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 02-07-2011, 9:23 PM
Theseus's Avatar
Theseus Theseus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,681
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default Theseus Appeal - DA Brief - Update 7/25/11

So, I have been told not to discuss the facts, or our strategy. All I am doing is providing you with what would otherwise be publicly available documents.

Here is the DA's Brief and the Request for Judicial Notice in my appeal.

Also, if someone is willing to host the files so that we don't have to use up Calguns bandwidth. . . that might be good. But if they are OK with it, I am.

http://onlinegunsafe.com/docs/theseus/DAsBrief.pdf
http://onlinegunsafe.com/docs/theseu...cialNotice.pdf
http://onlinegunsafe.com/docs/theseus/ScottAOBFinal.pdf
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=103401&stc=1&d=1311564 431
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...1&d=1311564599
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Scott Reply Brief.pdf (157.4 KB, 102 views)
File Type: pdf People v Clayton Scott Opinion.pdf (614.4 KB, 152 views)
__________________
Nothing to see here. . . Move along.

Last edited by Theseus; 07-24-2011 at 7:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-07-2011, 9:35 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,248
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am on my phone so it's really slow to load that brief that exceeded the word limit.

The part about them saying that availing yourself from the private property exemption is absurd and would frustrate the goals of the gun free school zone act will be interesting.

That pesky constitution and those darn natural rights, always getting in the way of tyrants.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-07-2011, 9:50 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,069
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
So, I have been told not to discuss the facts, or our strategy. All I am doing is providing you with what would otherwise be publicly available documents.

Here is the DA's Brief and the Request for Judicial Notice in my appeal.
Did you ever post your brief?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-07-2011, 10:07 PM
Theseus's Avatar
Theseus Theseus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,681
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

No, but I guess I should, huh?
__________________
Nothing to see here. . . Move along.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-07-2011, 10:36 PM
RP1911's Avatar
RP1911 RP1911 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sacramento County
Posts: 5,123
iTrader: 171 / 100%
Default

The way i see it, there are two prongs that could set you free.

1) Attack the constitunality of 626.9

2) There's reasonable doubt that you knew there was a school there. several ways to get to the location, just because a building can be seen does not mean you know what it is unless you can read the sign on the building. No one mentioned when the school zone signs were installed. It would be interesting to get records on that (work order and installation date).

As far as 'private property', that's going to be a tough one.
__________________
RP1911
-----------
NRA Life
CGN and NVS
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-07-2011, 11:49 PM
snobord99 snobord99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SGV
Posts: 2,318
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RP1911 View Post
The way i see it, there are two prongs that could set you free.

1) Attack the constitunality of 626.9

2) There's reasonable doubt that you knew there was a school there. several ways to get to the location, just because a building can be seen does not mean you know what it is unless you can read the sign on the building. No one mentioned when the school zone signs were installed. It would be interesting to get records on that (work order and installation date).

As far as 'private property', that's going to be a tough one.
1 has a better chance than 2. You'll be hard pressed to find an appellate court that's going to say there was reasonable doubt when the jury decided via conviction that there was none. The only time that really happens is if the record is completely devoid of any evidence to prove the required element.

As for "private property"...Theseus already knows where I stand on that one.

I thought it was up in the 2nd District. Now I see why the DA is handling it instead of the AG.
__________________
Everyone opposes judicial legislation until the judiciary legislates in their favor.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-07-2011, 11:53 PM
Veggie's Avatar
Veggie Veggie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Turlock, CA
Posts: 2,480
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Good luck man. I have a feeling you're gonna win.
__________________
My AR-15
Donate!

I committed to donating at least 10 measly bucks a month to the CalGuns Foundation.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-07-2011, 11:55 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,069
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

At trial no one made it apparent that the officers themselves did not know they were in a school zone?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-08-2011, 12:37 AM
snobord99 snobord99 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SGV
Posts: 2,318
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
At trial no one made it apparent that the officers themselves did not know they were in a school zone?
My impression from the record I've seen thus far (the pre-trial motions and whatever was posted by Theseus before) and the briefs is that the officers were aware the school was there but were unaware that having a gun within 1,000 feet of a school is prohibited.

I know that area quite well (I live pretty close by) and never noticed the school there until Theseus's case came about. I had probably driven by close to 100 times prior to this case. I'm sure I've "seen" the school signs there as I drove by, but it never really registered in my head there was a school there. That said, after this I noted the location of the school and as I first drove by after "finding out" the school was there, it's pretty obvious that it's not more than 1,000 feet from that laundromat.

I mention this because I find it hard to believe that the officers didn't know the school was within 1,000 feet of that laundromat. Cops generally know their neighborhood fairly well and I find it VERY hard to believe that the officers involved wouldn't have known there was a school there (unlike myself). If they knew the school was there, as I'm fairly certain they did, then I believe it should also be very apparent to them that it was within 1,000 feet. It really is pretty obvious that it's within 1,000 feet if you know the school is there. Thus, I can see them not knowing that it was prohibited, but I can't see them not knowing that the school is within 1,000 feet. In other words, I'm pretty sure they knew they were in the area of a school; what they didn't know was that there was such a thing as a "school zone" for these purposes.
__________________
Everyone opposes judicial legislation until the judiciary legislates in their favor.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-08-2011, 1:13 AM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 4,036
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

I can't open the docs on my phone, can someone post what this case is about? Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-08-2011, 1:35 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,920
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackhawk556 View Post
I can't open the docs on my phone, can someone post what this case is about? Thanks
VERY briefly....
Theseus was UOCing outside a laundromat that happened to be in a school zone. The officers who contacted him did not make an arrest, but a few days later he was charged with violating the 626.9 Gun Free School Zone law. At trial he was found guilty of a misdemeanor, received a suspended sentence and got 3 years probation.

The appeal is related to the prosecution using a definition of 'public place' and the trial court not allowing a 'private property' (the laundromat) exemption from 626.9.
Better to read the docs when you can get to a better device.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-08-2011, 2:03 AM
Blackhawk556's Avatar
Blackhawk556 Blackhawk556 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: FresNO, Ca
Posts: 4,036
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

^^^Thanks, you always have the answers :-). This is the first I hear of this case
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-08-2011, 4:06 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: 3,111
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Good Luck on your appeal!
__________________

"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
  #14  
Old 02-08-2011, 7:09 AM
Havoc70's Avatar
Havoc70 Havoc70 is offline
CGSSA Leader
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vallejo, CA
Posts: 801
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If you want I can put the files on my web server. Good luck with the appeal!
__________________
http://archon.silvertree.org/Solano.jpg
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
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-08-2011, 7:15 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 6,507
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

So, how can they say my front yard isn't private without a fence, but a laundromat that the public can readily walk into is private??? Seems to me that they want it both ways.

.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-08-2011, 8:26 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I wish you only the best for your appeal, and I hope you prevail 100%.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-08-2011, 8:32 AM
Theseus's Avatar
Theseus Theseus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,681
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snobord99 View Post
1 has a better chance than 2. You'll be hard pressed to find an appellate court that's going to say there was reasonable doubt when the jury decided via conviction that there was none. The only time that really happens is if the record is completely devoid of any evidence to prove the required element.

As for "private property"...Theseus already knows where I stand on that one.

I thought it was up in the 2nd District. Now I see why the DA is handling it instead of the AG.
Man. . . I wish I could say more. . .

But I think, as far as the jury is concerned there were two issues, the greatest being that they were deliberating on a Friday afternoon around 3 PM. . . The second being that we didn't present a defense.
__________________
Nothing to see here. . . Move along.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-08-2011, 9:39 AM
NightOwl NightOwl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: California
Posts: 587
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Best of luck, Theseus. It was BS from the minute they charged you, outrageous when there was a conviction, and I sincerely hope that you get things straightened out with this appeal. Along with a follow-up suit for some compensation due to having had to get rid of your guns in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-08-2011, 11:31 AM
OC_Gunman's Avatar
OC_Gunman OC_Gunman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 65
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sorry if this has already been hashed out earlier, but it looks like the decision to re-investigate and prosecute came after the initial encounter. Seems like the responding officers let you go without citation. But later, at the request of his lieutenant, one of the responding officers wrote a subsequent report which led to the citation and prosecution. Do we know at who's behest the incident was re-investigated? A gun-hating higher-ranking cop in the station, or an ambitious district attorney? Can we get their names?
__________________
"You seem... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions...a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal..." - Thomas Jefferson
P.S. "OC" in "OC Gunman" does NOT stand for "Open Carry"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-08-2011, 2:29 PM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, OK
Posts: 10,616
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
So, how can they say my front yard isn't private without a fence, but a laundromat that the public can readily walk into is private??? Seems to me that they want it both ways.

.
Actually they do have it both ways. Just like a Taurus Judge doesn't meet the definition of a "shotgun", yet it is considered a "short barrelled shotgun".

Two different laws in question and two very different uses of legal language.

The case law that states your front yard is a "public place" deals with PC 12031, which has language that states you can't carry a loaded firearm "in any public place" in an incoporated city...etc. "Any public place" was defined by case law to mean anywhere the public has unrestrained access to, i.e. an unfenced front yard.

PC 626.9 has no such "public place" language, and it even has a specific exemption for "private property". To the common person's interpretation, that means that any place that isn't either public property or government property is by definition private property.
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-08-2011, 2:42 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,579
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OC_Gunman View Post
Sorry if this has already been hashed out earlier, but it looks like the decision to re-investigate and prosecute came after the initial encounter. Seems like the responding officers let you go without citation. But later, at the request of his lieutenant, one of the responding officers wrote a subsequent report which led to the citation and prosecution. Do we know at who's behest the incident was re-investigated? A gun-hating higher-ranking cop in the station, or an ambitious district attorney? Can we get their names?
How does the "stale misdemeanor rule" not come into play in this case? If the responding officers let you go at the initial contact how can they come back and charge you for it later?

Is 626.9 one of the handful of specific exceptions to the stale misdemeanor rule?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

Last edited by Untamed1972; 02-08-2011 at 2:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-08-2011, 2:54 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,920
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
PC 626.9 has no such "public place" language, and it even has a specific exemption for "private property". To the common person's interpretation, that means that any place that isn't either public property or government property is by definition private property.
Which is why the DA's argument is bemusing:
Quote:
As will be seen, allowing Appellant to avail himself of the private property defense would completely frustrate the goals of section 626.9, which is known as The Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 (hereafter The Gun Act), and would lead to absurd results.
It's hardly our fault if the legislature wrote the law poorly.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-08-2011, 2:57 PM
Joe Joe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 5,743
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Awesome. Hope you get a ruling in your favor.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-08-2011, 4:43 PM
greg36f greg36f is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,760
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
How does the "stale misdemeanor rule" not come into play in this case? If the responding officers let you go at the initial contact how can they come back and charge you for it later?

Is 626.9 one of the handful of specific exceptions to the stale misdemeanor rule?

They have one year to file after the crime occured.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-08-2011, 5:34 PM
Theseus's Avatar
Theseus Theseus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,681
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Which is why the DA's argument is bemusing: It's hardly our fault if the legislature wrote the law poorly.
Like the 2A, I don't think 626.9 is so vague, it is only claimed to be so by people who would pervert the words to their own means. When I first read 626.9 I was not clear, but after this situation and the research into the legislative history, it is clear what the intentions were and how they balanced to achieve those goals, and thus why they used the wording and organization they did.
__________________
Nothing to see here. . . Move along.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-20-2011, 10:30 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: 3,111
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Any news?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-20-2011, 10:37 PM
Falconis Falconis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,688
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
They have one year to file after the crime occured.
and they were continually investigating the matter. Stale doesnt apply here.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-20-2011, 11:13 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 2,676
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
Actually they do have it both ways. Just like a Taurus Judge doesn't meet the definition of a "shotgun", yet it is considered a "short barrelled shotgun".

Two different laws in question and two very different uses of legal language.

The case law that states your front yard is a "public place" deals with PC 12031, which has language that states you can't carry a loaded firearm "in any public place" in an incoporated city...etc. "Any public place" was defined by case law to mean anywhere the public has unrestrained access to, i.e. an unfenced front yard.

PC 626.9 has no such "public place" language, and it even has a specific exemption for "private property". To the common person's interpretation, that means that any place that isn't either public property or government property is by definition private property.

IIRC didn't the property owner post signs that the parking lot and businesses were private property? And the Judge ruled that they couldn't show the Jury those signs.
__________________

...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

John Wayne as John Bernard (J. B.) Books in The Shootist
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-21-2011, 12:04 AM
locosway's Avatar
locosway locosway is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 11,346
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

If you still need those files hosted here they are.

http://onlinegunsafe.com/docs/theseus/DAsBrief.pdf
http://onlinegunsafe.com/docs/theseu...cialNotice.pdf
http://onlinegunsafe.com/docs/theseus/ScottAOBFinal.pdf

They'll stay there forever unless you request to have them taken down.
__________________
OCSD Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor
CA DOJ Certified Instructor
Glock Certified Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-21-2011, 12:22 AM
Letitrip Letitrip is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 357
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Good luck theseus. I have been to that area many times and i never noticed that school.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-21-2011, 12:56 AM
gotgunz's Avatar
gotgunz gotgunz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Safe House
Posts: 1,980
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Without reading through all the replies.....
Doesn't this pretty much make the private property defense valid?

(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful.


Hell, I'm not a lawyer but even I can read and while I don't advocate UOC this seems to be a stretch on the DA's part....

BTW, who is this godsend of a DA anyways?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-21-2011, 2:18 AM
Anchors's Avatar
Anchors Anchors is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 5,947
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Good luck man.
The real blow is becoming prohibited.
I hope you at a bare minimum get your rights back.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-22-2011, 11:37 PM
Zorrm's Avatar
Zorrm Zorrm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Oxnard, CA
Posts: 304
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wishing you the best of luck with this.
__________________

I am a guardian of freedom
and the American way of life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _4_ View Post
It is NOT your God given right to serve this country, it is a privilege.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-23-2011, 1:08 AM
Monte's Avatar
Monte Monte is offline
Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 427
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Good luck, man. I really hope you beat this BS.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-23-2011, 8:44 AM
NightOwl NightOwl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: California
Posts: 587
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Theseus, can you post when ya all expect the next bit of action in the case (from either side)? Just curious as to how long till the next update.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-21-2011, 8:20 PM
Theseus's Avatar
Theseus Theseus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,681
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

A quick update on this situation. My oral arguments were scheduled for May 5th, I believe, but the court delayed seeking more time to figure out the answer.

Due to other issues, the new oral arguments are to be held on June 23rd, as of last report. Cross your fingers, as I hear that they already have their minds made up and rule at that time.
__________________
Nothing to see here. . . Move along.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-21-2011, 8:21 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,197
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
Also, if someone is willing to host the files so that we don't have to use up Calguns bandwidth. . . that might be good. But if they are OK with it, I am.
Email me the PDFs and I'll host them at the CGF Resources/Downloads section.
__________________
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
  #38  
Old 06-21-2011, 8:24 PM
Theseus's Avatar
Theseus Theseus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,681
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Email me the PDFs and I'll host them at the CGF Resources/Downloads section.
I believe that they are all hosted fine now, but if you would like, I can email them to you. But I would need email address. PM me.

Another option, you can get them from Gene. He has them all too, or at least he should.

**Also, take note that I added our responding brief to the files**

I have had it for some time, but I have fortunately been to busy to post it and keep everyone up-to-date.
__________________
Nothing to see here. . . Move along.

Last edited by Theseus; 06-21-2011 at 9:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-21-2011, 9:18 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,535
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

As I said before, I hope you prevail.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-21-2011, 10:37 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 42,920
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Nice brief - seems to address all the things you didn't get to say first time around.

I hope for good luck, and a smart, reasonable judge.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



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 5:39 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical