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
  #401  
Old 03-01-2018, 1:32 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,617
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
At this point, there is only one primary legitimate reason for continuing to file cases: anticipation of a significant compositional change in the Supreme Court.
Which is a good idea at this point. We have liberal justices in their 80s. Having cases ready to ask for cert when one of the liberals "retires" is a reasonable strategy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That said, failure to successfully challenge laws runs the risk of those laws becoming "longstanding" and, thus, being bootstrapped into Constitutionality even in the face of a "conservative" court, so there comes a point where there's no real alternative but to challenge the law. ...
That's also true. And we may get circuit level wins like we did in DC. The composition of the 9th may change too and we might win en bancs there if Trump can fill the vacancies. And finally, it's better for our psychology to take action than to do nothing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 04-08-2018, 4:26 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,594
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Well, I certainly realize that you always had faith in that argument. But interestingly enough, I didn't regard it as being a faith-based argument in the beginning, or even until relatively recently. Absent evidence to the contrary, it always had some plausibility, because it was just an interpretation of Heller like so many others (not the most well-supported interpretation, to be sure, but not entirely implausible, either).

The difference between now and before is that we do have evidence, in the form of Thomas' dissent to denial of cert in Peruta and most especially the way Norman was denied cert without so much as a comment in protest. The former cast grave doubt on the argument. The latter put a stake through its heart. Once you have substantial evidence like that against an argument, continued belief in that argument requires faith that overrides evidence and logic, thus making it "faith-based". But it's not until the point where the evidence refutes the (otherwise plausible) argument that it can legitimately be regarded as "faith-based".

So you shouldn't feel bad, at all, for getting behind the argument! Most certainly, both state courts and even the earlier Supreme Court (see Baldwin) insisted that open carry is the only protected mode of carry under the 2nd Amendment and other equivalent state provisions, so it's not like there isn't any plausibility to that interpretation. Indeed, it was sufficiently plausible that an entire case (Norman) was essentially dedicated to it. It's just that courts are political before they are anything else, so the end result is going to be whatever the players on the court want it to be, and nothing else. It's now clear that the players don't like open carry and don't want to explicitly protect it (indeed, it looks like they don't want to, as a group, protect anything at all except for poor homeless women wielding nonlethal weapons).

I must agree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
At this point, there is only one primary legitimate reason for continuing to file cases: anticipation of a significant compositional change in the Supreme Court.

That said, failure to successfully challenge laws runs the risk of those laws becoming "longstanding" and, thus, being bootstrapped into Constitutionality even in the face of a "conservative" court, so there comes a point where there's no real alternative but to challenge the law. Once a law becomes "longstanding", equivalent laws that are passed in other jurisdictions later will inherit that "longstanding" attribute. So we have to challenge those laws before that happens, regardless of the judicial climate.

Agreed. As I agree with what ccfacts had to say as well.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 04-17-2018, 9:51 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,617
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Paladin referred me to this picture of the brilliant litigator Mr. Nichols:



He did clearly state in his filings that he would be open carrying loaded guns at certain locations on a certain schedule.

The FB post is from March of this year. I wonder how the police are avoiding arresting him. I guess it's a misdemeanor and they have discretion on that? Not sure.
__________________

Last edited by CCWFacts; 04-17-2018 at 11:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 04-17-2018, 12:27 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,971
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

what a jagaloon
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 04-17-2018, 3:30 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So cops have no discretion with felonies correct?
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 04-17-2018, 3:45 PM
Nick Justice's Avatar
Nick Justice Nick Justice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 1,987
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
So cops have no discretion with felonies correct?
Not exactly. The police don't have to arrest anyone, or even come to your aid when you call (Warren v. DC). The DA does not have to prosecute anyone. The gov't does not have to provide police departments at all (CA GOV Code Sec 845).

All the lawsuits from the LA riots, claiming that no officers responded to help, were dismissed.

Where are the lawsuits against the Broward County Sheriff, Parkland Police, for failing to stop that guy?

How about lawsuits against the police departments for failing to stop Aurora CO? Newtown CT? Stockton... San Bernardino... Columbine... Seal Beach... North Hollywood... Las Vegas...

120,000 + gang members in Los Angeles....

???
__________________
It doesn't matter how scary, ugly, uncomfortable, or inconvenient self defense can be. Like it or not, you will never, ever be relieved of your duty and responsibility to defend your life, your family, your country and your freedom.

How much ammo do I need? Enough to last me the rest of my life, and then lot more for later.

The government does not come knocking at your door. It comes knocking down your door.
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 04-18-2018, 11:52 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
what a jagaloon
It's actually pretty brilliant when you think about it. What is the Gov going to do, arrest him? That'll look great on his appeal to SCOTUS - retaliatory arrest for challenging the OC ban. Yet, if they DON'T arrest him, what does that do for his equal protection argument? Finally, what does it say about having to sue the Gov in order to be free from arrest for exercising your Constitutional Rights.

Is it theater? Yes, but very good theater.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 04-18-2018, 3:29 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,971
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

You may have a point!
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 04-18-2018, 10:54 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,617
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
It's actually pretty brilliant when you think about it.
No sorry it's autistic. He will not achieve anything with this. IANAL so I don't understand the specifics but in a crim. case he will need an attorney and his attorney won't base his defense on the RKBA. He is not going to use a crim. case to defend the RKBA. And Nichols isn't an attorney and he is obviously incompetent. Have you READ his briefs? They are incoherent. I don't know if a judge in a criminal trial would even allow him to represent himself or make those arguments.

He's not the first person who has violated California's carry laws.

IANAL but I'm not a fool enough to think I can manage a complex legal case on constitutional issues. I don't even represent myself when I get a traffic ticket. I hire someone who is good at it, and the only thing at stake with that is a traffic ticket for me personally, not the RKBA of an entire state or the 9th circuit or please forbid, the entire US.

I hope he "wins the lottery" and "retires".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 04-19-2018, 6:22 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Didn't his case get vacated? What are you all still doing here?
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 04-19-2018, 4:16 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Didn't his case get vacated? What are you all still doing here?
His case was stayed pending Peruta. Since then the case was argued and submitted, decision "pending."
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 04-19-2018, 6:21 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,844
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
No sorry it's autistic. He will not achieve anything with this. IANAL so I don't understand the specifics but in a crim. case he will need an attorney and his attorney won't base his defense on the RKBA. He is not going to use a crim. case to defend the RKBA. And Nichols isn't an attorney and he is obviously incompetent. Have you READ his briefs? They are incoherent. I don't know if a judge in a criminal trial would even allow him to represent himself or make those arguments.

He's not the first person who has violated California's carry laws.

IANAL but I'm not a fool enough to think I can manage a complex legal case on constitutional issues. I don't even represent myself when I get a traffic ticket. I hire someone who is good at it, and the only thing at stake with that is a traffic ticket for me personally, not the RKBA of an entire state or the 9th circuit or please forbid, the entire US.

I hope he "wins the lottery" and "retires".
That's funny...I find his briefs and FRAPs to be very coherent until . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. . . he has to cite directly CA statutes / codes with all its parts, subsections, exclusions, exceptions, and previous decisions by CA9 and other levels / branches of the Federal courts.

=8-P
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 04-20-2018, 1:18 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,265
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
His case was stayed pending Peruta. Since then the case was argued and submitted, decision "pending."
Stayed pending Young, not Peruta (although an easy mistake since a ton of cases were stayed pending Peruta).

Young was ahead in the pecking order, and got the better panel, so Nichols will likely be the benefactor.
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 10:32 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.