![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Sorry I jumped the gun. Not ruled from the bench.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com Last edited by dantodd; 10-19-2010 at 2:25 PM.. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
HELL YES! And didn't the court say "strict scrutiny"? It seems like since Alameda allowed CCW holders onto the fairgrounds, that lost them the "sensitive area" argument as even CCW holders can't enter sensitive areas.
HELL YAH AGAIN!
__________________
![]() ![]() Proud Veteran Aerial Gunner - De inimico non loquaris sed cogites "A “right” entitles an individual to do something, and is not dependent on the graces of the government." - Alan Gura Ezell v. Chicago "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - Justice Louis Brandeis Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States Last edited by Havoc70; 10-19-2010 at 2:11 PM.. Reason: Homonyms are my undoing. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Twitter from @calgunsfdn That's where I got my info.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From what I sw posted (I'm not there) it sounds like they didn't feel the ordinance would even pass a rational basis test.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Go look at http://www.twitter.com/calgunsfdn for the blow by blow.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
From twitter:
Quote:
__________________
![]() ![]() Proud Veteran Aerial Gunner - De inimico non loquaris sed cogites "A “right” entitles an individual to do something, and is not dependent on the graces of the government." - Alan Gura Ezell v. Chicago "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - Justice Louis Brandeis Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
That's what I got out of it. "Please strike the ordinance" was the last thing said by counsel at the bar. Then "Court adjourned" is the person updating the tweets indicating that court is, well, adjourned.
If the court had ruled from the bench, they probably would've dispensed with the "please" and just said "The ordinance is stricken."
__________________
![]() Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I could have read it wrong. I was dumbfounded that they would rule from the bench like that. But if you read the posts from CalgunsFdn they always put Nordyke: or Alameda: in front if it was one of the litigants speaking and the "please strike the ordinance" and "court adjourned" were a single tweet.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
hopefully someone who is there will straighten me out if I misread it. I really hope not but I'm starting to suspect that is the case.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm sure we'll get more info from those in the courtroom in two weeks
![]() ![]()
__________________
![]() ![]() Proud Veteran Aerial Gunner - De inimico non loquaris sed cogites "A “right” entitles an individual to do something, and is not dependent on the graces of the government." - Alan Gura Ezell v. Chicago "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." - Justice Louis Brandeis Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States Last edited by Havoc70; 10-19-2010 at 2:51 PM.. Reason: My assumption was bad, bad I say! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'm trying to find out. Either we're having a big celebration or I misinterpreted a tweet.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not ruled from the bench. It was Don's statement then the court adjourned.
sorry for jumping the gun.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eh, it happens. By the looks of the twitter feed, the arguments seemed to be going well, though. At least we're used to patiently waiting for the Nordyke decision...
![]() |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
They still need to confer and decide the case, and then one or more of of the judges will prepare the opinion.
__________________
![]() |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hopefully it won't be a Dewey Defeats Truman moment. I don't mind jumping the gun IF the decision goes the right way.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I know that the judges will rule "in two weeks" but is there any real deadline for this result?
__________________
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. ![]() |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Nope... But this is the same panel that heard the case before. I bet it won't take that long. Maybe January...
__________________
![]() |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Ca already allows carry in gov. buildings with a PC 12050 License to Carrying.
__________________
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/ |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I don't know but I did a cursory search for opinions being published from the 9th. Civil cases with oral arguments at their longest took 9 months, most appeared to take 4-6 months and a few only three months. I hope we don't have to wait too long.
__________________
Last edited by Crom; 10-19-2010 at 3:21 PM.. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
None, but this panel will do their job in a timely fashion. I expect 2-3 months.
__________________
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/ |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |