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
  #201  
Old 12-26-2011, 1:54 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,230
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How many people that live in a state with no waiting period, and own a gun, went and bought a gun and killed someone 1 hour later?
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 12-26-2011, 1:54 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
I guess you guys have no other way of finding plaintiffs than waiting for someone to post on calguns.net lol.
1. You didn't adress the fact that all the Ezell plaintiffs already possessed firearms in their homes. For those reading along FGG tends to ignore arguments that undermines the straw men he's placing up.

2. Do you really want CGF to ask someone to remain unarmed in his home for the good of the movement? I don't want that on our head. You really ok with that? Also don't get me started on the BS standing argument that opens for the government. The stolen guns argument is also only an as applied challenge.

-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

Last edited by hoffmang; 12-26-2011 at 1:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 12-26-2011, 1:55 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: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
"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.
"Attack" is a little too strong don't you think? Let's face it, the options were considered and the choice was made to go with "I've already got guns, they all work fine, and I want more" and it wasn't because of a lack of posts about stolen guns on calguns.net.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:03 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,781
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
For those reading along FGG tends to ignore arguments that undermines the straw men he's placing up.



-Gene
Yep, I'm a nobody who knows nothing and FGG only likes to play with the big boys and ignore rational opinions by us lesser folks
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:04 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 Peter.Steele View Post
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.
Nice supposition. Got some evidence to back that up? It's gotta be real evidence that is statistically valid by the way.

Ezell is instructive:
Quote:
Accordingly, if the government can establish that
a challenged firearms law regulates activity falling outside
the scope of the Second Amendment right as it was under‐
stoodatthe relevant historicalmoment—1791 or 1868—then
the analysis can stop there; the regulated activity is categori‐
cally unprotected, and the law is not subject to further
Second Amendment review.

If the government cannot establish this—if the historical
evidence is inconclusive or suggests that the regulated
activity is not categoricallyunprotected—then theremust be
a second inquiry into the strength of the government’s
justification for restricting or regulating the exercise of
Second Amendment rights. Heller’s reference to “any . . .
standard[] of scrutiny” suggests asmuch. 554 U.S. at 628‐29.
McDonald emphasized that the Second Amendment
“limits[,] but by no means eliminates,” governmental
discretion to regulate activity falling within the scope of the
right. 130 S. Ct. at 3046 (emphasis and parentheses omitted).

....

In the First
Amendment context, the government must supply actual,
reliable evidence to justify restricting protected expression
based on secondary public‐safety effects. See Alameda Books,
Inc., 535 U.S. at 438 (A municipality defending zoning
restrictions on adult bookstores cannot “get away with
shoddydata orreasoning.Themunicipality’s evidencemust
fairly support the municipality’s rationale for its ordi‐
nance.”); see also Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 624
F.3d 368, 369 (7th Cir. 2010) (affirming preliminary in‐
junction where a city’s “empirical support for [an] ordi‐
nance [limiting the hours of operation of an adult bookstore]
was too weak”); New Albany DVD, LLC v. City of
New Albany, 581 F.3d 556, 560‐61 (7th Cir. 2009)
(affirming preliminary injunction where municipality
offered only “anecdotal justifications” for adult zoning
regulation and emphasizing the necessity of assessing
the seriousness of the municipality’s concerns about
litter and theft).
Further many are trying to say that the "core" is handguns in the home for self defense. However, under the historical categorical, the state is going to have a hard time justifying that acquisition of all firearms isn't part of the core as the British specifically attempted to stop Bostonians from buying arms. We're in core territory so now we hit at least scrutiny - if not historical categorical. There were no waiting periods in 1790 or 1868. But lets go past that. Now that we're in scrutiny land, under intermediate scrutiny, the state will have to justify increasing the expense of firearms acquisition to those the state knows are already armed.

We're going to hold the state to their burden - Fabio's attempt to burden shift not withstanding - just like Ezell is holding Chicago to their burden and also see all the MCDV cases that remanded to District Courts to force the Feds to provide recidivism evidence.

-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

Last edited by hoffmang; 12-26-2011 at 2:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:06 PM
problemchild problemchild is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 33.753276,-118.19139
Posts: 6,967
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

The LEFT has been using the court system and legislate from the bench activist judges for decades. Why not do the same from the Right? Hell my tax dollars pay for it anyway no matter which side is suing. In fact the Right needs to form a group like the ABLU (anti-bias lawyers union) to sue the pants off everything that stinks of leftism. I can think of about 1,000 things to get started on.

Go team right.....
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:09 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: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
1. You didn't adress the fact that all the Ezell plaintiffs already possessed firearms in their homes. For those reading along FGG tends to ignore arguments that undermines the straw men he's placing up.
You don't address the absence of a burden on the core right and Ezell's approval of the "two-step" 2A analysis or Heller 2's "presumptively lawful" precedent, etc. The challenge in Ezell was to a law that burdened the right to possess firearms for self-defense in the first instance i.e. permit requirements. There was a range prohibition that prevented plaintiffs from maintaining proficiency. So again Sylverster is not on the same footing factually as Ezell.

Quote:
2. Do you really want CGF to ask someone to remain unarmed in his home for the good of the movement?
Whoever said that lol? Would it have been too hard to wait for the right plaintiff who had more compelling facts for some kind of provisional relief? What's the big hurry?
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:10 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: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Yep, I'm a nobody who knows nothing and FGG only likes to play with the big boys and ignore rational opinions by us lesser folks
In case you didn't realize it you're helping prove my point by making better arguments than the lawsuit does.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:13 PM
SoCal Bob's Avatar
SoCal Bob SoCal Bob is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 5,051
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Much has been discussed out about how already having a firearm negates the need to eliminate subsequent waiting periods since you can already provide for self defense at home. What if the person, seeking a more appropriate home defense weapon, was a hunter and only had a .30-06 rifle or a 44 magnum revolver. I personally would rather have my next door neighbor use a 9mm or .40S&W, rather than a .30-06 or a 44 magnum, to defend himself/herself against an intruder.

Different jobs require different tools. This is like the State telling me that there is no need for me to have immediate access to a screwdriver because I already own a hammer. Both are tools but each has its own appropriate usage.
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:14 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
Whoever said that lol? Would it have been too hard to wait for the right plaintiff who had more compelling facts for some kind of provisional relief? What's the big hurry?
In the California Federal courts you'll incorrectly lose on standing requiring an appeal and a trip back down. I'm sure you're aware of this problem, but don't care to explain it.

-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
  #211  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:15 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: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Nice supposition. Got some evidence to back that up? It's gotta be real evidence that is statistically valid by the way.
That remains to be seen even in the 7th circuit where there is de minimis or no burden and the regulation is "at the margins of the core of the right." The majority of the other circuits (maybe all of them? I haven't checked recently) do not necessarily require statisticaly valid with intermediate scrutiny, in some instances "common sense" was enough. There are a bunch of cites in one of my posts in a thread a couple years ago where you were making the completely bogus claim that "Daubert" evidence would be required for intermediate scrutiny. Why do you act as if this is a done deal when it's far from it?

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 12-26-2011 at 2:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:19 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,781
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
In case you didn't realize it you're helping prove my point by making better arguments than the lawsuit does.

Only part of it. You claim there's holes in the argument. One is one who lost a firearm. AGREED! Could be helpful!

I also think its not needed on the rationale of the lawsuit or the law at hand.

I HAVE had firearms stolen and had to wait to replace identical firearms. (long guns). I still had others though. IMHO it shouldn't matter, the state has no compelling interest in keeping the 10 day cooling off period for people that already own guns.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:20 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: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
In the California Federal courts you'll incorrectly lose on standing requiring an appeal and a trip back down. I'm sure you're aware of this problem, but don't care to explain it.
A prior gun owner with a stolen/broken/lost gun has standing problems, rrright.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:20 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

Fabio's core disagreement is this.

We believe that when it's regulating a fundamental individual right, a regulation that serves no purpose or a de-minimus purpose is invalid. Fabio believes that that tie (if you can even call it that) goes to the government.

That's not a right - that's rational basis review in the guise of constitutional review.

The bi-metal handgun where both same metal versions are approved is a perfect example. The state has no valid interest where it has approved the other two. If the state wants to ban all orange tipped firearms to stop confusion or fraudulent attempts to camouflage a firearm - that's got a compelling interest.

Fabio - making the Brady Campaign argument that the only scrutiny is that all gun laws are subject to rational basis - since 2006.

-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
  #215  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:24 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
There are a bunch of cites in one of my posts in a thread a couple years ago where you were making the completely bogus claim that "Daubert" evidence would be required for intermediate scrutiny. Why do you act as if this is a done deal when it's far from it?
And you assured everyone that no Federal Appellate Court would so hold. Then the 7th Circuit so held.

Why do you undervalue circuit splits so much? I bet you were one of those who thought we'd lose Heller.

I personally posit that Judge Sykes, being on the short list for SCOTUS justice at the next Republican presidency, mirrors the way the Heller 5 would see these issues.

-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
  #216  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:25 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
A prior gun owner with a stolen/broken/lost gun has standing problems, rrright.
She's either required to be disarmed or will have a bogus standing argument made that will allow a court to duck the 2A issue and force an appellate cycle, yes.

I know you're an attorney, but it's pretty clear that you don't practice in Federal Courts on gun issues - or enjoy misleading readers here.

-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
  #217  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:35 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: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
And you assured everyone that no Federal Appellate Court would so hold. Then the 7th Circuit so held.
The 7th circuit never said Daubert evidence is required for intermediate scrutiny lol. In fact they've specifically rejected that argument! Where are you coming up with this stuff?
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:37 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: 2,901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Fabio - making the Brady Campaign argument that the only scrutiny is that all gun laws are subject to rational basis - since 2006.
You know that's not what I'm saying lol. Go ahead and keep dodging the problems with the case and mischaracterizing what I'm saying!
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:39 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 hoffmang View Post
Nice supposition. Got some evidence to back that up? It's gotta be real evidence that is statistically valid by the way.

Dude, seriously ... I said that it was not necessarily a correct argument, just that it's one that could be made, and then I went on to weaken that argument.
__________________
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
  #220  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:42 PM
CenterX's Avatar
CenterX CenterX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sleep North SFO Bay
Posts: 1,489
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Yippee! Yippee! Yippee!

Thanks Gene - your posts are most uplifting and comforting.

Your service to the community brings joy.
__________________

- Aut Pax Aut Bellum - Volunteer LDW
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:46 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,781
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

From The posts I've read FGG thinks this case can be won but asks why a plaintiff who has lost a gun has not been added. FGG is this what you are saying?
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 12-26-2011, 2:58 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

FGG's argument in re the lack of an individual plaintiff who had possession of a firearm(s) at some point but now does not is much adieu about nothing. Methinks he's read too many NRA cases.

-Brandon
__________________
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
  #223  
Old 12-26-2011, 3:10 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Fabio's core disagreement is this.

We believe that when it's regulating a fundamental individual right, a regulation that serves no purpose or a de-minimus purpose is invalid. Fabio believes that that tie (if you can even call it that) goes to the government.

That's not a right - that's rational basis review in the guise of constitutional review.
Even the Supreme Court has engaged in such shenanigans (more than once, I dare say, but Kelo, while it does not directly make use of a scrutiny test, does at least seem informative in how the Court can and will perform some Constitutional analysis with malfeasance).

And the 9th Circuit most certainly has attempted to turn most/all Constitutional review into some form of rational basis for 2A cases (see Nordyke).


From what little I've seen, there seems to be sufficient supporting case law that one can confidently say that if a court wants to perform a rational basis review when it should be performing a real Constitutional review, then that court will engage in a rational basis review and call it a Constitutional review, and that will be that. And that's true even of the Supreme Court.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 12-26-2011, 3:18 PM
mud99 mud99 is offline
Make Calguns Great Again
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,081
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

IMO, the ideal solution to many of the cases fought would be if CA opened up an "alternative path" to firearm ownership, where they offered LEO style training and credentials to ordinary citizens.

As in, you take a safety/law/training course, and at the end you receive a badge and LEO credentials, which removes all restrictions related to firearm ownership and purchases, i.e. you would get all the LEO exemptions written into law.

This would weed out the street criminals, who aren't willing to "work" for anything, along with people who don't know how to operate a firearm safely.

It somewhat frightens me that at the indoor range I go to, their is a bullet hole going sideways through several of the stalls. Whoever made that needs to get their 2A revoked.

IMO, A state filled with citizens trained as LEO's would be a great place to live, would save the state money, would ward off crime, would legitimize firearm ownership, and would present a formidable danger to any country willing to attack us.
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 12-26-2011, 3:22 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,781
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mud99 View Post
IMO, the ideal solution to many of the cases fought would be if CA opened up an "alternative path" to firearm ownership, where they offered LEO style training and credentials to ordinary citizens.

As in, you take a safety/law/training course, and at the end you receive a badge and LEO credentials, which removes all restrictions related to firearm ownership and purchases, i.e. you would get all the LEO exemptions written into law.

This would weed out the street criminals, who aren't willing to "work" for anything, along with people who don't know how to operate a firearm safely.

It somewhat frightens me that at the indoor range I go to, their is a bullet hole going sideways through several of the stalls. Whoever made that needs to get their 2A revoked.

IMO, A state filled with citizens trained as LEO's would be a great place to live, would save the state money, would ward off crime, would legitimize firearm ownership, and would present a formidable danger to any country willing to attack us.

So you feel the need to be licensed to own a gun? I guess you should get a license to go to church and speak your mind also?
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 12-26-2011, 3:25 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

Ask the Court about Kelo today. http://www.californiaeminentdomainre...be-overturned/

Also, let's please not derail this thread meant for this specific case; I think we're all aware of your general views on the court system and philosophy by now.

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Even the Supreme Court has engaged in such shenanigans (more than once, I dare say, but Kelo, while it does not directly make use of a scrutiny test, does at least seem informative in how the Court can and will perform some Constitutional analysis with malfeasance).

And the 9th Circuit most certainly has attempted to turn most/all Constitutional review into some form of rational basis for 2A cases (see Nordyke).


From what little I've seen, there seems to be sufficient supporting case law that one can confidently say that if a court wants to perform a rational basis review when it should be performing a real Constitutional review, then that court will engage in a rational basis review and call it a Constitutional review, and that will be that. And that's true even of the Supreme Court.
__________________
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
  #227  
Old 12-26-2011, 3:31 PM
CenterX's Avatar
CenterX CenterX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sleep North SFO Bay
Posts: 1,489
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Interesting comments with rotating points of view.

I'm sure it would be difficult to find a perfect plaintiff without posting for one.

Yet, why would any of the following be better than another under the scrutiny of a judge or AG that doesn't want anyone but police and themselves to possess a firearm?
Examples
1. Person owns a deer rifle and was invited to hunt ducks with a friend that didn't have a spare shotgun where the 10-day wait would result in a missed opportunity.
2. A carry license holder only owns one gun and needed to replace it cause of loss or damage thus needing to wait 10+ days unarmed at home or in public.
3. A regular Barbie learning that there are better designed firearms for her to shoot at the next deer hunt than her grand-dads cap and ball, having to miss the hunt.

Like what kind of argument would one have to make that would sway a judge bent on eliminating gun ownership?

And why can't the team work in harmony to support each other in this effort? Are there turncoats or spies in the crowd? Or, It is that maybe these preliminary arguments will make the case stronger when actually presented?

A united force does better. Doesn't it?
__________________

- Aut Pax Aut Bellum - Volunteer LDW
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 12-26-2011, 3:35 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
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.
The problem is that the state need only come up with some sort of fantastical scenario in which the 10 day waiting period proves useful to the supposed interest of the state for the law to pass rational basis. I would be very hesitant to say that there's no possible way for the state to come up with such a scenario.

I stated earlier that I don't believe the 10 day wait even passes rational basis for those who already own firearms. But rational basis is such a bogus hurdle that it doesn't even deserve the term "hurdle" -- it is merely a codified excuse for the court to uphold laws which should never have seen the light of day, a way for the court to give the appearance of legitimacy to a law that has no legitimacy.

And so, sadly, I must retract that prior statement, or rather to amend it to say that if one could take the term "rational basis" on its face, then the 10 day wait would have a great deal of trouble passing it, but since the real role of "rational basis" in the court is to make it possible for the court to uphold anything it wishes, no matter how improper, then of course the 10 day wait will pass that "hurdle".


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

And yet, that's exactly how the court system treats rights it doesn't like.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 12-26-2011, 3:38 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,076
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
"Attack" is a little too strong don't you think? Let's face it, the options were considered and the choice was made to go with "I've already got guns, they all work fine, and I want more" and it wasn't because of a lack of posts about stolen guns on calguns.net.
Who would be your version of the ideal plaintiff and why? From what I've read - choose someone with a gun, no core violation. Someone without a gun - the state has an interest.

Last edited by dfletcher; 12-26-2011 at 3:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 12-26-2011, 3:39 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,781
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Where it might help to have a person who lost a gun as a plaintiff, it's probably not needed to make the state show it has no compelling interest in the law as its currently written.
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 12-26-2011, 3:47 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Methinks he's read too many NRA cases.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 12-26-2011, 3:54 PM
CenterX's Avatar
CenterX CenterX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sleep North SFO Bay
Posts: 1,489
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

In "green" terms - the 10 day wait utilizes more resources by requiring the purchaser to return to the point of sale under pretense of a special trip, and as the purchaser has already shown competency of ownership by currently owning a firearm, the additional burden on the planet is wastefully unnecessary. The decrease in road traffic will extend road life, improve general road safety and lower the impact of emissions on the planet and society at large. Thus, there is a 'Green' benefit from the adopting the instant check system in California.

Working together, our rights can be maintained and passed to future generations.
__________________

- Aut Pax Aut Bellum - Volunteer LDW
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 12-26-2011, 4:15 PM
mud99 mud99 is offline
Make Calguns Great Again
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,081
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

As far as my previous post, I was merely suggesting an "alternative path" which might pacify some of the fears of Californian antis while giving us back some of our stolen rights.

Now, you asked my personal opinion on gun rights, so here goes....

I feel that anyone who uses or intends to use a gun should be trained to use it safely.

A gun is a legitimately dangerous tool to others, like many others tools.

A gun, a car, a nuclear reactor, a Boeing 747, land mines, dynamite - these aren't things that people naturally know how to use safely.

In answer to your question - I believe that anyone who buys a gun should complete a safety course or test.

Should that safety course be ridiculous, useless, contrived, too expensive, otherwise worthless, or intended so that an ordinary person cannot pass it? NO

Could it be taught in school? YES

What if you do something unsafe, like firing into the air? Your license might be revoked or suspended either permanently or until you take more training, or if the offence was serious enough, you might go to jail.

Am I basically describing a system almost identical to a drivers license license? YES

Am I suggesting that ownership be restricted? NO

As a point of reference, even 1A rights are restricted - e.g. fighting words, copyright, etc.

I can't go into a church and yell out that I have a nuclear device and i'm going to blow this place up.

The constitution is absolute in that the rights promised to us in it will always exist, but it is not absolute in the sense that different people interpret the scope of those rights in different ways.


Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
So you feel the need to be licensed to own a gun? I guess you should get a license to go to church and speak your mind also?
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 12-26-2011, 4:23 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 15,781
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Your answers are contrived out of fear and assumptions. You can not compare a civil right to driving a car since driving is a privilege and not a civil right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mud99 View Post
As far as my previous post, I was merely suggesting an "alternative path" which might pacify some of the fears of Californian antis while giving us back some of our stolen rights.

Now, you asked my personal opinion on gun rights, so here goes....

I feel that anyone who uses or intends to use a gun should be trained to use it safely.

A gun is a legitimately dangerous tool to others, like many others tools.

A gun, a car, a nuclear reactor, a Boeing 747, land mines, dynamite - these aren't things that people naturally know how to use safely.

In answer to your question - I believe that anyone who buys a gun should complete a safety course or test.

Should that safety course be ridiculous, useless, contrived, too expensive, otherwise worthless, or intended so that an ordinary person cannot pass it? NO

Could it be taught in school? YES

What if you do something unsafe, like firing into the air? Your license might be revoked or suspended either permanently or until you take more training, or if the offence was serious enough, you might go to jail.

Am I basically describing a system almost identical to a drivers license license? YES

Am I suggesting that ownership be restricted? NO

As a point of reference, even 1A rights are restricted - e.g. fighting words, copyright, etc.

I can't go into a church and yell out that I have a nuclear device and i'm going to blow this place up.

The constitution is absolute in that the rights promised to us in it will always exist, but it is not absolute in the sense that different people interpret the scope of those rights in different ways.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 12-26-2011, 4:36 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Kinda late to the argument, but if I had my firearm stolen then a 10 day waiting period begins to make sense again.

After all, if I have no firearm because mine was stolen, then at this time I cannot use a firearm to commit suicide or murder. This means that purchasing a replacement firearm may be something I am doing in a fit of rage or in a severely depressed state. So the state begins to actually have an interest in delaying my taking possession of a firearm because my firearm was stolen.

In fact, if I knew who had stolen my firearm it might be that I am trying to purchase another in order to go and kill the thief?

I contend that while the denial of my RKBA is more clear if I'm subjected to a 10 day waiting period after my firearm is stolen, the state would also have a better argument that they have an interest in imposing that same waiting period.

I think that the plaintiff who has had their firearm stolen would make a remarkably bad plaintiff. I'm not even sure they would achieve standing (since the challenge is to the imposition of a waiting period when the person is already in possession of firearms, how would someone who no longer possesses firearms be a fit plaintiff?).

But IANAL so I could be missing this big time. . .
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 12-26-2011, 4:41 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,235
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

go get'em. this state will learn in the near future that infringing on Constitutional rights will be a non starter. and the B*TCH slap that comes with will be classic.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 12-26-2011, 4:49 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,076
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CenterX View Post
In "green" terms - the 10 day wait utilizes more resources by requiring the purchaser to return to the point of sale under pretense of a special trip, and as the purchaser has already shown competency of ownership by currently owning a firearm, the additional burden on the planet is wastefully unnecessary. The decrease in road traffic will extend road life, improve general road safety and lower the impact of emissions on the planet and society at large. Thus, there is a 'Green' benefit from the adopting the instant check system in California.

Working together, our rights can be maintained and passed to future generations.
What if I was headed that way anyhow? Besides, I like driving the '65 XKE when I buy & pick up a gun. I never get lost on the return trip, just follow the oil drips on the road left 10 days earlier ....
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 12-26-2011, 4:55 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,076
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Does the state issuing a COE factor in to this at all? I've never understood how it's allowed for me to skip the 10 day wait (when used with C & R FFL) on a 51 year old 1911, but not on a newly made 1911.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 12-26-2011, 5:03 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Your answers are contrived out of fear and assumptions. You can not compare a civil right to driving a car since driving is a privilege and not a civil right.
Actually, the right to travel is a civil right, albeit one not enumerated in the Constitution (as far as I know). Driving motor vehicles is a very common way to exercise that right in the United States.

I think it's possible to conceive of a scheme that would pass Constitutional review, where (in the context of my right to keep and bear arms) I would need a (easily obtainable) license to own a pistol, but would not need any license at all to own a combat knife with which to stab fools.

But I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 12-26-2011, 5:04 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,796
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
Does the state issuing a COE factor in to this at all? I've never understood how it's allowed for me to skip the 10 day wait (when used with C & R FFL) on a 51 year old 1911, but not on a newly made 1911.
and you can't skip it for a 49-year old 1911 or Python either.

But you can skip it if you buy a 25-year old D&D Bren 10 or CZ-82.
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

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

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:15 AM.




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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.