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 12-25-2011, 3:58 AM
One78Shovel's Avatar
One78Shovel One78Shovel is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,985
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Happy Holidays I hate that politically correct phrase-

MERRY CHRISTMAS!


-178S
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 12-25-2011, 4:10 AM
ALSystems's Avatar
ALSystems ALSystems is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: On the Far Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,160
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AR-MAN88 View Post
A job well done! Now, can we work on the high caps magazine?
Gene said that's planned for first quarter 2012.
__________________
Quote:
  • Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
  • Register liberals, not guns . . . they cause more damage. -vantec08
  • Liberalism is a mental disorder. Hoplophobia is but one symptom of the irrational thought processes of our demented political class on the left. -Wrangler John
  • There is no real justice anymore. The legal system is just that: the legal system, not the justice system. -kcbrown
  • California is essentially a banana republic . . . corrupt and intransigent.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 12-25-2011, 4:17 AM
One78Shovel's Avatar
One78Shovel One78Shovel is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,985
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
It takes as long as it takes....

I would have guessed a year or two, three years at the most, but we've just read here that perhaps it will only take a year.

Which makes me think that the smart money is on not having to go to the US Supreme Court to get a final ruling.

No one knows for sure how long this will take. Stick around and find out. And send in your donations to CalGuns Foundation to speed things up a bit.
Actually, I would not mind seeing the State have to endure continuing pain over this, in other words, break them slowly.

-178S
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 12-25-2011, 6:43 AM
parb parb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by One78Shovel View Post
Happy Holidays I hate that politically correct phrase-

MERRY CHRISTMAS!


-178S
ditto!
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 12-25-2011, 8:37 AM
compulsivegunbuyer compulsivegunbuyer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,883
iTrader: 62 / 100%
Default

I've passed up many guns because I would of had to go back later. What I find realy stupid is having to wait again for a warranty replacement firearm. I waited the 10 days, it took 2 months to come, and I have to wait another 10 days to take the thing home. Yet, if I sent it in and they just fixed it, they send it right back to my door.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 12-25-2011, 2:54 PM
Kavey's Avatar
Kavey Kavey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gene Hoffman for President
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 12-25-2011, 6:39 PM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,328
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavey View Post
Gene Hoffman for President
Would Gene be as effective in a Presidential role as he is as an unlicensed steamroller operator? I mean, what could he actually do as President other than swinging the veto hammer, nominating 30 or 40 young pro-liberty Supreme Court judges, and appointing a coma victim to head BATFE?
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 12-25-2011, 8:24 PM
VegasND's Avatar
VegasND VegasND is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Clark County
Posts: 8,640
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Y'know, after some thought, I do believe there are worse choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kavey View Post
Gene Hoffman for President



__________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.
--River Tam
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 12-25-2011, 8:29 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Briar patch. Please don't throw us into it.
Can we get someone to make a LOLbunny image out of this?
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 12-25-2011, 8:32 PM
tomd1584's Avatar
tomd1584 tomd1584 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 5,863
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

This is awesome...made my day for sure!

I just made a donation this morning to the WWP (see sig). Next month was gonna be CGF, but I guess it's happening tonight instead!
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 12-26-2011, 6:37 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
And should a court follow any of the modes of analysis in Heller there is no way to justify the 2nd waiting period under intermediate scrutiny, much less Ezell's almost strict scrutiny.
What will be interesting is how much the standard of review will be watered down, seeing as the plaintiffs' exercise of the core 2A right to use firearms in self defense is literally unaffected by the second waiting period. The plaintiff with the CCW is probably better situated than most gun owners in the state to exercise the core right and the waiting period does not put any restriction or limitation whatsoever on the possession/carry/use for self defense of the firearm(s) he already has, inside or outside of the home. The collector plaintiff just wants more guns, again with no reason alleged how the exercise of the core right to use his currently possessed firearms in self defense is impacted let alone burdened by having to wait 10 days to add another gun to his collection. "I want more guns" is what it boils down to. Similar to the "I want two-tone" plaintiff in the roster case. It's like, let's find a fact pattern as far away from the core right and as close to the margin of the right as we can (I want more guns just because) and plaintiffs who have less of a self-defense need for more firearms than most anybody else, and then we'll see just how weak of a standard of review we can get. How many other gun regulations are there where the argument can be made that the regulation does not burden the core right of self defense at all? True, acquisition of firearms is or should be protected activity (insofar as it corresponds to the core right to possess firearms for self-defense) and the second waiting period may be harder to justify than other regulations, but without a more compelling self-defense tie-in this lawsuit is not a good vehicle for heightened scrutiny.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-26-2011 at 6:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 12-26-2011, 6:44 AM
DiscoBayJoe's Avatar
DiscoBayJoe DiscoBayJoe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Discovery Bay, CA
Posts: 1,331
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

^ who's to say the primary gun isn't broken and in need of repair, lost, or stolen?

I have a friend who was on vacation and came home to his house ransacked - guns gone. He's not just looking for more guns. He's looking for protection. He had to resort to borrowing a gun for the 10-day wait. What if he didn't have a willing friend? Sure smells like a 2A/RKBA violation to me!
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 12-26-2011, 6:55 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoBayJoe View Post
^ who's to say the primary gun isn't broken and in need of repair, lost, or stolen?
Yeah, if only the plaintiffs in this case were in that situation rather than bragging about how they are already lawfully carrying a loaded, functional firearm into the gun store with them when they are purchasing more guns which they don't really need for self defense lol:

Quote:
“I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State,” noted Jeff Silvester. “It is ridiculous that I have to wait another 10 days to pick up a new firearm when I’m standing there in the gun store lawfully carrying one the whole time.”
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 12-26-2011, 7:10 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
The waiting period is even worse under the historical categorical analysis as the waiting periods didn't show up until the early 20th century.
1923 = presumptively lawful "longstanding regulation" according to Heller 1 and 2.

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-26-2011 at 7:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 12-26-2011, 7:16 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,588
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

FGG, I am waiting for your idea of the governments compelling interest in the 10 day wait/cooling off period/ ban for gun owners. Do they have one?
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 12-26-2011, 7:26 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
FGG, I am waiting for your idea of the governments compelling interest in the 10 day wait/cooling off period/ ban for gun owners. Do they have one?
Do they need a "compelling interest" in watered down heightened scrutiny? And what happens to heightened scrutiny anyway when there is at best de minimis and at worst no burden on the exercise of the core right? Seeing as scrutiny is unsettled at this point in time, my problem with this case and similar cases like the roster case is that as vehicles for heightened scrutiny they are factually weak and I would rather see cases that are factually strong.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 12-26-2011, 7:31 AM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
What will be interesting is how much the standard of review will be watered down, seeing as the plaintiffs' exercise of the core 2A right to use firearms in self defense is literally unaffected by the second waiting period.
This will surely be the state's response. If they stipulate that the wait is an infringement they have essentially lost becuase it won't pass even relatively modest intermediate scrutiny. However; if they get the judge to accept that it is not an infringement on the core right then the law will likely have to pass no more than what equates to a rational basis test, even if it is disguised as heightened scrutiny.

It would have been nice to have a plaintiff who owns long guns only so that the 10 day wait would truly impact the right in a manner more directly analogous to the facts in Heller. Even in Ezell, it is not clear that the prohibition would necessarily fail of it weren't for the training requirement for a possession license.

I believe that Ezell would still win even of Chicafo didn't have a training requirement and I certainly hope that prior restraint on firearms acquisition beyond the first firearm would be viewed as inexcusable as prior restraint on multiple forms of reach once one form is exercised. However; I am not certain that the courts will agree.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 12-26-2011, 7:38 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,179
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

I think Fabioís analysis is correct. However, I donít think establishing a level of scrutiny for judicial review is at all a goal of this case. Subsequent waiting periods shouldnít withstand any standard of review.

Thatís probably why kcbrown was expecting a lower priority. Nevertheless, subsequent waiting periods do appear to be low-hanging fruit. I also suspect that a success here will make a future move against any waiting period that much easier.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA

Last edited by M. D. Van Norman; 12-29-2011 at 6:17 PM.. Reason: Obsessive formatting.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 12-26-2011, 7:49 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The choice of plaintiffs in this case could have been better IMO, is it that hard to find someone whose handgun got stolen? Also, the "I've got plenty of operable loaded handguns, in fact I'm lawfully carrying one right now, but I want more!" marketing of the case in the press release.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 12-26-2011, 8:00 AM
model63's Avatar
model63 model63 is offline
We are the gun lobby
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North Texas, V-town escapee
Posts: 300
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Aside from the fundamental arguments....During the 10-days.... is there anything else the state is doing at present in terms of verification of information of the purchaser/x-checking information with other activity or is it strictly a cooling off period?

Wasn't it JB that touted his extension of the wait period from like 5 or 7 days to 10 days?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 12-26-2011, 8:00 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
I think Fabio's analysis is correct. However, I don't think establishing a level of scrutiny for judicial review is at all a goal of this case. Subsequent waiting periods shouldn't withstand any standard of review.

Nevertheless, subsequent waiting periods do appear to be low-hanging fruit. I also suspect that a success here will make a future move against any waiting period that much easier.
Timing is a big issue for me here, heightened scrutiny may not be a goal of the case, but the case may result in crappy scrutiny which may be more harmful than helpful in other contexts. The case also has the potential IMO to harm future moves against waiting periods for initial purchases, e.g., by solidifying that waiting periods are good ideas for initial purchases. Heller 2 also opens the door for the argument that waiting periods are longstanding regulations that are presumptively lawful. Does all of this really need to come to a head right now?
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 12-26-2011, 8:24 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The "cooling off" aspect of the waiting period couldn't possibly have any application to subsequent firearm purchases. If someone's going to impulsively shoot up his workplace or hunt down his ex-wife at hers, etc., he's already got a gun so if he snaps he's going to do it anyway. Also, how much worse can it be if he brings 2 guns instead of one? So there really shouldn't be any problem allowing instant second gun purchases with no waiting period.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 12-26-2011, 9:17 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,492
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The choice of plaintiffs in this case could have been better IMO, is it that hard to find someone whose handgun got stolen?
You could lend a hand.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 12-26-2011, 10:04 AM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The "cooling off" aspect of the waiting period couldn't possibly have any application to subsequent firearm purchases. If someone's going to impulsively shoot up his workplace or hunt down his ex-wife at hers, etc., he's already got a gun so if he snaps he's going to do it anyway. Also, how much worse can it be if he brings 2 guns instead of one? So there really shouldn't be any problem allowing instant second gun purchases with no waiting period.
So with that in mind, how do you think a reduced scrutiny matters? I don't even think a second wait survives rational basis.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 12-26-2011, 11:23 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was being tongue in cheek there, I don't think the cooling off/ public safety arguments necessarily disappear when it comes to second waiting periods. So scrutiny matters and this case is far from a slam dunk.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 12-26-2011, 11:36 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
You could lend a hand.
I'll pass on stealing handguns to generate plaintiffs; )

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-26-2011 at 11:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 12-26-2011, 11:40 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

You keep forgetting that the burden is on the state to prove that they have any interest here. Articulate the state's interest and we'll have a conversation.

You'll note that even the Feds are having to justify MCDV (which they probably can.)

Also note that circuit splits are good. This is a slam dunk under the Ezell standard.

-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
  #188  
Old 12-26-2011, 11:50 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,588
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I was being tongue in cheek there, I don't think the cooling off/ public safety arguments necessarily disappear when it comes to second waiting periods. So scrutiny matters and this case is far from a slam dunk.


Can you articulate theses public safety issues? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 12-26-2011, 11:58 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Timing is a big issue for me here, heightened scrutiny may not be a goal of the case, but the case may result in crappy scrutiny which may be more harmful than helpful in other contexts. The case also has the potential IMO to harm future moves against waiting periods for initial purchases, e.g., by solidifying that waiting periods are good ideas for initial purchases. Heller 2 also opens the door for the argument that waiting periods are longstanding regulations that are presumptively lawful. Does all of this really need to come to a head right now?
You forget that it's a facial challenge, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The choice of plaintiffs in this case could have been better IMO, is it that hard to find someone whose handgun got stolen? Also, the "I've got plenty of operable loaded handguns, in fact I'm lawfully carrying one right now, but I want more!" marketing of the case in the press release.
And you expect someone to wait 2 years for a replacement gun?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
1923 = presumptively lawful "longstanding regulation" according to Heller 1 and 2.
*buzz* wrong. Heller I never said that at SCOTUS. Heller II (is only applicable in DC) stated it was presumptively lawful as applied to HANDGUNS only. Long guns are still a big question mark, and as you know, the 10 day wait applies to all guns, not just handguns...

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I was being tongue in cheek there, I don't think the cooling off/ public safety arguments necessarily disappear when it comes to second waiting periods. So scrutiny matters and this case is far from a slam dunk.
Then why don't you find better plaintiffs and file your own case if you think they are doing it wrong?

I'm noticing a disturbing pattern of behavior from you, in the sense that any time Don Kilmer files a case, you offer non-constructive criticism of it so in public to the point where you question his ability to litigate things properly. This sounds like a personal problem rather than a professional one for you. Out with it, man. Did he run over your puppy when you were a kid or something?
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:08 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: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
You keep forgetting that the burden is on the state to prove that they have any interest here.
As mentioned above the cooling off/public safety arguments do not go away. "Presumptively lawful" under Heller 2 doesn't help either. Nor does the de minimis burden/no burden.

Quote:
This is a slam dunk under the Ezell standard.
If you really believe that you're dreaming. In Ezell there actually was a burden on the core right to possess firearms for self-defense so severe that it amounted to a prohibition. Factually there is no comparison and Ezell affirms the "the farther away from the core, the less severe the burden, the easier to justify the regulation." You still need burden under the "two-part approach" approved by Ezell to get heightened scrutiny in the first place.

Curious, why did you go with "I've already got functional loaded guns so the 10 day wait doesn't affect my exercise of the core right at all" over "my gun got stolen and having to wait ten days seriously burdens my exercise of the core right"?
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:15 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
As mentioned above the cooling off/public safety arguments do not go away. "Presumptively lawful" under Heller 2 doesn't help either. Nor does the de minimis burden/no burden.
You keep saying it's a gun owner's burden to justify why the laws are unconstitutional when it's the state's to prove that the restrictions serves a valid public safety reason. "As mentioned" above is absolutely nothing that supports the state's regulation.



Quote:
If you really believe that you're dreaming. In Ezell there actually was a burden on the core right to possess firearms for self-defense so severe that it amounted to a prohibition.
Nope. All the plaintiffs save one in Ezell had completed their training - and the court could care less about the one who was lazy. You keep applying the vacated Nordyke standard to a fundamental right. Your right to read isn't satisfied by just one book - even just one porn magazine.

The government has to show how imposing a 10 day wait on a carry licensee has more than even a rational basis. It doesn't even have that. As such, this is a "no standards of scrutiny" case.

If we treat the right to arms in court the way you're advocating it is no right at all.

-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
  #192  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:17 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,588
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Why does a gun need to be stolen? Different guns for different purposes.

A 44 mag which I own may be to large to carry as a concealed carry weapon. Perhaps a small compact one is needed. Perhaps my shotgun is broken and it's the last week of bird season and I need one now before the season ends.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:22 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,588
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

BTW, since hunting is part of the core right, would that not be an infringement on my right if the 10 day wait prevented a licensed hunter from exercising his right?
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:34 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: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
I'm noticing a disturbing pattern of behavior from you, in the sense that any time Don Kilmer files a case, you offer non-constructive criticism of it so in public to the point where you question his ability to litigate things properly. This sounds like a personal problem rather than a professional one for you. Out with it, man. Did he run over your puppy when you were a kid or something?
I could care less who is filing what lol. I don't agree with the strategy of filing cases at this point in time where the burden on the core right is de minimis if not nonexistent. Just because the same attorney is involved in Nordyke, Pena, and Sylvester which all fall into this category IMO doesn't make it personal. I don't think the misdemeanor domestic violence case is going to go anywhere but that is not because of the arguments the same attorney is or is not making, it's because I don't think the arguments will be enough to overcome the bad precedent that is pretty much right on point. I haven't even commented here on that case so how does that fit your "any time he files a case" theory?

Quote:
*buzz* wrong. Heller I never said that at SCOTUS. Heller II (is only applicable in DC) stated it was presumptively lawful as applied to HANDGUNS only. Long guns are still a big question mark, and as you know, the 10 day wait applies to all guns, not just handguns...
So when did we start seeing the presumptively lawful felon in possession laws again? Back in the 1770's?

Quote:
And you expect someone to wait 2 years for a replacement gun?
So which would you rather see, a plaintiff that doesn't need a replacement gun or a plaintiff who actually does?

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-26-2011 at 12:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:35 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post

Curious, why did you go with "I've already got functional loaded guns so the 10 day wait doesn't affect my exercise of the core right at all" over "my gun got stolen and having to wait ten days seriously burdens my exercise of the core right"?
Because gun owners, even people on this forum, do not tend to post on here that "All of my guns were stolen by a burglar, OMFG" at all.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:43 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: 2,823
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Because gun owners, even people on this forum, do not tend to post on here that "All of my guns were stolen by a burglar, OMFG" at all.
I guess you guys have no other way of finding plaintiffs than waiting for someone to post on calguns.net lol.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:44 PM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,366
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Can you articulate theses public safety issues? I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.


I'm not saying that the argument is necessarily a correct one, but a guy that owns, for instance, a deer rifle is perhaps not the most equipped for post office rampages. A cooling-off period might prevent him from going on a rampage with a pistol and an autoloading shotgun or rifle.

Now, the reverse side of that is that if he's planning an activity such as this, then no cooling-off period is going to necessarily end his plans, just postpone them by a few days.

(And of course, it's worth mentioning that a guy with a deer rifle, who knows how to use it, is more than likely up to the challenge of just killing a whole bunch of people on his own from a tall building or something.)
__________________
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic68220_5.gif
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:44 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The basic core question:

What is the rational basis for imposing a 10 day waiting period for someone who already owns numerous guns?
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:49 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I guess you guys have no other way of finding plaintiffs than waiting for someone to post on calguns.net lol.
"you guys"?

Be careful attacking the educative volunteer who has no control over the litigation strategy of CGF and is not a board member. I was offering a possible reason why they couldn't find one, not that was necessarily the reason why.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 12-26-2011, 12:52 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

See, legislative intent and post hoc rationalization.
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 3:09 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.