately.html

And of course we are going to pick and choose our cases on who we defend as explained by Bill Wiese. That is what a board does. Bill explains it well and I am glad you brought it up.

I guess you are turning around after all.
__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:36 AM
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 kcbrown View Post
Which federal courts?
All of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And "persuasive" precedence isn't of much value when the subject is one for which opinions tend to be strong.
It's precedent. I think I've told you that before.

There are only two kinds precedent, mandatory and persuasive. If it is mandatory, the court must follow it, no matter how strong "opinions" run on the subject. If it is persuasive courts may look to it, but are not bound. If all persuasive precedent, or nearly all of it, goes one way, it is difficult for a court to go the other way. Certainly not unheard of, but precedent is important. It is the main tool lawyers use to make arguments. There can still be circuit splits, often it occurs when different courts interpret precedent differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I haven't fully thought that through. I don't yet have something specific in mind. For the moment, please proceed as if the case details are not relevant (they shouldn't be for this discussion, since your statement about winning was an absolute one and left no room for maneuver).
Generally, if the relief sought in the case is local, there is no national effect, unless there is an appeal. It is a violation of the federal rules of civil procedure to file a case where the object is not to seek the relief stated in the complaint.
__________________
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
  #301  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:43 AM
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 tenpercentfirearms View Post
Now I am confused. The very first link you provide is to a CGF sponsored case.
Bull. CGF refused to help Theseus. CGF did not give him a penny. CGF was opposed to UOC and thus did NOT lend support. That's why others stepped up. See this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
As The Calguns Foundation had said before, we are currently not able to defend UOC cases monetarily beyond the case we already have undertaken. However, we have actively worked to get Theseus representation familiar with the issue and particularly with school zone prosecutions (one of The Right People.) It appears Theseus will be charged with a misdemeanor violation of 626.9(b). Theseus is paying for his defense personally and may have asked some individuals close to him to assist. I want to make clear that from what the Foundation, myself, and counsel know so far, Theseus has a winnable case but does face an assistant DA known for her displeasure with firearms.
and this:

https://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=145464

CGF picks and chooses who it will defend. It does not defend all. That's fine. What is not fine is pretending that CGN was not, and is not, the real force behind the $$$ and actual protection of gun owners in this state when it comes to legal defense funds. Now you want to re-write history. That's not OK either.
__________________
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
  #302  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:49 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,063
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Also, talk about irony/foreshadowing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms View Post
Just having a ton of money sitting around for something that never happens seems like a major headache and subject to abuse.
Guess power corrupts eh?
__________________
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
  #303  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:55 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
All of them.
Really? So it is persuasive precedent for circuit courts? For the Supreme Court?

I concede that even that is a possibility, but I fully expect that the greater the distance between the levels of the courts involved, the less persuasive the district court decision will be.


Quote:
It's precedent. I think I've told you that before.
There's precedent and then there's precedent. Courts are free to ignore "persuasive" precedent when they believe, e.g., that the wrong legal principles were employed. Like I said, were that not the case, there would be no circuit splits, because all courts would agree at a fundamental level.

In practice, they will ignore "persuasive" precedent which contradicts the opinion they wish to issue, except when their own opinion on the matter is weak or nonexistent.


Quote:
There are only two kinds precedent, mandatory and persuasive. If it is mandatory, the court must follow it, no matter how strong "opinions" run on the subject.
Must follow it or what?

The Heller decision, including the logic and historical discussion which led to the decision, is binding precedent, yet we've seen more than one decision ignoring that. See, e.g., Williams v Maryland and Osterweil v Bartlett.


Quote:
If it is persuasive courts may look to it, but are not bound.
Correct. They are not bound. That means they can ignore it if they see fit to do so. And they do, especially when their own opinions on the subject are strong.


Quote:
If all persuasive precedent, or nearly all of it, goes one way, it is difficult for a court to go the other way.
No, it's not. It should be, yes, but it's not. There is no enforcement mechanism against failure to do so. At most, the decision gets overturned, but that is not the disincentive you probably believe it to be.


Quote:
Certainly not unheard of, but precedent is important. It is the main tool lawyers use to make arguments. There can still be circuit splits, often it occurs when different courts interpret precedent differently.
When the opinions of those on the courts are relatively weak, that is certainly the case. When the opinions are strong, then those opinions will tend to dominate.


Quote:
Generally, if the relief sought in the case is local, there is no national effect, unless there is an appeal. It is a violation of the federal rules of civil procedure to file a case where the object is not to seek the relief stated in the complaint.
Correct. However, how one goes about seeking the relief in question can vary enormously.

Now answer me this one: you are seeking relief in front of the district court. You are faced with a choice of what arguments to use. You can use a set of arguments you believe has the best chance of persuading the lower court but which you believe will not be persuasive at the Supreme Court level, or you can use arguments you believe will be persuasive at the Supreme Court level but which you expect will not be persuasive at the district court level, due to the prevalent local political viewpoints of those who sit on the court. Those are your only two options.

Which set of arguments do you choose to use?
__________________
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; 03-05-2013 at 2:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:58 AM
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 kcbrown View Post
Now answer me this one: you are seeking relief in front of the district court. You are faced with a choice of what arguments to use. You can use a set of arguments you believe has the best chance of persuading the lower court but which you believe will not be persuasive at the Supreme Court level, or you can use arguments you believe will be persuasive at the Supreme Court level but which you expect will not be persuasive at the district court level. Those are your only two options.

Which set of arguments do you choose to use?
You choose the arguments that will win at the district court level, followed, in the alternative, by the arguments that will win at the Supreme Court level. Welcome to lawyering. But you always try to win at every level.
__________________
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
  #305  
Old 03-05-2013, 3:02 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
You choose the arguments that will win at the district court level, followed, in the alternative, by the arguments that will win at the Supreme Court level. Welcome to lawyering. But you always try to win at every level.
Now let's say that you are arguing in front of the circuit court. Same basic situation: a set of arguments that are more likely to persuade the circuit court but not the Supreme Court, and a set of arguments that are more likely to persuade the Supreme Court and not the circuit court.

Do you do the same as you say here, use the arguments that will win at the circuit court followed by the alternative arguments intended for the Supreme Court?
__________________
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
  #306  
Old 03-05-2013, 3:09 AM
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 kcbrown View Post
Now let's say that you are arguing in front of the circuit court. Same basic situation: a set of arguments that are more likely to persuade the circuit court but not the Supreme Court, and a set of arguments that are more likely to persuade the Supreme Court and not the circuit court.

Do you do the same as you say here, use the arguments that will win at the circuit court followed by the alternative arguments intended for the Supreme Court?
You use the best arguments you have. If you think some might be more persuasive on appeal, you can focus on the arguments you think will win where you are, but you make them all. The court might surprise you and latch onto to something you thought they would not like. If you are going to lose (bad), ideally it will be because they rejected an argument that the higher court finds persuasive.

If you can keep racking up wins at the district level, then if you do lose eventually, your appeal will be that much stronger. Note that there is no support for the idea that losing is good.
__________________
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
  #307  
Old 03-05-2013, 3:18 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
You use the best arguments you have. If you think some might be more persuasive on appeal, you can focus on the arguments you think will win where you are, but you make them all. The court might surprise you and latch onto to something you thought they would not like. If you are going to lose (bad), ideally it will be because they rejected an argument that the higher court finds persuasive.
Okay, by this I presume you mean that you would use the circuit-targeted arguments as the primary, and the Supreme Court targeted arguments as the alternative.

And because the circuit court found your circuit-targeted arguments persuasive, the circuit gives you the win and encodes your arguments into its decision. Congratulations, you won. Right?

Wrong. The opposition appeals. SCOTUS takes the case. Now you're forced to defend the circuit-targeted arguments you used at the circuit court. SCOTUS disagrees, because it might have found your alternative arguments persuasive, but those arguments weren't what went into the circuit court's decision. SCOTUS overturns.

And just like that, you've lost.

Congratulations. By "winning" the battles, you lost the war.


Still convinced that you have to win at every level no matter what the strategic implications?
__________________
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; 03-05-2013 at 3:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 03-05-2013, 3:20 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
If you can keep racking up wins at the district level, then if you do lose eventually, your appeal will be that much stronger.
That doesn't follow at all. By your own argument here, you're tailoring the arguments you use in front of the district courts to the courts in question in order to secure the wins, even if those arguments are mutually contradictory.
__________________
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
  #309  
Old 03-05-2013, 6:52 AM
tenpercentfirearms's Avatar
tenpercentfirearms tenpercentfirearms is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Taft, CA
Posts: 12,845
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Bull. CGF refused to help Theseus. CGF did not give him a penny. CGF was opposed to UOC and thus did NOT lend support. That's why others stepped up. See this:
If CGF refused to help, then why are you quoting links that show we helped? You quote a thread from Gene saying don't UOC on 1/3/09 and that we were getting Theseus assistance, but no more cases. Originally you quoted a link on 11/4/09 where CGF was facilitating the donations. But despite both of the links you provided, we didn't help? You make zero sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
CGF picks and chooses who it will defend. It does not defend all. That's fine. What is not fine is pretending that CGN was not, and is not, the real force behind the $$$ and actual protection of gun owners in this state when it comes to legal defense funds. Now you want to re-write history. That's not OK either.
LOL. CGN and CGF work hand in hand. I am not quite sure why you are trying to make this an either or proposition.

CGF uses CGN as a vehicle to get the message out. However, CGF is clearly not CGN and it is interesting you are trying to make it so. The only person seeming to try and change history would be you. A collective effort from all of us turned the ideas from CGN into the real player CGF in our state 2nd Amendment advocacy.

Clearly you have some sort of vendetta or agenda here as the evidence available suggest you are just plain incorrect. They are your own links. You refuse to acknowledge the success CGF has had in keeping law abiding citizens free and for some reason you are trying to marginalize the entire movement.

I am not sure why, but I don't think it matters. I'll let you get back to your vendetta, I have satisfied my understanding of your operations and it is pretty clear to everyone else reading this thread.

Good luck.
__________________
For superior customer service and good prices visit www.tenpercentfirearms.com. We are Kern County's leader in black rifle sales.

The Calguns Foundation - Board Member. DONATE NOW! Your dollars go DIRECTLY to front-line legal activism in CA.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of The Calguns Foundation
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 03-05-2013, 8:30 AM
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 kcbrown View Post
Okay, by this I presume you mean that you would use the circuit-targeted arguments as the primary, and the Supreme Court targeted arguments as the alternative.

And because the circuit court found your circuit-targeted arguments persuasive, the circuit gives you the win and encodes your arguments into its decision. Congratulations, you won. Right?

Wrong. The opposition appeals. SCOTUS takes the case. Now you're forced to defend the circuit-targeted arguments you used at the circuit court. SCOTUS disagrees, because it might have found your alternative arguments persuasive, but those arguments weren't what went into the circuit court's decision. SCOTUS overturns.
It doesn't work that way. You are not limited on appeal to whatever arguments the circuit court found persuasive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That doesn't follow at all. By your own argument here, you're tailoring the arguments you use in front of the district courts to the courts in question in order to secure the wins, even if those arguments are mutually contradictory.
Lawyers make mutually contradictory arguments all the time.
__________________
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
  #311  
Old 03-05-2013, 8:32 AM
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 Gray Peterson View Post
A published appellate ruling which was accomplished by the SAF litigation team in 1982. This is not to downplay what counsel did in the Fiscal case, but there was no way he would have been able to score wins at all levels, a TRO & a preliminary injunction stopping the handgun ban from taking effect. Doe was a SAF case.

Also, CRPA/NRAILA (notice the lead counsel on both) losses:

CRPA v. City of West Hollywood

Great Western v. County of Los Angeles

Since you're considering anything pre-April 2009 to be somehow expanding the 2A in any way, you need to not leave out losses, too.

You tend to leave out successful criminal defenses & Findings of Factual Innocence, as if that means nothing in a 2A context when it clearly does. Sometimes the folks who get the defense help and are able to score FFI's stay silent and don't publicly announce to the world what happened.
Let's not forget Suter v Lafayette. That's one I get to deal with on a pretty regular basis.

I've a nice project for you, Matt. Could you whip up a 10 page exploration of the importance of Suter in light of Ezell? It would sure be helpful to us "non-lawyers" who are daily trying to educate municipalities about regulating gun stores.
__________________
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
  #312  
Old 03-05-2013, 8:39 AM
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 tenpercentfirearms View Post
If CGF refused to help, then why are you quoting links that show we helped? You quote a thread from Gene saying don't UOC on 1/3/09 and that we were getting Theseus assistance, but no more cases. Originally you quoted a link on 11/4/09 where CGF was facilitating the donations.
What kind of game are you trying to play? "Facilitating the donations?" Is that the help CGF provides? You guys refused to help, just admit it. You can't argue with Gene's own words:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
As The Calguns Foundation had said before, we are currently not able to defend UOC cases monetarily beyond the case we already have undertaken. Theseus is paying for his defense personally and may have asked some individuals close to him to assist.
CGF did not help. Funds were raised anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms View Post
CGF uses CGN as a vehicle to get the message out. However, CGF is clearly not CGN and it is interesting you are trying to make it so. The only person seeming to try and change history would be you. A collective effort from all of us turned the ideas from CGN into the real player CGF in our state 2nd Amendment advocacy.
Real player? Right. Please explain how losing a bunch of cases makes you a "real payer".

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms View Post
Clearly you have some sort of vendetta or agenda here as the evidence available suggest you are just plain incorrect. You refuse to acknowledge the success CGF has had in keeping law abiding citizens free and for some reason you are trying to marginalize the entire movement.
I'm not "marginalizing the entire moment" don't be so dramatic. What I am doing is questioning the effectiveness of a 2A group that seems to be focused on litigation, but can't win a victory to overturn a law. CGN/CGF has had success in defending citizens and keeping them free, but are you suggesting that didn't happen before CGF?
__________________
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
  #313  
Old 03-05-2013, 11:22 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
It doesn't work that way. You are not limited on appeal to whatever arguments the circuit court found persuasive.
No, but the appeal in this case is being made by the opposition, and they are arguing against the foundation of the decision, which is (in this scenario) the arguments you made that the circuit court incorporated into their decision.

How are you going to be able to counter the opposition without supporting the arguments that were used by the circuit court to arrive at the decision it did? The opposition is arguing that the decision is faulty because the reasoning (i.e., your arguments, which the court imported into the decision) used to arrive at it was faulty. What, are you going to concur with them on that in argument?


So while you're not strictly limited to the arguments the circuit court found persuasive, you will have to defend them nonetheless, because they are the foundation of the circuit court's decision and opposition to them is the basis of the appeal in the first place!


Remember: the holding in the decision is not just the conclusion, but the reasoning used to arrive at it. Both have equal precedential weight.


Quote:
Lawyers make mutually contradictory arguments all the time.
Yes, they do, but I'm skeptical that competent ones will when they're attempting to achieve a larger strategic goal as is the case for the fight for the 2nd Amendment.

And since the arguments in the district court scenario are, based on the notion that you won at all those locations, the foundations of the decisions in question, how are you going to handle the inevitable appeals and differences of opinion between the courts? By using mutually contradictory arguments, you place yourself in the unenviable position of having to blow one or more of your own wins out of the water when it comes time to deal with the cases at the next level.

How is that a win?
__________________
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; 03-05-2013 at 1:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 03-05-2013, 11:44 AM
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,275
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

How could you possibly be certain about this without either [a] having unauthorized access to Foundation data or [b] having access to attorney-client privileged data or [c] you're an/the attorney of record and unethically breaching confidentiality here?

If CGF did not 'help' Theseus, what do you call payments we made to counsel on Clayton's behalf, then?

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
CGF did not help. Funds were raised anyway
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 03-05-2013, 1:22 PM
bussda's Avatar
bussda bussda is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,182
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Where have I fanatically attacked Gene personally? The only comments about him personally I've made were in relation to his ego (which I think has a direct bearing on his management of CGF) and his donation of $30,000 in one year to Dianne Feinstein, which I only got involved in because he started lying about it.
The mildest criticism of Gene is when you called him divisive, a single adjective and only once in the post. Other times there are at least two or more adjectives in a derogatory manner and stated multiple times. And it feels like that in 50% of your posts, there is an attack on Gene. That is the level of a persistent and determined attack that looks fanatical. Has for the the point of donating to Feinstein, that smacks of lack of ideological purity. And why is there a need to research Gene's political contributions? The only relevancy is that it shows Gene's memory is not perfect. He has stated several times he is not perfect, and that shows a big ego?

And in dealing with some people that you think is an ego problem can really be they have a lot of demands on their time. One man's perceived insurmountable issue is another's distraction from the problem at hand. Disagreeing on priorities and methods is fine, attacking a person's character because there is a disagreement on priorities and methods is the just an ad hominem argument that distracts from the immediate issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
As for the CRPA board, I could not care less if Gene is on it, and I certainly can't imagine why I would have hard feelings about Gene being kicked off it. I don't know how you think that even makes sense.
That series of events helps one to understand why there is antagonistic feelings between CGF and some other organizations. Before that event, there was no bashing of either group except for some individuals with an agenda. And now other organizations attack Gene to appear as an disgruntled former board member who is not credible concerning CRPA. In spite of being kicked off the board and the kerfuffle, Gene and other CGF board members still recommended that for others who wanted to know where to help, joining other organizations was recommended, and something to do along with contributing to the foundation. And that is the action of a divisive person?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
The question was, is there a group with more influence and/or a better track record than CGF? The answer is pretty obviously yes, as there are groups with actual lobbyists in Sacramento, groups which have won actual court victories defending and expanding 2A rights in California.
And CRPA and NRA do lobby in Sacramento, but they are not always there for the regular gun owner, like CGF is. And to me, they are questionable in their reliability. For example:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Former DOJ Firearms head Steve Helsley was asked in early 90s to do a writeup of the history of Roberti-Roos law, and problems regulating so-called 'assault weapons".

...

As we approached the final days of legislative activity on the two bills, we experienced what I would describe as a "feeding frenzy" as it became clear that the NRA was in retreat [old NRA team not today's people]. The good gun/bad gun list was ever changing as modifications were made by legislative request, by "staffers" who wanted an emphasis on foreign firearms and through the personal efforts of an Oakland Police Department Sergeant. [remember Iggy Chinn?]

...

* No specifically defined problem.

* Artificial distinctions were made between semi-automatic weapons. The AK47 was targeted but the Ruger Mini 14 was exempted. The two weapons are the same caliber, magazine capacity, size, etc.. Past legislation which focused on machine guns and submachine guns was successful because it dealt with an entire class of weapons. The Roberti/Roos Act attempts to make distinctions between weapons in the same class (semi-automatic).

* Too many people were adding or subtracting weapons from the legislation.

* Most if not all of the principal players in crafting the legislation had absolutely no knowledge of firearms.

* Most of the weapons on the list are low production or long out of production items that constitute absolutely no conceivable threat.

* No data collection mechanism was built into the legislation to provide data for objective decisions concerning possible future additions or deletions.

* The ongoing diversity and inconsistency of legal opinions: For example, in May 1989 Deputy Legislative Counsel Thomas Heuer opined that the Norinco 56MS (an AK 47 variant) which Purdy used was not covered by the bill Attachment 4).

...

A lot of people worked very hard to make the Roberti/Roos Act successful. Those with some knowledge of firearms felt the task was an impossibility. Those with little or no knowledge of the subject were ever emboldened. As Montaingue said, "Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known." The more our staff has worked with the legislation the more confused they have become. How the average cop on the beat or Joe "SixPack" who owns one of the weapons will ever figure it all out escapes me.

There is no simple fix. Publication of a manual for public or law enforcement use will require that we reach some yet unreached conclusion about which weapons are covered.

We can effectively control all semiautomatic weapons or leave them all alone. What I don't think we can accomplish is proper implementation of a vague and ambiguous law.

* * * * * * * * *
So, because the NRA and likewise the CRPA, sat on the sidelines, we ended up with a lot of our currently bad laws. And a group of politicians emboldened to enact more. Yes, this is past history. But by your measure they do not deserve support because of past acts. And this is not intended as an attack on those organizations, but only a recitation of past history.
__________________
I don't care what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner. Stupid Idiot will suffice, after all, it's only words.

You must define something before you can understand it.

Want to Sell: SW357V - (LA)
Magazines (AR-15 Kits), Contender Barrels and other I am selling
.22 WMR
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:42 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 kcbrown View Post
How are you going to be able to counter the opposition without supporting the arguments that were used by the circuit court to arrive at the decision it did?
You defend those arguments, and in the alternative you make you other arguments. The Supreme court can mind in your favor based on either, or on arguments from amicus (the latter is what happened in Heller by the way).


Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Yes, they do, but I'm skeptical that competent ones will when they're attempting to achieve a larger strategic goal as is the case for the fight for the 2nd Amendment.
Actually, the competent ones will do just that. Use all the arguments they have. For example: Because 2A is a Fundamental right you must apply strict scrutiny, based on.... and therefore..... However, if you apply intermediate scrutiny we will still prevail because ..... and finally even under rational basis this law must be struck down because.....

That is how a good lawyer argues.
__________________
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
  #317  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:46 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 wildhawker View Post
How could you possibly be certain about this without either [a] having unauthorized access to Foundation data or [b] having access to attorney-client privileged data or [c] you're an/the attorney of record and unethically breaching confidentiality here?

If CGF did not 'help' Theseus, what do you call payments we made to counsel on Clayton's behalf, then?

-Brandon
I posted the quote of Gene saying he would not help Theseus financially. CGN, with private individuals, still stepped up and raised funds for Theseus, just like we did before the Foundation existed. If GeneThe Foundation changed it's mind later made some payment for Theseus, that's great but it does not change my point.
__________________
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
  #318  
Old 03-05-2013, 2:52 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 bussda View Post
Before that event, there was no bashing of either group except for some individuals with an agenda.
I think you have some points in other parts of your post, but this is flat out false.

Quote:
Yes, this is past history. But by your measure they do not deserve support because of past acts.
I'm certainly not saying the NRA/CRPA are or were perfect. And I never said groups don't deserve support because of past acts. In fact I've said if CGF could reform then I would wholeheartedly support them.
__________________
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
  #319  
Old 03-05-2013, 5:23 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Tincon: Are you suggesting that people give money to the NRA, SAF, or CRPA before giving their money to CGF? Is that generally what you are arguing for?
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 03-05-2013, 5:26 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 Apocalypsenerd View Post
Tincon: Are you suggesting that people give money to the NRA, SAF, or CRPA before giving their money to CGF? Is that generally what you are arguing for?
I'm more interested in seeing CGF fix their problems than seeing them defunded.
__________________
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
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 2:53 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.