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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-31-2010, 10:43 AM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,543
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default WSJ: 'Heller’s Offspring: A Look at the New Generation of Gun-Control Suits'

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/30/...control-suits/

Quote:
By Vanessa O'Connell
These are the offspring of Heller:

A woman contends her small stature makes her an appealing target for criminals but says she was turned down for a concealed-carry handgun permit by the Sacramento County sheriff.

A Californian man, born without an arm below the right elbow, argues that the state’s roster of “approved” handguns precludes him from being able to buy a left-handed Glock.

An American man who now lives in Canada would like to purchase guns in the U.S. to store at his relatives’ home in Mount Vernon, Ohio, to use for sporting and self-defense.

All are now plaintiffs in suits that were filed in the wake of the June 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms at home, but left the door open to certain types of gun restrictions, many of which are currently being challenged.

The Second Amendment Foundation, a Bellevue, Wash., nonprofit, that took in $3.6 million in revenue in 2008, is paying for their legal challenges. Their cases are being handled by its attorney, Alan Gura, who won the Heller case.

Never mind that the landmark Heller ruling hasn’t led to massive gun-toting in D.C., where the city council so far has managed to maintain certain gun restrictions that it hopes avoid constitutional problems. Effectively, “the D.C. city council has kept its handgun ban and said ‘heck with you’” to the Supreme Court, said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. The NRA financed its own (unsuccessful) challenge to the new restrictions. Click here for that ruling, which came down late last week. The NRA says it will appeal.

But the Heller ruling did spawn a bunch of litigation, including, of course, McDonald v. Chicago, a constitutional challenge to the Chicago handgun ban, for which the Supreme Court heard oral arguments earlier this month. The Second Amendment Foundation is now working on record 19 gun cases—a huge jump from its prior caseload of one or two lawsuits a year, according to founder Alan M. Gottlieb.

Among them is the case of Tom G. Palmer, a gay man who once used a handgun to avoid gay-bashing. One of the original plaintiffs in Heller, Palmer is suing Washington, D.C., arguing that the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public is invalid under Heller.

“What we are saying is you can’t ban open-carry and concealed carry and leave people no option at all” for carrying guns, Gottlieb said.
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-31-2010, 1:06 PM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,386
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
A Californian man, born without an arm below the right elbow, argues that the state’s roster of “approved” handguns precludes him from being able to buy a left-handed Glock.
I wasn't aware that piece of the case was even a dispute in law... it's so bloody obvious that it's true. As is the differences in color leg of the case.

Is it just me, or does this WSJ blog read like a reporter who didn't know a lot about the subject just threw junk at a wall?
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-31-2010, 1:13 PM
kf6tac kf6tac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,777
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDogatPlay View Post
I wasn't aware that piece of the case was even a dispute in law... it's so bloody obvious that it's true. As is the differences in color leg of the case.

Is it just me, or does this WSJ blog read like a reporter who didn't know a lot about the subject just threw junk at a wall?
What's bothering you about that sentence? That is, in fact, the argument that is being presented, so by definition, that is what the individual is arguing.
__________________


Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-31-2010, 1:15 PM
CaliforniaCarry CaliforniaCarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 239
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/30/hellers-offspring-a-look-at-the-new-generation-of-gun-control-suits/
The NRA financed its own (unsuccessful) challenge to the new restrictions. Click here for that ruling, which came down late last week. The NRA says it will appeal.
I wish the NRA would not pursue cases like this. It seems like lately the NRA has been much better at lobbying than litigating. This case is too broad and gung-ho, in my opinion. On the other hand, I do understand them wanting to tackle the issues before another Gorski comes along and screws the pooch.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-31-2010, 2:00 PM
CaliforniaCarry CaliforniaCarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 239
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kf6tac View Post
What's bothering you about that sentence? That is, in fact, the argument that is being presented, so by definition, that is what the individual is arguing.
Actually, that he can't legally buy the handgun is a fact, not an argument. The argument is "because he can't buy that handgun the law is unconstitutional".

As I understand it, there is no dispute over whether he can or cannot buy the gun as law stands today.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-31-2010, 3:50 PM
GaryV's Avatar
GaryV GaryV is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaCarry View Post
I wish the NRA would not pursue cases like this. It seems like lately the NRA has been much better at lobbying than litigating.
I think that's always been the case, not just recently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaCarry View Post
On the other hand, I do understand them wanting to tackle the issues before another Gorski comes along and screws the pooch.
It doesn't help if they do it themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-31-2010, 3:55 PM
rkt88edmo's Avatar
rkt88edmo rkt88edmo is offline
Reptile&Samurai Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 9,785
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaCarry View Post
I wish the NRA would not pursue cases like this. It seems like lately the NRA has been much better at lobbying than litigating. This case is too broad and gung-ho, in my opinion. On the other hand, I do understand them wanting to tackle the issues before another Gorski comes along and screws the pooch.
The NRA or the CGF? Which case are they (poorly) referencing in the blurb that you wish wouldn't be pursued?
__________________
If it was a snake, it would have bit me.
Use the goog to search calguns
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-31-2010, 4:15 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GaryV
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaCarry
I wish the NRA would not pursue cases like this. It seems like lately the NRA has been much better at lobbying than litigating.
I think that's always been the case, not just recently.
It is a pretty standard litigation technique, used by more than just the NRA.

Throw a plate of cooked spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks.

The problem with this has always been that the courts will take whatever "out" you give them. If they don't have to reach the answer of the plethora of questions, they won't.

Robert Levy and Alan Gura (and generally the Cato Institute), have showed everyone how this should be done: Narrow the question... Or at least ask the questions in a very narrow and restricted manner.

A narrow question is harder to avoid answering. Look at the complaints in Sykes, Pena and Palmer and compare them to Heller 2.

What they are doing is a modified form of how the NAACP got the decision it wanted in Brown v. Bd of Ed.

The NRA has yet to learn this lesson.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-31-2010, 6:46 PM
truthseeker's Avatar
truthseeker truthseeker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,515
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

IMO I think the NRA filed that lawsuit so that when the 2A is incorporated, that case is already in the system!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-31-2010, 9:26 PM
CaliforniaCarry CaliforniaCarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 239
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rkt88edmo View Post
The NRA or the CGF? Which case are they (poorly) referencing in the blurb that you wish wouldn't be pursued?
The NRA. They are referring to Heller 2, which is a Washington, DC case challenging the registration procedures, the assault weapons ban, and the high capacity magazine ban.

This is way too much for one case, and I think that all three items are being prematurely challenged. It's not the time to challenge registration requirements (which is a battle we'll probably lose anyhow, lots of legal types think that registration will be OK under Heller). It may not the time to challenge AW bans, and we do challenge them we should probably do it narrowly. A failed AW ban challenge could lead to all sorts of bad precedent. It's not the time to challenge high-cap mag bans; we need more wins under our belt, and even then it'll by no means be a slam-dunk.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-31-2010, 9:27 PM
CaliforniaCarry CaliforniaCarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 239
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truthseeker View Post
IMO I think the NRA filed that lawsuit so that when the 2A is incorporated, that case is already in the system!
This case is in DC. Incorporation doesn't matter there
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-01-2010, 2:01 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaCarry View Post
The NRA. They are referring to Heller 2, which is a Washington, DC case challenging the registration procedures, the assault weapons ban, and the high capacity magazine ban.

This is way too much for one case, and I think that all three items are being prematurely challenged. It's not the time to challenge registration requirements (which is a battle we'll probably lose anyhow, lots of legal types think that registration will be OK under Heller). It may not the time to challenge AW bans, and we do challenge them we should probably do it narrowly. A failed AW ban challenge could lead to all sorts of bad precedent. It's not the time to challenge high-cap mag bans; we need more wins under our belt, and even then it'll by no means be a slam-dunk.
DC's registration requirements must be challenged, they are extreme and malicious, with the only purpose of discouraging ownership. You have to go to one specific location to register your to-be-purchased gun during normal business hours, jump through their hoops (training, finger prints, etc), wait a while, receive word that you are approved, go pick up your gun from the only FFL in DC (and he charges over $100 per transfer) and take the gun back to the registration location before you're finally done IIRC. Oh yeah, the registration location? Nowhere near a Metro (subway) stop, in the heart of a ghetto that makes Beirut look like a fun place to party.

Only a few dozen people in the entire city have completed the registration process in the last two years.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-01-2010, 9:56 AM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn
DC's registration requirements must be challenged,
I quite agree.

However, the NRA didn't do this. They challenged not only the registration process, but also the D.C. AWB and the D.C. High-Capacity detachable magazine ban.

In none of these challenges, were any of them fully explored. Sloppy legal strategy leads to sloppy legal work.

To be honest, I don't know if this was Halbrooks idea or the idea of his client, the NRA. Stephan Halbrook is a better attorney than that, so I suspect the latter.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-01-2010, 10:19 AM
CaliforniaCarry CaliforniaCarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 239
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
In none of these challenges, were any of them fully explored. Sloppy legal strategy leads to sloppy legal work.
And sloppy legal work leads to bad precedent that could take decades to revert. If NRA screws the pooch for us, my children's children may still be cleaning up the mess, and I'm only in my early 20's .
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-01-2010, 11:17 AM
6172crew's Avatar
6172crew 6172crew is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord CA
Posts: 6,270
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaCarry View Post
And sloppy legal work leads to bad precedent that could take decades to revert. If NRA screws the pooch for us, my children's children may still be cleaning up the mess, and I'm only in my early 20's .
The NRA (Wayne) said at the meeting he was going to bring as many cases to court as he could. The thought is that the new administration would try to change the 5-4 votes in scotus.

If they have the $$ I say we beat them at the game. They have been pounding us for years in court, its payback time.

Best thing GW did was fill the scotus with as many pro-gun guys as he could.
__________________

HMM-161 Westpac 1994
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-01-2010, 12:14 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

6172crew, you still need a viable strategy. Throwing a plate of spaghetti at the wall, to see what sticks, is not a viable strategy.

Each case brought, should challenge a single legal question. You have 10 questions you want argued? Then bring 10 separate cases to bear. Don't lump all the questions in a single case. You will lose more than you gain.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-01-2010, 12:39 PM
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,275
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
6172crew, you still need a viable strategy. Throwing a plate of spaghetti at the wall, to see what sticks, is not a viable strategy.

Each case brought, should challenge a single legal question. You have 10 questions you want argued? Then bring 10 separate cases to bear. Don't lump all the questions in a single case. You will lose more than you gain.
Exactly. Keep it narrow and force them to answer the question. It's very uncomfortable to be the judge who answers such a question with a BS opinion knowing that the plaintiff's attorney is *that guy* (who just won twice, back to back, at SCOTUS - and will go ALL THE WAY without hesitation).
__________________
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
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 8:53 PM.




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.