|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
specifically so judges would not have to enforce the 14th as it was written. Be careful about placing too much weight on that particular bit of etherial nonsense. Push too hard and the actual, obvious, well-documented meaning of the 14th may actually become (once again) the law of the land. |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
As I have stated repeatedly in the past, FGG does lend us a hand. He writes
well and provides typical abrasive statist arguments. If we cannot deal with his issues here in this forum, we cannot possibly hope to deal with others presenting similar ideas in actual courtrooms. |
#284
|
||||
|
||||
I think FGG provides better than the typical statist nonesense. His arguments, though manipulative and subversive to the spirit of the law, are well reasoned and rational when taken in context of the legal muck and mire our nation finds itself in.
__________________
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 |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This argument scares me. It is just as easy for the state to say that just because you have a single shot .22 at home does not mean you are properly equipped to go on a mass murder rampage in a crowded mall, a task more suited to a modern semi automatic handgun or rifle which you can now cash and carry. Thoughts? |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
Wait for it.
What really jerks my chain is having to wait 10 days and pay a DROS fee to recover a firearm left on consignment sale at a dealer. This firearm is already my property, yet the state is essentially confiscating it until I pay the ransom and wait for them to give permission to continue ownership. Especially given that I possess other firearms, a waiting period is senseless.
If the concern is any new criminal disqualifications on my part, then there are much less inconvenient means to process such inquiries. It seems to me that all states should be forced to use the instant background check as the least intrusive method. I await the results with great expectations. |
#287
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The colonies were founded by the english giving charter more often then not to english companies. The independent colonies formed their own government before the revolution. Obviously after the revolution some things changed in those government (excluding british rule, etc.) The colonies realized for their own good, they should form a pact among themselves due to common interests, security, etc. This was the articles of confederation. That document laid out what was best handled by a central government, and all other power was retained by the states, as each states government was more in line with the will of its inhabitants. The articles were found lacking, and in order to form a more perfect union between the states, the constitution was created. No where in the constitution does it talk about "people created the state to secure the rights of the people" Since ours is a representative form of government, we vote people who's view point is as close to our own as we can find and then entrust them to enact laws in line with our shared beliefs. Since the this is stated filled with anti 2A lib-tards, the politicians are doing the will of the people that elected them. The system "system" is functioning as designed. Doesn't mean what they are doing is right, legal, or constitutional. That's why we have to fight it. But your premise that the state "can't dictate what laws we have (your definition of "rights")" on at the state level is incorrect. As for the state not having a reason to argue for this idiotic, bass awkwards law, "because its the will of the people (people will vote for me because they are too stupid to see it makes no sense), is all the justification the power grabbers need to want to fight us.
__________________
"personal security, personal liberty, and private property"--could not be maintained solely by law, for "in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment." - William Blackstone |
#288
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Granted, some people just go off and want to take out the entire company they work for, for i believe the law came about because of things like girl friend brakes guys heart, so he kills her/guy finds girl cheating/gets fired and wants to kill his boss..... impulse things like that. So in a single execution scenario, it doesn't matter what weapon. I think the entire premise is false though. If someone is so pissed they are driven to actual murder, i'd think they'd wait the 10 days, just stewing and end up in worse rage 10 days later.
__________________
"personal security, personal liberty, and private property"--could not be maintained solely by law, for "in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment." - William Blackstone |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." |
#290
|
||||
|
||||
Great. This makes so much sense, it will have to fail initially.
__________________
WARNING: This post will most likely contain statements that are offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense, and or maturity. Satire: A literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule. _____________________________________________ |
#291
|
||||
|
||||
"We THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order TO ... SECURE the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION for the United States of America."
|
#294
|
||||
|
||||
The argument for no wait after first purchase is related to self-defense.
Sure, must of us gun enthusiasts want more guns. And it would be very satisfying to walk out of the store the same day with our new purchase. However, the argument that waiving the 10-day for each purchase after the first to preserve the right to self defense is, your 'first' or 'all' of you weapons could be out for repair. Maybe they were all stolen or lost in a fire. Heck, most Calgunners seem to be terrible boaters because they are always losing their guns in the water. If your gun that you trust your life on suddenly becomes unreliable, broken, stolen, out for repairs.... wouldn't you want the ability to make another purchase and be able to protect yourself immediately? |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
I can armchair quarter back all I want, and i'm not a lawyer, but I am hoping after the nth 10 day ban is overturned that our good legal team will go after the first ten days too, simply due to the fact that denying someone access to their first form of self defense for ten days is blatantly unconstitutional.
|
#296
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You showed intent to kill by: buying the gun, waiting 10 days, and THEN going on your killing spree. It may be considered to be a state interest (by the state) to eliminate potential defenses like 'crime of passion'.
__________________
Life SAF Member Life GOA Member EFF Member x7 |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The whole concept of a law preventing someone from murdering someone is just weak. If laws stopped crime, there wouldn't be any. |
#298
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#299
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Not sure what the legal definition is, but many of us think of crime as being a violation of the criminal code. If this is the case, then criminal law actually results in criminal behavior (since if there were no criminal code there could not be violations of the criminal code). But I actually think it is reasonably accepted that having a reasonable criminal code paired with enforcement does deter/stop a lot of violent and very nasty behavior. |
#300
|
||||
|
||||
Strong arguments exist for the plaintiffs, but this is not an open and shut case.
While I hope the plaintiff prevails, lets see what the State might argue. 1. Even though the plaintiff already owns and carries a gun, maybe those are broken and he's buying the new one that works so he can kill someone immediately after purchase. 2. He's buying the gun for his friend who wants to kill someone, thus waiting will result in the friend cooling off. 3. If 10 days is too long, 5 is still constitutional. These aren't great arguments, in fact they have plenty of holes, but we will surely see every argument the State can imagine. Maybe the Court will rule that the 10 day wait doesn't apply to CCW holders, like the plaintiff, but it still applies to all others. Good luck, your efforts are very appreciated!
__________________
|
#301
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#302
|
||||
|
||||
In California, during my lifetime, the wait on handguns was as long as 15 days. It was reduced over time and long arms (previously cash and carry) were later subjected to the standardized 10 day wait.
A short, but interesting, read on point came from Clayton Cramer in the early 1990's when the wait for a handgun was still fifteen days. It might be kind of illustrative to the discussion if his data points were brought forward from 1990 to current day and see just how the murder rate has been affected by waiting periods.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served. Quote:
|
#303
|
||||
|
||||
they won't lose money on dros ,they will still charge that. however, the feds already do a background check on the purchaser and the dros is not necesarry because the feds do it for free.
|
#304
|
||||
|
||||
You won't get rid of the state fees. Other states steal money for what the feds do without charge too. The amount of theft varies; in Nevada it's $25 for no reason other than an extra tax.
__________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. --River Tam |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, of course. Difference is how easy we make it for the prosecutor to shoot that argument/defense down.
__________________
Life SAF Member Life GOA Member EFF Member x7 |
#307
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You are responsible for the consequences your actions. Period. The only way you should get off of a full murder charge for killing someone (when it wasn't self defense, defense of others, or maybe, depending on your point of view, defense of property) is if you somehow killed them unexpectedly, e.g. you hit them with your fist once in exactly the right way that it killed them. And while that should wind up being something other than murder entirely, you are still responsible for the consequences of your actions. The use of an obviously deadly weapon takes the "unexpectedly" out of the equation entirely. Passion should have nothing to do with it. Whether you intend to kill someone as a result of your own rage or for some other premeditated reason should be entirely irrelevant -- your intent was to kill without sufficient justification. That strikes me as murder no matter how you slice it. And that means the state has no business attempting to differentiate between the two, and it certainly has no business infringing on someone's right to keep and bear arms when they need to do so now, just to reduce the odds a little that someone might use the firearm in a fit of rage. Indeed, I would argue that the act of going to the gun store and buying the firearm takes sufficient time and effort (even sans the 10 day wait) that someone who subsequently uses the newly-purchased firearm to kill someone did so with premeditation.
__________________
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. |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
Whether or not it makes sense to you and I, the law on that is not going to change much anytime soon.
The key point is not what you or I might think is right. The key is how courts will interpret the situation and the relevant law. |
#309
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder Passion has everything to do with it. Not saying the state should meddle in here, but your argument would be better constructed if you understand how these two concepts work. |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
Well, they would only "need" to register the firearm, so they can charge $19, instead of $25 ?
|
#311
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The issue is not that we need to prove that we should be able to "XYZ" The issue is that the state must prove that there is an overwhelming benefit to society in maintaining the current laws. Actual statistics from 35+ states without waiting periods (and for that matter, with no registration, shall-issue, etc...) do not support that premise.
__________________
- Rich |
#312
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Since that's not how the state of law is, of course, no arguments that proceed on those assumptions can possibly work. And that's really the problem. Because the law is coded the way it is, courts will assume that the state has an interest and responsibility where it really shouldn't. That means we almost certainly will not win a case against the initial 10 day waiting period, and it also means that (IMO) the case against the subsequent 10 day waiting period is going to be an uphill battle (or, at least, more than it would otherwise be). But both are worth fighting anyway.
__________________
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; 12-28-2011 at 5:33 PM.. |
#313
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Further, there is still no "we establish states so we can have rights" text. Further still, the preamble is solely speaking to ESTABLISHING CONSTITUTION. The REASON for the establishment was to create a more perfect union between the states/correct deficiencies in the Articles of confederation. The reason they were able to create the articles, and constitution was because they secured liberty from the crown. The bill of rights, wasn't added until 3 years later.
__________________
"personal security, personal liberty, and private property"--could not be maintained solely by law, for "in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment." - William Blackstone |
#314
|
||||
|
||||
they would call the 6 dollar differance a transission tax, thats so they can spend the money to update software. they will not lower any fee period.
|
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Let's take the report a year or so ago of the pharmacist who defended himself when his pharmacy was robbed and, when the robber was (IMHO) stopped, the pharmacist pumped a round or two into his head? The odds that the pharmacist will ever again exhibit that kind of behavior are near zero - but it would not surprise me if he was convicted of 2nd degree murder. This is a very different kind of mind-set than someone who carefully planned out and executed a murder plot against someone they did not like. The odds that someone who behaved in this manner will murder again seem pretty high. I think the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder is a valid one but likely imperfectly applied. FWIW |
#316
|
||||
|
||||
We're getting a bit side-tracked here, but I think the alternative argument is more likely: those who are "predisposed" to quick and lethal [unjustified] violence are more likely to unlawfully employ lethal force again than someone who (non-commercially) methodically plans to murder someone else (operating on the presumption that the incentive to apply lethal force is removed once the the murderer achieves his desired outcome).
-Brandon
__________________
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. |
#317
|
||||
|
||||
Far afield indeed.
The government will defend its position by asserting that showing present registration of a gun doesn't mean that it is operable, in ones possession or fit for ones needs. The waiting period protects society by allowing folks, who surely exist, who seek to purchase a gun for an ill purpose to reconsider. It gives law enforcement a chance to be alerted. It gives the state additional time to delve into historical data on applicants which may not be available in the NICs system. The waiting period whose existence barely implicates the 2A serves the valuable societal goal of preventing and deterring violence. |
#318
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Fortunately for our side, with the overwhelming majority of states being no-wait and having the dreaded "gun show loophole", they probably won't be able to show statistically relevant data points.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki Quote:
|
#319
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But the question is do they actually look at the history of said purchasers? If they don't then it's a moot point. How can you argue that you're going to loose the ability to do something if you've never done it before and don't have plans on doing it now?
__________________
NRA Member SAF Member Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|