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
  #161  
Old 03-10-2017, 12:09 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 867
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Obviously I wear a suit when I am appearing in court but I show up to see my friends argue when they have a big case all the time. I just wear my street cloths. Trust me the judges don't care. If its a trial court I might get a smile or a nod if I know them. Most of the time these people don't take any notice at all at who is there much less how they are dressed.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 03-10-2017, 9:28 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,332
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Say you don't wear a provocative t shirt but don't dress up as an observer but stay silent/non provocative.

What's going to happen? The judge who was pro gun will decide if you're too slovenly to wear a tie he'll decide differently just to spite us? If a judge was on the fence, the sight of an untied collar will decide the case? And given the animus of the 9th, and our proven history of en banc courts in guns, you really think there's enough of a margin an unadorned collar will make the difference?
The Left/antis are always say folks on the Right are hicks, yahoos, uneducated, unintelligent, unsophisticated, "clinging to guns & religion" (as Obama said), etc. Do not reinforce that stereotype.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Or the court will grind to a halt, and a judge will order you ejected? Fined? Imprisoned? Lashed? For having the audacity to wear a striped collared shirt with a collar button undone while remaining silent as an observer, in the 3rd row?


Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Look, I respect you paladin, and if you have superstition or whatever- just tell me and ask me to respect that and you'll get a lot further. As is, it seems like you're asking me to take FUD as verifiable proven facts, which I reflexively reject.
Courts are SUPPOSED to be non-partisian and even non-political and that's why most judges do not "run for office" against other candidates (although some are required to win elections to remain on the bench ("Goodbye, Justice (Rose?) Bird!")). Courts refer to the Executive and Legislative branches as "the political branches" and they do NOT refer to themselves or consider themselves political. If you want to make a POLITICAL statement, do it OUTSIDE of the courtroom afterwards. But even there, don't do it by wearing a John Deere hat and cammies, do it by your intelligent statements/arguments and by your professional appearance.

Just because something is permitted does not mean it is wise to do. Rather, that liberty gives each person room to show themselves as wise or foolish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
The evidence you cite is from a LAWYER. Darn right anytime I'm BEFORE a judge I'll dress to the nines. But there is no evidence I'm aware of, or has been presented to me, about doing anything as an observer short of Manson family behavior that will create a problem.
Like I said: don't do ANYTHING to leave ANYONE with a bad impression of 2nd A advocates/gunnies. Be a "credit" to our position, esp before an en banc panel of federal judges.

The question I have for you is why would you want to do otherwise?

(out of here until tonight)
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-10-2017 at 9:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 03-10-2017, 9:38 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The Left/antis are always say folks on the Right are hicks, yahoos, uneducated, unintelligent, unsophisticated, "clinging to guns & religion" (as Obama said), etc. Do not reinforce that stereotype.
I used to agree, but in California, that battle is lost. Coupled with Richard Spencer dressing white supremacy up in suits and being a cultural phenomenon right now, suits hold less protective power of "right wing ideology" these days especially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
No, totally serious! What marginal difference does a collared shirt WITHOUT a tie make?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Courts are SUPPOSED to be non-partisian and even non-political and that's why most judges do not "run for office" against other candidates (although some are required to win elections to remain on the bench ("Goodbye, Justice (Rose?) Bird!")). Courts refer to the Executive and Legislative branches as "the political branches" and they do NOT refer to themselves or consider themselves political. If you want to make a POLITICAL statement, do it OUTSIDE of the courtroom afterwards. But even there, don't do it by wearing a John Deere hat and cammies, do it by your intelligent statements/arguments and by your professional appearance.
Again, you strawman. I was NOT planning on wearing cammies and a john deere hat- I would have to buy both first to even contemplate doing so. I'm talking street clothes. As for the 9th being non-political- yeah, I know you said "supposed", but I'm done respecting or pretending they are. No, that doesn't mean I'm dressing in tea party garb, but showing deference or respect where unnecessary? Yeah, no thanks, I don't dress up and act like an organ grinder monkey for a master who has nothing but contempt for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Just because something is permitted does not mean it is wise to do. Rather, that liberty gives each person room to show themselves as wise or foolish.
Yes, and dressing up very nicely to have my face spit in with no sympathetic press to show my photo to galvanize support for civil rights means I just ruin a suit with no upside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Like I said: don't do ANYTHING to leave ANYONE with a bad impression of 2nd A advocates/gunnies. Be a "credit" to our position.

The question I have for you is why would you want to do otherwise?

(out of here until tonight)
Simple. Suits are dry clean only. Ties don't let you go out drinking and relax. You either pull the tie loose, which is bad for the tie and still presents your tie as a target to get ruined, or you have to have your car to stash stuff in, which then presents a target to get broken into in the glorious crime-free utopia of San Francisco. Ties are generally uncomfortable, and so I only wear when it has benefit FOR ME.

Some people say, "no glove, no love".

I say, "No benefit, no tie".
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 03-10-2017, 10:21 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,372
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Good heavens!

If you don't want to wear a tie, don't. Clean shirt with a collar.

I'd suggest better-than-bowling-team-shirt, if you have such.

I suspect, as wolfwood has reported, court officers don't really care about appearance in the gallery. Behavior, OTOH, will be noticed.

Also, for those going, no CCW - the court will not let you in, and they will not check your weapon, unless you are LEO. Further, plan to check your knives; those can't come in, either, but they will hold them and give you a receipt.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 03-10-2017, 8:32 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,332
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Again, you strawman. I was NOT planning on wearing cammies and a john deere hat- I would have to buy both first to even contemplate doing so. I'm talking street clothes.
ANYTHING passes for "street clothes nowadays, esp in SF, so I literally have NO IDEA what you mean. So, Deere cap and cammies isn't a strawman. Some people do wear those as "street clothes." Street clothes in the Embarcadero and street clothes in South of Mission are a world apart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
As for the 9th being non-political- yeah, I know you said "supposed", but I'm done respecting or pretending they are. No, that doesn't mean I'm dressing in tea party garb, but showing deference or respect where unnecessary? Yeah, no thanks, I don't dress up and act like an organ grinder monkey for a master who has nothing but contempt for me.

Yes, and dressing up very nicely to have my face spit in with no sympathetic press to show my photo to galvanize support for civil rights means I just ruin a suit with no upside.
Have any CGNers had someone spit in their face when showing up at CA9 in SF? Or are you speaking figuratively?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Simple. Suits are dry clean only. Ties don't let you go out drinking and relax. You either pull the tie loose, which is bad for the tie and still presents your tie as a target to get ruined, or you have to have your car to stash stuff in, which then presents a target to get broken into in the glorious crime-free utopia of San Francisco. Ties are generally uncomfortable, and so I only wear when it has benefit FOR ME.
I guess you are actually afraid of getting spit at.

I can only speak for me. If I were to attend, I'd dress business casual, at least. I would not wear "Wear NRA or other pro-2A gear" or a "molon labe t shirt", OTHER than possibly a NRA lapel pin. The numbers, dress and deportment of supporters for both sides leaves a better impression than message T-shirts.

Like I said, the courts are supposed to be non-political. If you're not wearing those items to impress the judges, who are you wearing them for??? I'd consider those "spit magnets" in SF.... IMO, wearing those in a federal appeals court, esp en banc, just makes it look like you're just trying to make a statement with your dress and that's exactly why you'd wear those.

Anyway, do what you want. I'll stop
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 03-14-2017, 10:53 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 867
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

this is looking so grim right now

2017-03-22 1:30 pm Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor Rm 338, James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco - En Banc
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT, McKEOWN, GOULD, PAEZ, BERZON, TALLMAN, BYBEE, BEA, WATFORD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 03-15-2017, 2:59 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
this is looking so grim right now

2017-03-22 1:30 pm Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor Rm 338, James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco - En Banc
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT, McKEOWN, GOULD, PAEZ, BERZON, TALLMAN, BYBEE, BEA, WATFORD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges
Those judges were appointed by:
Carter 1
Clinton 6
GW Bush 2
Obama 2

Hmmm. 9 to 2, Lib to possible Conserv.

Anyone have any doubt about the outcome? And I mean regardless of the arguments and legal precedents.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 03-15-2017, 3:11 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Let me go dig out my shocked face

<rummage, rummage, rummage>

Hmm...

<rummage rummage>

Hmm...

<rummage>

"Well, I've gone through literally everything and haven't found it- except.."

*Finds box labeled, "only open in case of PRO-guns ruling from 9th Circuit, SCOTUS, and doubly so for 9th circuit en banc rulings*

*opens box*

Ah, here it is!



Wait, I don't think this was the right application...
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 03-17-2017, 5:09 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
Those judges were appointed by:
Carter 1
Clinton 6
GW Bush 2
Obama 2

Hmmm. 9 to 2, Lib to possible Conserv.

Anyone have any doubt about the outcome? And I mean regardless of the arguments and legal precedents.
No although the outcome may be closer than 9 to 2.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:22 AM
Xclusive Xclusive is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 55
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Anyone have a link for the live stream?
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 03-20-2017, 7:32 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 709
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I thought en banc oral arguments was today, 3/20, but the CA9 web site now shows Wednesday, 3/22... maybe they rescheduled?

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/calendar...?hearing=March - James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco&dates=13-17, 21-23&year=2017
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:19 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,372
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Good catch -
Quote:
2017-03-22 1:30 pm Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor Rm 338, James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco - En Banc
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT, McKEOWN, GOULD, PAEZ, BERZON, TALLMAN, BYBEE, BEA, WATFORD, and OWENS, Circuit Judges

Case No. Title Nature Origin Time / Side
13-17132 Civil N. CA 30 min

John Teixeira v. County of Alameda - John Teixeira and others appeal from the district court's dismissal of their action challenging an Alameda County Land Use Ordinance that restricts the location of gun stores within 500 feet of a residentially zoned district. [3:12-cv-03288-WHO] Civil N. CA 30 min
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:52 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,404
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just another 2 day delay between the en banc runling against us and getting this case to SCOTUS.

Why is it every 2a case in the 9th that goes our way initially gets an en banc and overturned? Is there any other topic before the 9th that has a similar record of wins and en-banc overturns?
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 03-22-2017, 1:48 AM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
Just another 2 day delay between the en banc runling against us and getting this case to SCOTUS.

Why is it every 2a case in the 9th that goes our way initially gets an en banc and overturned?
In a word? CORRUPTION !
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:00 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,332
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

3 1/2 hours until showtime!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:28 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,404
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This en banc is just a delay tactic between us and Scotus. We already know how the en banc will turn out, it's just a step we have to go through.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:39 AM
crimtide crimtide is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is there a live stream for this ?? If so anyone have a link ??

crimtide
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 03-22-2017, 11:12 AM
Spawn's Avatar
Spawn Spawn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Monrovia (LA County)
Posts: 619
iTrader: 0 / 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimtide View Post
Is there a live stream for this ?? If so anyone have a link ??

crimtide
The court's YouTube page is this

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeI...TpeA84wmSRPDPg

They're on at 1:30
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 03-22-2017, 1:18 PM
crimtide crimtide is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like this might be a better one to view the live stream..

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi...vid=0000011245

crimtide
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 03-22-2017, 1:28 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Go get 'em HokeySon!!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 03-22-2017, 2:14 PM
tbombaci's Avatar
tbombaci tbombaci is offline
some guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northern Kalifornistan
Posts: 132
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Seems we're keeping the Judge on the bottom left awake. o_0
__________________
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 03-22-2017, 2:16 PM
putput's Avatar
putput putput is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Thanks Otis, Thanks Alan!
Posts: 767
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbombaci View Post
Seems we're keeping the Judge on the bottom left awake. o_0
He obviously has a physical disability. Let's take the high road.
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 03-22-2017, 2:18 PM
tbombaci's Avatar
tbombaci tbombaci is offline
some guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northern Kalifornistan
Posts: 132
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by putput View Post
He obviously has a physical disability. Let's take the high road.
No high road needed. The guy is yawning and yawning. Also, I am not an idiot and can tell he is disabled.
__________________
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 03-22-2017, 2:34 PM
bellts's Avatar
bellts bellts is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Valley Center
Posts: 2,062
iTrader: 61 / 100%
Default

Awesome closing... fingers crossed.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 03-22-2017, 2:36 PM
MrKiltYou's Avatar
MrKiltYou MrKiltYou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: East Bay, CA
Posts: 200
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbombaci View Post
No high road needed. The guy is yawning and yawning. Also, I am not an idiot and can tell he is disabled.
I have actually watched a few unrelated to firearms video transcripts in which this judge was part of the panel and found that his "yawning" is a pretty common occurrence.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 03-22-2017, 2:45 PM
putput's Avatar
putput putput is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Thanks Otis, Thanks Alan!
Posts: 767
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbombaci View Post
No high road needed. The guy is yawning and yawning. Also, I am not an idiot and can tell he is disabled.
I apologize.

I'm sure then that without having mentioning the yawning, you can see how your comments could be misconstrued.

Take Care.
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 03-22-2017, 2:50 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,781
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Arguments from both sides were all over the place.

Other than that, Alameda says it's not potential to an all out ban and Kilmer says it is.

I fail to see the 2A argument where Kilmer says they are only arguing a zoning ordinance.

This problem may have been due to the original lawyer involved who is no longer part of the suit. (just a mild observation)
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 03-22-2017, 2:56 PM
putput's Avatar
putput putput is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Thanks Otis, Thanks Alan!
Posts: 767
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

I saw the "2A Two Step" being teed up. "This isn't a ban so it must be legal..."
__________________
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
- Claire Wolfe

Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 03-22-2017, 3:39 PM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 146
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The video was removed by the user. I cannot observe the arguments.

Is there another mirror?
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 03-22-2017, 3:50 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen One View Post
The video was removed by the user. I cannot observe the arguments.

Is there another mirror?
On youtube now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMEYEBXa-E0
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 03-22-2017, 5:05 PM
grandmasterub grandmasterub is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: SF Bay Area - Penninsula
Posts: 73
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Arguments from both sides were all over the place.

Other than that, Alameda says it's not potential to an all out ban and Kilmer says it is.

I fail to see the 2A argument where Kilmer says they are only arguing a zoning ordinance.

This problem may have been due to the original lawyer involved who is no longer part of the suit. (just a mild observation)
I felt the NRA guy was pretty bad, although I missed most of the beginning.

I never heard it said but I feel like just using a logical progression is the soundest argument.

To exercise the individual right to keep and bear, an individual must have access to procure arms. If the sale of arms can be regulated through zoning ordinances where is the reasonable limit, at which the burden on the individual becomes to great to be freely exercising their 2A right. Yes there may be gun stores 9 minutes away "in the county" but what stops the county from continually re-defining zoning ordinances until there are no legal zones, or only one legal zone, etc... How would the decision carry across to larger counties? Why should the proximity be the only defining characteristic? Does the 9th simply want these cases to keep coming back to them whenever the county takes another step?

There needs to be a reasonable limit on governmental regulation of sales relating your ability to exercise 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 03-22-2017, 5:15 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,781
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasterub View Post
I felt the NRA guy was pretty bad, although I missed most of the beginning.

I never heard it said but I feel like just using a logical progression is the soundest argument.

To exercise the individual right to keep and bear, an individual must have access to procure arms. If the sale of arms can be regulated through zoning ordinances where is the reasonable limit, at which the burden on the individual becomes to great to be freely exercising their 2A right. Yes there may be gun stores 9 minutes away "in the county" but what stops the county from continually re-defining zoning ordinances until there are no legal zones, or only one legal zone, etc... How would the decision carry across to larger counties? Why should the proximity be the only defining characteristic? Does the 9th simply want these cases to keep coming back to them whenever the county takes another step?

There needs to be a reasonable limit on governmental regulation of sales relating your ability to exercise 2A.
Don Kilmer did fine. The root of this case just seems a little convoluted from the beginning of the case.

One judge argues that the selling is not part of the right but then the deputy attorney says that infringing on the second via sales IS a violation of the 2A but not in THIS case your honor.

Strange arguments
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 03-22-2017, 5:39 PM
OCGun OCGun is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It was interesting to listen to this. Based on what I heard, the judges barely concede that Heller states the 2nd allows an individual the right to keep and bear arms "IN THE HOME", and people must be able to purchase weapons. They implied the 2nd doesn't cover the right to sell them which seems like a stretch to me, since someone has to sell in order for someone else to purchase.

Being able to drive 9 minutes to a store might not be a burden today, but what if that store closes? What is the distance when it does become a burden, and who determines that number? Do we all eventually have to drive to a state run gun store in Modoc County? Isn't that the model that Mexico uses to virtually eliminate their gun sales?
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 03-22-2017, 5:56 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Strange arguments indeed. I think Kilmer inherited this case from an attorney that was fired for incompetence. Fabio would know.

But seriously, does anyone have any illusions? Do you really think they'd go to the trouble of calling an en banc panel and OVERTURN the law? Right on the heels of DENYING an en banc on the travel ban- which has plenty of lefties like Dershowitz believing it's a bad ruling?

This was a foregone conclusion guys. The old line about black people is they "have to be twice as good to get half as much". We're in the same position, except the ratio might be even more skewed. Only a complete collapse of incompetence on the state's side, and absolute stellar performance on our part MAY save us.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 03-22-2017 at 5:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 03-22-2017, 6:31 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
I think Kilmer inherited this case from an attorney that was fired for incompetence. Fabio would know.
This was Kilmer's case from the beginning. So many problems with this case. Alameda's attorney was kicking a.s.s. big time in every way. Versus inviting the judges to drive by the location, jesus christ what was the point of that. And how hard was it to concede that yes, you don't a gun shop to do safety training. Someone help me out, what was the deal about waiver/alleging more facts? I'm drawing a blank on that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 03-22-2017, 6:50 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,789
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well. I make it a policy not to criticize people in public, especially if I don't understand underlying issues.

Honest question though: does anyone, especially actual lawyery types like Fabio, believe the 9th would ever find for us after specifically taking such a nothing-burger issue en banc? Can anyone point to evidence that we aren't past justice and completely into politics in the 9th?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 03-22-2017, 7:12 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,781
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
This was Kilmer's case from the beginning. So many problems with this case. Alameda's attorney was kicking a.s.s. big time in every way. Versus inviting the judges to drive by the location, jesus christ what was the point of that. And how hard was it to concede that yes, you don't a gun shop to do safety training. Someone help me out, what was the deal about waiver/alleging more facts? I'm drawing a blank on that.
Not sure why you think Alameda did so well. He conceded that that buying a gun falls under the 2A, he admitted that zoning laws COULD lead to a ban of guns via attrition due to ordinances and claimed at one point that sales are not protected. Which is it?

Kilmer seemed frustrated, probably said some things he shouldn't have (drive by's). Also brought up some points like abortion that the panel dismissed.

This was zoning zoning zoning. How many variances were given out, for what business and why/why not, were they issued.

Establish that then bring in the 2A as being oppressed.

But I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even qualified to post here. 😂
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 03-22-2017, 9:03 PM
HecklerNKoch HecklerNKoch is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 74
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Thank you for posting this. Exactly what I needed.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:28 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,554
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
This was Kilmer's case from the beginning. So many problems with this case. Alameda's attorney was kicking a.s.s. big time in every way. Versus inviting the judges to drive by the location, jesus christ what was the point of that. And how hard was it to concede that yes, you don't a gun shop to do safety training. Someone help me out, what was the deal about waiver/alleging more facts? I'm drawing a blank on that.
I not sure that I would say big time in every way, but he did seem better prepared and better organized. Of course, when viewing the oral arguments, I did not have the SAC in front if me to judge its adequacy. So, there is no way for me to judge if the county was correct that the complaint failed to properly alleged a claim upon which relief could be granted. If you have read it, what is your opinion? I do not know about the waiver aspect but it appears that Kilmer may have been given the option in the trial court to amend but declined.

Last edited by BAJ475; 03-22-2017 at 10:31 PM.. Reason: correct typo
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 03-23-2017, 7:56 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 867
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wish someone had called the government's lawyer on his reading of jackson. His analysis which is Jackson splits the Ninth with the 7th via Ezell has no weight. Jackson did not mention anything about being able to purchase outside the jurisdiction as part of the analysis to its holding. That maybe inferred that yes you can buy hollow points outside of San Fran but that is not part of the holdings analysis as to why intermediate scrutiny applies.
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 7:49 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.