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 09-30-2010, 4:21 AM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Jackson v. San Francisco

Quote:
...defendants shall respond to the amended complaint within 20 days of the date of this order.
Dated: 09/13/2010
So, what's SF's upcoming move going to be in an effort to prolong all their unconstitutional nonsense?

Are McDonald and Heller enough to get this done?

We can soon order ammo? Keep weapons ready? Discharge firearms in self-defense?

http://calgunlaws.com/index.php/curr...on/82/919.html

Thanks to the NRA and CRPAF for the diligence on this one. Nice not to be considered a lost cause...
__________________

Last edited by 2Bear; 12-09-2010 at 4:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-30-2010, 5:34 AM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Let the games begin!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-30-2010, 8:49 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,671
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Why doesn't this sort of nonsense coming from San Francisco surprise me?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-30-2010, 9:27 AM
Ed_in_Sac's Avatar
Ed_in_Sac Ed_in_Sac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: North Natomas in Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 968
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Gavin Newsom, the current SF Mayor is running for Lt. Governor yet no one talks about his presiding over this 2a debacle. Yes, Lt. Gov is important.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-30-2010, 11:12 AM
CMonfort's Avatar
CMonfort CMonfort is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 459
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
So, what's SF's upcoming move going to be in an effort to prolong all their unconstitutional nonsense?

Are McDonald and Heller enough to get this done?

We can soon order ammo? Keep weapons ready? Discharge firearms in self-defense?

http://calgunlaws.com/index.php/curr...on/82/919.html

Thanks to the NRA and CRPAF for the diligence on this one. Nice not to be considered a lost cause...
First of all, thank you. We have never forgotten about you in San Francisco. See Fiscal v. City and County of San Francicso (successfully challenging the Prop H handgun ban on preemption grounds pre-Heller; and recovering $380,000 in attorneys fees from the City) and Guy Montag Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (successfully challenging the San Francisco Housing Authority's ban of firearms possession by public housing residents; Defendants settled in that case, voluntarily repealing the ban).

With respect to Jackson, Plaintiffs granted the City's request for an extension to file a responsive pleading pending Defendants' Motion to Consolidate this case with Pizzo. Plaintiffs are opposing the motion to consolidate, however, as the court has already declined to "relate" the two cases based on their differences, because Pizzo is stayed while the stay has been lifted in Jackson, and because Plaintiffs are dropping their state law claims, while Pizzo still includes state law challenges. Our office will be announcing more on this issue soon.

In light of the City's insistence on proceeding with preliminary motions rather than address Plaintiffs' claims on the merits, Plaintiffs will file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stop the ordinances from being enforced so as to prevent further deprivation of Plaintiffs' civil rights while Plaintiffs respond to unecessary preliminary motions. Plaintiffs will seek recovery of all additional attorneys fees incurred in responding to these motions. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be filed very soon and will be released on Calguns and Calgunlaws.com as soon as it is filed.

With respect to the discharge ban, the parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations - we will announce more details on this at the proper time.

With regard to the ammunition and storage ordinances, please sit tight until the injunction hearing which we will announce soon.

Last edited by CMonfort; 09-30-2010 at 11:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-30-2010, 6:41 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMonfort View Post
First of all, thank you. We have never forgotten about you in San Francisco. See Fiscal v. City and County of San Francicso (successfully challenging the Prop H handgun ban on preemption grounds pre-Heller; and recovering $380,000 in attorneys fees from the City) and Guy Montag Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (successfully challenging the San Francisco Housing Authority's ban of firearms possession by public housing residents; Defendants settled in that case, voluntarily repealing the ban).

With respect to Jackson, Plaintiffs granted the City's request for an extension to file a responsive pleading pending Defendants' Motion to Consolidate this case with Pizzo. Plaintiffs are opposing the motion to consolidate, however, as the court has already declined to "relate" the two cases based on their differences, because Pizzo is stayed while the stay has been lifted in Jackson, and because Plaintiffs are dropping their state law claims, while Pizzo still includes state law challenges. Our office will be announcing more on this issue soon.
Clearly we are not forgotten, further thanks.

Quote:
In light of the City's insistence on proceeding with preliminary motions rather than address Plaintiffs' claims on the merits, Plaintiffs will file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stop the ordinances from being enforced so as to prevent further deprivation of Plaintiffs' civil rights while Plaintiffs respond to unecessary preliminary motions. Plaintiffs will seek recovery of all additional attorneys fees incurred in responding to these motions. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be filed very soon and will be released on Calguns and Calgunlaws.com as soon as it is filed.
Waiting with bated breath. Two weeks I presume...

Quote:
With respect to the discharge ban, the parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations - we will announce more details on this at the proper time.
Sounds like less than two weeks...

Quote:
With regard to the ammunition and storage ordinances, please sit tight until the injunction hearing which we will announce soon.
More bated breath.

Thanks for the reply. Keep up the good work.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-09-2010, 12:24 PM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,627
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMonfort View Post
First of all, thank you. We have never forgotten about you in San Francisco. See Fiscal v. City and County of San Francicso (successfully challenging the Prop H handgun ban on preemption grounds pre-Heller; and recovering $380,000 in attorneys fees from the City) and Guy Montag Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (successfully challenging the San Francisco Housing Authority's ban of firearms possession by public housing residents; Defendants settled in that case, voluntarily repealing the ban).

With respect to Jackson, Plaintiffs granted the City's request for an extension to file a responsive pleading pending Defendants' Motion to Consolidate this case with Pizzo. Plaintiffs are opposing the motion to consolidate, however, as the court has already declined to "relate" the two cases based on their differences, because Pizzo is stayed while the stay has been lifted in Jackson, and because Plaintiffs are dropping their state law claims, while Pizzo still includes state law challenges. Our office will be announcing more on this issue soon.

In light of the City's insistence on proceeding with preliminary motions rather than address Plaintiffs' claims on the merits, Plaintiffs will file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stop the ordinances from being enforced so as to prevent further deprivation of Plaintiffs' civil rights while Plaintiffs respond to unecessary preliminary motions. Plaintiffs will seek recovery of all additional attorneys fees incurred in responding to these motions. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be filed very soon and will be released on Calguns and Calgunlaws.com as soon as it is filed.

With respect to the discharge ban, the parties are currently engaged in settlement negotiations - we will announce more details on this at the proper time.

With regard to the ammunition and storage ordinances, please sit tight until the injunction hearing which we will announce soon.
I look forward to hearing an update on Jackson v. San Francisco. The motion to consolidate with Pizzo v Newsom will be heard today at 1:30pm.

For those of you that need a refresher Pizzo is a Gorski case. Here is what Gene said on 10-14-2009, about Pizzo

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
All,

The news is out in another thread so I'll share it here too. Gary Gorski filed a CCW case in San Francisco the day before the oral argument in Nordyke.

Complaint and attachment.

He's basically lifted strategy and argument from Mr. Gura in Sykes. However, this absolutely a bad venue strategically. Further, Gorski named the State of California via Mr. Brown to attempt to invalidate PC 12050. That's a bad idea strategically as we don't really want a re-write of that law (by De Leon for example?)

Mr. Gorski also is challenging the same safe storage requirements in SF that Chuck Michel/NRA are challenging. As such, I expect those cases to get consolidated and stayed. The risk is that an unfriendly court could attempt to move the case forward to a loss by ignoring the pendency of Nordyke and McDonald.

-Gene
__________________
Calguns Litigation Wiki
Quote:
Our conclusion [is] that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense. --PERUTA v. County of San Diego, Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2014
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-09-2010, 4:23 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,271
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
I look forward to hearing an update on Jackson v. San Francisco. The motion to consolidate with Pizzo v Newsom will be heard today at 1:30pm.

For those of you that need a refresher Pizzo is a Gorski case. Here is what Gene said on 10-14-2009, about Pizzo
Any news?
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-09-2010, 5:18 PM
CMonfort's Avatar
CMonfort CMonfort is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 459
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As expected, the Judge denied the City's Motion to Consolidate our case with Pizzo. With the stay lifted and consolidation successfully avoided, Plaintiffs will now move forward with a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-09-2010, 5:42 PM
mzimmers's Avatar
mzimmers mzimmers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Central CA, USA
Posts: 1,503
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I'm more of a legal sparrow than a legal eagle. As such, I can't tell whether this is good news or bad news. Can someone enlighten me?
__________________
Michael Zimmers
Staff Writer
www.scopedin.com
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-09-2010, 5:46 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CMonfort View Post
As expected, the Judge denied the City's Motion to Consolidate our case with Pizzo. With the stay lifted and consolidation successfully avoided, Plaintiffs will now move forward with a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzimmers View Post
I'm more of a legal sparrow than a legal eagle. As such, I can't tell whether this is good news or bad news. Can someone enlighten me?
Well, Clint did emphasis "successfully avoided," from which I assume they are happy about not having to work with that other lawyer.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-09-2010, 5:55 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,271
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
Well, Clint did emphasis "successfully avoided," from which I assume they are happy about not having to work with that other lawyer.
From my limited understanding, its less important to not work with another lawyer, and more important to just not work with Gorski
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-09-2010, 6:06 PM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 340
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

A quick summary as to why this is good: Jackson is not stayed pending Nordyke, while Pizzo is. So not only are we not tied to another case, but more importantly we are not tied to another case that is stayed. That means we can file our motion for an injunciton as soon as possible to relieve our clients of harm under these ordinances, and not have to wait for a ruling in Nordyke.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-09-2010, 9:11 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,491
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mzimmers View Post
I'm more of a legal sparrow than a legal eagle. As such, I can't tell whether this is good news or bad news. Can someone enlighten me?
It is excellent news. Having Jackson move while Gorski is stuck is very, very good.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-09-2010, 9:32 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,118
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
It is excellent news. Having Jackson move while Gorski is stuck is very, very good.

-Gene
I'm thinking of that laugh that Foghorn Leghorn had.....
__________________

"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
"Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson.
"a system of licensing the right of
self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause”
Don Kilmer
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-09-2010, 9:46 PM
Mssr. Eleganté's Avatar
Mssr. Eleganté Mssr. Eleganté is offline
Blue Blaze Irregular
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,329
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
...We can soon order ammo?
It looks like this case isn't challenging the part of San Francisco law that stops many vendors from wanting to ship ammo to SF addresses. It is challenging the prohibition on selling ammo with expanding projectiles.
__________________
__________________

"Knowledge is power... For REAL!" - Jack Austin
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-09-2010, 9:50 PM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 3,556
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

that's very good news
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
A quick summary as to why this is good: Jackson is not stayed pending Nordyke, while Pizzo is. So not only are we not tied to another case, but more importantly we are not tied to another case that is stayed. That means we can file our motion for an injunciton as soon as possible to relieve our clients of harm under these ordinances, and not have to wait for a ruling in Nordyke.
Gorski is still alive? i thought he was done destroying gun rights
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
It is excellent news. Having Jackson move while Gorski is stuck is very, very good.

-Gene
__________________
CZ 75 SP-01 ROCKS!
"If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-10-2010, 12:39 AM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 914
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

You know,

1) reading about the various awards given to lawyers for their work, and

2) looking at all the die-hard banners in this country,

I'm thinking gun-rights law is a growth industry and maybe I should attend law school.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-10-2010, 12:56 AM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Don't... all the governments will be broke or nearly-broke from losing to the current lawyers.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-10-2010, 8:55 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
Well, Clint did emphasis "successfully avoided," from which I assume they are happy about not having to work with that other lawyer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
From my limited understanding, its less important to not work with another lawyer, and more important to just not work with Gorski
I did put "that other lawyer", not just "another lawyer". Maybe I should have emphasised the "that" but I thought it was self-evident.

Subtlety is lost on some people.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-12-2010, 3:47 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mssr. Eleganté View Post
It looks like this case isn't challenging the part of San Francisco law that stops many vendors from wanting to ship ammo to SF addresses. It is challenging the prohibition on selling ammo with expanding projectiles.
We have no shortage of inane ordnance ordinances to overturn...

I hear our air-gun ban goes back to turn of the century kids shooting milk-cart horses in the arse as they climbed the steep hills of SF.

Heh. Kids those days v. these days...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-21-2011, 5:39 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So does the recent decision on AB962 bode well for mail-order ammo sales to SF and the other ostracized counties?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-21-2011, 8:49 PM
Mssr. Eleganté's Avatar
Mssr. Eleganté Mssr. Eleganté is offline
Blue Blaze Irregular
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,329
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
So does the recent decision on AB962 bode well for mail-order ammo sales to SF and the other ostracized counties?
I don't think so. AB962 was found to be "unconstitutionally vague" because it only applied to "handgun ammo" but didn't define what "handgun ammo" was. The San Francisco law that many vendors interpret to mean no mail order ammo sales applies to all types of ammo. There is no vagueness in the law about what type of ammo it applies to.
__________________
__________________

"Knowledge is power... For REAL!" - Jack Austin
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-21-2011, 9:01 PM
jpigeon's Avatar
jpigeon jpigeon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Moreno Valley Province, Peoples Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 869
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

San Fransicko
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-21-2011, 10:02 PM
joelogic's Avatar
joelogic joelogic is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,379
iTrader: 190 / 100%
Default

Where can I even buy ammo in SF? I thought all ammo was banned and that is why Big 5 stopped selling ammo in SF.

"Further the suit challenges the ban on the sale of hollow point ammunition or any ammunition that is not suitable for "sporting purposes" in San Francisco."
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-18-2011, 7:46 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ever since High Bridge Arms left Mission St. I don't think you CAN buy ammo in SF.

Ridiculous.

There still is a webpage for High Bridge nostalgics:

http://www.highbridgearms.com/english.htm
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-18-2011, 8:00 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
Ever since High Bridge Arms left Mission St. I don't think you CAN buy ammo in SF.

Ridiculous.

There still is a webpage for High Bridge nostalgics:

http://www.highbridgearms.com/english.htm
High Bridge had re-opened in their original location. That website is current.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-18-2011, 8:26 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
High Bridge had re-opened in their original location. That website is current.
Word.

Just found this as you were posting that...

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-09-0...n-shops-coggan

Quote:
Coggan said he had received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls in the days leading to the hearing. The overwhelming majority opposed the gun store, he said.

Yet at the hearing, only four people spoke against High Bridge Arms, while 10 spoke in support.
__________________

Last edited by 2Bear; 02-18-2011 at 8:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-19-2011, 1:38 AM
CJSdrftFlat CJSdrftFlat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 154
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

high bridge still isn't open yet. I have a buddy who owns a shop a block away and I always walk by, look in, and say, "open, open, open."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-19-2011, 3:09 PM
smtimelevi's Avatar
smtimelevi smtimelevi is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 29
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
We have no shortage of inane ordnance ordinances to overturn...

I hear our air-gun ban goes back to turn of the century kids shooting milk-cart horses in the arse as they climbed the steep hills of SF.

Heh. Kids those days v. these days...
I'd take shooting horses in the arse over texting and watching MTV any day.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-19-2011, 3:42 PM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Animal cruelty? Really?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-19-2011, 5:00 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CJSdrftFlat View Post
high bridge still isn't open yet. I have a buddy who owns a shop a block away and I always walk by, look in, and say, "open, open, open."
Heh. Funny. Would make a good cartoon.

Where should we start the thread to chant "High Bridge: Open, open, open..."?

"I keep hopin', hopin' hopin' that they'll open, open, open at the High Bridge Firearms store!"

(Apologies to Mervyns™.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-19-2011, 5:08 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smtimelevi View Post
I'd take shooting horses in the arse over texting and watching MTV any day.
I was thinking more of the kids in Excelsior and Hunter's Point... Shooting each other in the arse.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-14-2011, 9:56 AM
ELBong ELBong is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I see there is a hearing today on San Francisco's motion to dismiss:

Renotice motion hearing re 61 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed byCity and County of San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 4/14/2011 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. (Kaiser, Sherri) (Filed on 2/17/2011) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-14-2011, 10:23 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,522
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Judge Richard Seeborg was nominated by Pres. Obama, and approved by the full Senate in December, 2009...

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-14-2011, 2:35 PM
BoxesOfLiberty's Avatar
BoxesOfLiberty BoxesOfLiberty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 337
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Judge Richard Seeborg was nominated by Pres. Obama, and approved by the full Senate in December, 2009...

Erik.
So does that mean he is a staunch defender of the right to keep and bear arms?
__________________
Dennis Murray

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHowdershelt
There are four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-14-2011, 6:20 PM
CMonfort's Avatar
CMonfort CMonfort is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 459
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The MTD hearing was post-poned so that Plaintiffs' could file a supplemental brief addressing the City's amendments to its discharge prohibitions. That brief will be filed tomorrow. The hearing is now scheduled for April 28th.

So far so good on the Judicial front. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Stay, Denied City's Motion to Consolidate the Case with Pizzo (Gorski's case), and on its own accord granted Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a supplemental brief when the City amended its discharge ordinance and didn't mention it until their Reply. We shall see.

Because the City has now tried to push Gorski's case ahead of ours, NRA has moved for Amicus status in Pizzo. That hearing is scheduled for May 5th. The Pizzo parties' Opposition briefs are due today.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-14-2011, 6:33 PM
sfbadger's Avatar
sfbadger sfbadger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Belly of the Beast, S.F.
Posts: 306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ah, thank you San Francisco for spending my tax dollars so wisely.

I keep sending letters to the Mayors office, City Attorney, the Board of Supervisors, etc. asking them to stop wasting the city's limited financial resources litigating nonsense laws but they don't listen!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-14-2011, 7:13 PM
safewaysecurity's Avatar
safewaysecurity safewaysecurity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,160
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I've been trying to find the time to talk to one of SF's board of supervisors that is friends with the family. We'll see if I a as persuasive as I think I am. heh.
__________________

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, but let me remind you also that moderation in the persuit of justice is no virtue" -Barry Goldwater

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” -Gerald Ford

Quote:
Originally Posted by cudakidd View Post
I want Blood for Oil. Heck I want Blood for Oil over hand wringing sentiment!
^
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-15-2011, 12:37 AM
N6ATF N6ATF is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East San Diego County, CA
Posts: 8,389
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfbadger View Post
Ah, thank you San Francisco for spending my tax dollars so wisely.

I keep sending letters to the Mayors office, City Attorney, the Board of Supervisors, etc. asking them to stop wasting the city's limited financial resources litigating nonsense laws but they don't listen!
Of course not. The job of government is to burn through as much taxpayers' money as fast and as maliciously as possible! If anything, your letters are reminding them that they need to buy new paper shredders to file all the law-abiders' letters in.
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 2:50 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.