BUY TICKETS NOW! CGF Lunch Following Arguments on Dec. 6

[bruss01]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

Richards v. Prieto (and Peruta and Baker...).

-Brandon

Thanks Brandon. I didn't realize we had any movement pending on that front. Good to know something is going forward!

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by bruss01

Thanks Brandon. I didn't realize we had any movement pending on that front. Good to know something is going forward!

Will we see you there?

[NoJoke]

Originally Posted by wildhawker

SFO.

-Brandon

I'm in, please reserve a seat.

Flying out of SD at 6am - hope to make it to court in time!
(could someone reserve a seat in the courthouse?)

[wash]

Get there early if you want to go to court.

I think the building was just named a historical landmark or something. So neat building, good case, and you'll know what everyone is talking about at the luncheon.

[nicki]

JD, put me down for one.

Nicki

[MudCamper]

Edit: Weather rearranged all my plans. I likely won't make it.

[HowardW56]

Count me in, conditionally... Plans can change depending on when my next grandson decided to make his grand entry....

[CitaDeL]

I do want to go.

Reliable transportation and funds may preempt this trip though.

Call it a definate 'maybe'.

[CapS]

I'm in.



Cap

[Gray Peterson]

Originally Posted by CitaDeL

I do want to go.

Reliable transportation and funds may preempt this trip though.

Call it a definate 'maybe'.

Greyhound may be a good idea. You could arrive in leave Redding at 9AM, arrive in San Fran Six PM, get a room somewhere, and then head to the courthouse.

[jdberger]

Originally Posted by C&Rtrader

Where do we sign up? Very interested

Ummm...here.

*****************

OAK is easy to fly into, also.

I prefer it, but that's because I'm an East Bay guy.

[jdberger]

Originally Posted by nicki

JD, put me down for one.

Nicki

Your ticket is paid for.

I'll cover you on this one to pay you back for tonight's events. Sorry about the mix-up.

[marcusrn]

Please count me in for one.

[Wojtek]

Alan Gura is such a badass.

[wolfwood]

Are the Michel & Associates people coming?

I know that anyone is invited but it would be cool if you gave them a direct invitation.

Obviously this is your deal but it would be real cool to me at least to get to meet all these people. It would be nice to see all these people in person.

I'm hoping some of the smart guys let me bounce some ideas off of them. With both groups in the room It'd be a great opportunity to learn about how you guys plan things out and depending who's there the interplay between legislative and litigious efforts

[die2surf]

I'm in for 3 please.

[fiddletown]

Put me down for one.

[thedrickel]

One

[Funtimes]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Are the Michel & Associates people coming?

I know that anyone is invited but it would be cool if you gave them a direct invitation.

Obviously this is your deal but it would be real cool to me at least to get to meet all these people. It would be nice to see all these people in person.

I'm hoping some of the smart guys let me bounce some ideas off of them. With both groups in the room It'd be a great opportunity to learn about how you guys plan things out and depending who's there the interplay between legislative and litigious efforts

I see that happening when hell freezes over.

[taperxz]

I'll be there.

[BRoss]

Count me in.

[ivanimal]

Im in.

[Window_Seat]

Originally Posted by BRoss

Count me in.

BRoss, I met you at the GRPC in Florida, it will be very cool to see you at the arguments!

Erik.

[fizux]

Count me in.

Any ideas on a lunch spot yet? I am within walking distance, so I can help with suggestions or arrangements.

[Fish]

Wow, I can actually make this one. Past time I met some of y'all in person. One for me, please, it's on my calendar.

[Window_Seat]

Originally Posted by fizux

Count me in.

Any ideas on a lunch spot yet? I am within walking distance, so I can help with suggestions or arrangements.

Likely to be in SF near the Courthouse, but we will know for sure as the Oral Argument date gets closer.

Erik.

[jdberger]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

Are the Michel & Associates people coming?

I know that anyone is invited but it would be cool if you gave them a direct invitation.

Obviously this is your deal but it would be real cool to me at least to get to meet all these people. It would be nice to see all these people in person.

I'm hoping some of the smart guys let me bounce some ideas off of them. With both groups in the room It'd be a great opportunity to learn about how you guys plan things out and depending who's there the interplay between legislative and litigious efforts

They've been invited. I reached out on Friday. Chuck know's that he's always welcome at Foundation events.

Originally Posted by fizux

Count me in. Any ideas on a lunch spot yet? I am within walking distance, so I can help with suggestions or arrangements.

I'm always happy to take suggestions.

[Davidwhitewolf]

I'm in for one!

[fizux]

Originally Posted by jdberger

I'm always happy to take suggestions.

How many seats do you think we will need?

[stingray4540]

Sorry for the stupid question. But, what is expected to happen at this? A decision on the may/shall issue, uh, issue? Or just arguments for/against?

Just trying to get an idea of what I'd be getting myself into if I decided to go. And what I'd be getting someone else into if I talked them into joining me. I know nothing about courts or lawsuits, or law for that matter...

[fizux]

Originally Posted by stingray4540

Sorry for the stupid question. But, what is expected to happen at this? A decision on the may/shall issue, uh, issue? Or just arguments for/against?

Just trying to get an idea of what I'd be getting myself into if I decided to go. And what I'd be getting someone else into if I talked them into joining me. I know nothing about courts or lawsuits, or law for that matter...

Just oral arguments. Written decision will follow in two weeks.

[DarkSoul]

Im in for 1, please mark me down.

[NoJoke]

Originally Posted by fizux

Just oral arguments.

This.
BUT, listen to other oral arguments posted here - it's extremely interesting to listen to. Kinda gives you a glimpse into the minds of those who make the decisions.

[stingray4540]

Originally Posted by fizux

Just oral arguments. Written decision will follow in two weeks.

Originally Posted by NoJoke

This.
BUT, listen to other oral arguments posted here - it's extremely interesting to listen to. Kinda gives you a glimpse into the minds of those who make the decisions.

So this is the last argument and we could be "shall issue" by the end of the year?! OMG, I thought when I moved back here from Ohio, I was giving up my rights for the rest of my life. So happy I could cry!

Have any links to the arguments up to this point?
I gotta try to go to this, just a matter if I can get my wife and brother to join me.

[fizux]

Originally Posted by stingray4540

So this is the last argument and we could be "shall issue" by the end of the year?! OMG, I thought when I moved back here from Ohio, I was giving up my rights for the rest of my life. So happy I could cry!

Have any links to the arguments up to this point?
I gotta try to go to this, just a matter if I can get my wife and brother to join me.

Even if Mr. Gura was writing the opinion, don't expect this to be the end of the road to victory. Factor in time for en banc + SCOTUS appeal + Chicago-style passing of new statutes/ordinances designed to inhibit exercise of rights, etc.

Status:
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/

[edsel6502]

In like Flynn.

[stingray4540]

Originally Posted by fizux

Even if Mr. Gura was writing the opinion, don't expect this to be the end of the road to victory. Factor in time for en banc + SCOTUS appeal + Chicago-style passing of new statutes/ordinances designed to inhibit exercise of rights, etc.

Status:
http://michellawyers.com/guncasetrac...rutavsandiego/

Oh, please stop talking, you're making my head hurt... Oh well, at least it looks like it's a possibility in my lifetime!
California, It's a love/hate relationship.

[Window_Seat]

Today the Appellees filed 2 pages of supplemental authority notice citing cases, two of which are pending a holding in at least 2 Appeals Courts - Peterson v. Martinez (CA10) and Moore v. Madigan (CA7).

It appears that they are in a bit of desperation mode as this looks like more of a Hail Mary pass with no receiver in the end zone and careless mistakes that would promote any arm chair quarterback.

***EDIT***

It's interesting that they don't cite Woollard

Erik.

[NoJoke]

Originally Posted by Window_Seat

Today the Appellees filed 2 pages of supplemental authority notice citing cases, two of which are pending a holding in at least 2 Appeals Courts - Peterson v. Martinez (CA10) and Moore v. Madigan (CA7).

It appears that they are in a bit of desperation mode as this looks like more of a Hail Mary pass with no receiver in the end zone and careless mistakes that would promote any arm chair quarterback.

***EDIT***

It's interesting that they don't cite Woollard

Erik.

Interesting: "....revocation of a concealed weapon carry permit did not burden a core Second Amendment right and was thus presumptively lawful"

Also, seemed to want to really push intermediate scrutiny.

[HowardW56]

Originally Posted by Window_Seat

Today the Appellees filed 2 pages of supplemental authority notice citing cases, two of which are pending a holding in at least 2 Appeals Courts - Peterson v. Martinez (CA10) and Moore v. Madigan (CA7).

It appears that they are in a bit of desperation mode as this looks like more of a Hail Mary pass with no receiver in the end zone and careless mistakes that would promote any arm chair quarterback.

***EDIT***

It's interesting that they don't cite Woollard

Erik.

I find it interesting that this is the first time I have seen the mention of certification of the question to the Supreme Court in a 2A case.

Gura Letter: However, if the Court desires additional guidance,the correct procedure is not to enter a decision, but to certify a question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2).