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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-06-2012, 6:19 PM
mike_schwartz@mail.com mike_schwartz@mail.com is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default The Real Story On Peruta (Gene's Wrong)

I am not looking for this to be an “I told you so” post. However, Gene Hoffman is generally considered a leader on this site and his behavior was inexcusable in his recent Peruta post.

First the case…the reason the same notification to the State of California is not given in the Pertua case as in the Richards case is because Peruta is a far more specific case that isn’t challenging a state’s law. It is a lawsuit against the sheriff of San Diego County and his specific policies when issuing concealed weapon licenses. Yes, they are being argued in the same courtroom and in front of the same judges, but they are different cases, possibly with different outcomes and differing results.

Peruta is not challenging the constitutionality of California’s concealed carry licensing. Peruta is challenging the County of San Diego and how their Sheriff complies with state law. Richards is much broader.

Because the Peruta case is against San Diego County Sheriff Gore, there is no requirement to notify California. The case is against Gore and Gore alone; not CA. It is my understanding that under the 11th Amendment the State of California isn’t held responsible for decisions a county’s sheriff makes. So by notifying Sheriff Gore that he’s being sued, the attorney on our side in Peruta did what he needed to do. The lawyer for Gore said in the oral argument that he contacted the AG's office years ago when this was filed.

Now, that’s a very basic, down and dirty explanation and I may have missed some nuance, but an important point I want to make is from that last sentence: “our side”.

How could Gene Hoffman not know why the same notice wasn’t given in the Peruta case? Still, he chose to leave that part out of his post in an attempt to drag some names through the mud. Not names associated with LCAV or the Brady Org, but names associated with NRA and ILA. The people on our side.

I don’t know why Gene behaved this way. I’ve torn into a few pro-gun folks myself due to my passion on the subject and out of frustration. And that may be part of it here, but my fear is it has to do more with money or ego. That we cannot stand for. And I encourage all of you to ignore that type of behavior when it happens again or better yet, point it out to Gene when he does it again.

Even if comes back to the board with hat in hand and says he simply did not understand, that is no excuse for his post and comments about people on our team. Ask the question rather than just start throwing around accusations, Gene. I am not looking to fight further with Gene or Brandon or Gray or Bill. But I am asking the rest reading this to question, in a professional and constructive manner, to look for this. And question those who make inflammatory statements about those who are on our team. We are not going to win anything if we continue to fight with allies or put up with leadership that does.

Gene…know your friends, know your enemies, know the difference. –Joel Friedman (Joel may not have made it up, but he said it the first time I heard it and it was in reference to the gun community so I credit him when I steal it.)

Oral arguments for Peruta: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi..._id=0000010109
  #2  
Old 12-06-2012, 6:33 PM
dave86's Avatar
dave86 dave86 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 50
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

My friend, It is unkind to chastise a man in such a public manner.
  #3  
Old 12-06-2012, 6:39 PM
mike_schwartz@mail.com mike_schwartz@mail.com is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Agreed, dave86.

And this could look hypocritical that I am doing exactly what I am complaining about to a small extent, but the first draft of this was far to vague and what I am talking about needs to end. It's important. It was better to risk how this post could appear than to watch this crap happen again and again and again.
  #4  
Old 12-06-2012, 6:43 PM
FoxTrot87 FoxTrot87 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 436
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

The OP is making an observation and not letting political correctness stand in his way. He made a well constructed argument and did so without stating his "reasonings" as facts. He did not try to mislead and addresses an "elephant in the room."

The side of Justice or Beliefs does not make us immune to being human.
  #5  
Old 12-06-2012, 7:45 PM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Peruta is still a badly designed copy cat case with the wrong plaintiff in the wrong jurisdiction which set back California right to carry by 2-3 years.

Whatever else it is hardly matters.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
  #6  
Old 12-06-2012, 7:50 PM
Cali-Shooter's Avatar
Cali-Shooter Cali-Shooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,092
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

Waiting to hear Gene's side of the story on this to see if it is really true. If it is, Gene would acknowledge it.
__________________
In Glock We Trust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeep7081
My wife sleeps better knowing we have a zombie killer... Saiga AK47! Although my neighbor with his AR has restless nights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AleksandreCz View Post
Thank god the Federal Government is there to protect us from the Federal Government
WTS: Revision 'Desert Locust' tactical Ballistic/Protective eyewear goggles NEW & USED pairs
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=737563
  #7  
Old 12-06-2012, 8:10 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 647
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Whether you agree with the OP on this topic or not, Gene still has some explaining to do on why he accused the NRA attorneys of Malpractice in that thread. Given Gene's position at CGF, it seems such statements could be considered libelous without some serious backup material?
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
  #8  
Old 12-06-2012, 8:26 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 647
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
Peruta is still a badly designed copy cat case with the wrong plaintiff in the wrong jurisdiction which set back California right to carry by 2-3 years.
The topic of the OP has nothing to do with that. The behavior exhibited by the Chairman of the CGF in that thread and others similar to it of late show a real lack of leadership. When the leader behaves like that, it causes his immediate followers (Brandon & Gray in that example) to believe that such behavior is acceptable and they proceed to pile on. This is inexcusable and needs to end.


Quote:
Whatever else it is hardly matters.
Leadership always matters. It usually matters above all else.
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
  #9  
Old 12-06-2012, 8:31 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_schwartz@mail.com View Post
I am not looking for this to be an “I told you so” post. However, Gene Hoffman is generally considered a leader on this site and his behavior was inexcusable in his recent Peruta post.

First the case…the reason the same notification to the State of California is not given in the Pertua case as in the Richards case is because Peruta is a far more specific case that isn’t challenging a state’s law. It is a lawsuit against the sheriff of San Diego County and his specific policies when issuing concealed weapon licenses. Yes, they are being argued in the same courtroom and in front of the same judges, but they are different cases, possibly with different outcomes and differing results.

Peruta is not challenging the constitutionality of California’s concealed carry licensing. Peruta is challenging the County of San Diego and how their Sheriff complies with state law. Richards is much broader.

Because the Peruta case is against San Diego County Sheriff Gore, there is no requirement to notify California. The case is against Gore and Gore alone; not CA. It is my understanding that under the 11th Amendment the State of California isn’t held responsible for decisions a county’s sheriff makes. So by notifying Sheriff Gore that he’s being sued, the attorney on our side in Peruta did what he needed to do. The lawyer for Gore said in the oral argument that he contacted the AG's office years ago when this was filed.

Now, that’s a very basic, down and dirty explanation and I may have missed some nuance, but an important point I want to make is from that last sentence: “our side”.

How could Gene Hoffman not know why the same notice wasn’t given in the Peruta case? Still, he chose to leave that part out of his post in an attempt to drag some names through the mud. Not names associated with LCAV or the Brady Org, but names associated with NRA and ILA. The people on our side.

I don’t know why Gene behaved this way. I’ve torn into a few pro-gun folks myself due to my passion on the subject and out of frustration. And that may be part of it here, but my fear is it has to do more with money or ego. That we cannot stand for. And I encourage all of you to ignore that type of behavior when it happens again or better yet, point it out to Gene when he does it again.

Even if comes back to the board with hat in hand and says he simply did not understand, that is no excuse for his post and comments about people on our team. Ask the question rather than just start throwing around accusations, Gene. I am not looking to fight further with Gene or Brandon or Gray or Bill. But I am asking the rest reading this to question, in a professional and constructive manner, to look for this. And question those who make inflammatory statements about those who are on our team. We are not going to win anything if we continue to fight with allies or put up with leadership that does.

Gene…know your friends, know your enemies, know the difference. –Joel Friedman (Joel may not have made it up, but he said it the first time I heard it and it was in reference to the gun community so I credit him when I steal it.)

Oral arguments for Peruta: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/vi..._id=0000010109
I have no idea where you get this from at all. Alan Gura also specified that the challenge here was against Prieto and his policies too. Where Peruta fails is simply that they are only challenging "good cause" only!

When dealing with Prieto, they are challenging good cause AND the moral character requirement.

If Peruta were to challenged by itself, he may win the good cause requirement but still leaving any sheriff in this state with the ability to deny an applicant based on moral character. What that means is that if the Sheriff doesn't like the way you dress or smell, denials on Moral Character would eliminate ones ability to get an LTC.

I think its time you fact check you arguments in regards to Hoffmang
  #10  
Old 12-06-2012, 8:35 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
The topic of the OP has nothing to do with that. The behavior exhibited by the Chairman of the CGF in that thread and others similar to it of late show a real lack of leadership. When the leader behaves like that, it causes his immediate followers (Brandon & Gray in that example) to believe that such behavior is acceptable and they proceed to pile on. This is inexcusable and needs to end.




Leadership always matters. It usually matters above all else.
And of course you have done what to get all CA citizens what? to gain an LTC? Other than post your complaints here?

BTW i got my LTC AND convinced our Sheriff to run on a pro LTC platform to eliminate all illegal requirements that the incumbent sheriff had in place

YES me personally and he still knows exactly who i am and that i was representing CGF!
  #11  
Old 12-06-2012, 8:44 PM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,272
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Well, reading and following the various threads and posts on this subject, I'm surprised it appears to be degenerating into a belly bucking contest like this.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Considering the facts of how easily safes can be defeated, a park bench offers the same amount of protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loose_electron View Post
PE card? LOL! Any green kid out of engineering school can get that with a few years of experience.

Last edited by tcrpe; 12-06-2012 at 8:47 PM..
  #12  
Old 12-06-2012, 8:48 PM
Devilinbp Devilinbp is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 91
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
And of course you have done what to get all CA citizens what? to gain an LTC? Other than post your complaints here?

BTW i got my LTC AND convinced our Sheriff to run on a pro LTC platform to eliminate all illegal requirements that the incumbent sheriff had in place

YES me personally and he still knows exactly who i am and that i was representing CGF!
I'd love to see you try to do that with Sheriff Gore, heck i'd love anyone to try and do that with Sheriff Gore. Wait.....i think Peruta is trying.
  #13  
Old 12-06-2012, 8:50 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Devilinbp View Post
I'd love to see you try to do that with Sheriff Gore, heck i'd love anyone to try and do that with Sheriff Gore. Wait.....i think Peruta is trying.
If he is trying so hard why do they leave out the challenge of moral character that is part of the state statute?
  #14  
Old 12-06-2012, 10:06 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_schwartz@mail.com View Post
First the case…the reason the same notification to the State of California is not given in the Pertua case as in the Richards case is because Peruta is a far more specific case that isn’t challenging a state’s law. It is a lawsuit against the sheriff of San Diego County and his specific policies when issuing concealed weapon licenses. Yes, they are being argued in the same courtroom and in front of the same judges, but they are different cases, possibly with different outcomes and differing results.
Then why did the 9th Circuit Panel issue the order asking about compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Peruta? If you've listened to the oral arguments, the only reason Richards challenges the state statute facially is to avoid the argument put forth by Gore that the real problem is with the statute. Richards didn't need the state statute to fall to turn Sacramento County virtually shall issue. Any unbiased listen to the orals today will show how critical the change we forced in Sacramento is.

Quote:
Peruta is not challenging the constitutionality of California’s concealed carry licensing. Peruta is challenging the County of San Diego and how their Sheriff complies with state law. Richards is much broader.
That's incorrect on both scores. State law grants discretion to the sheriff. Discretion is unconstitutional. Trying to hide from the partial challenge to the state statute is cute and maybe even a strategy, but not the law.

Quote:
I don’t know why Gene behaved this way.
This is simple. I put more stock in what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says about the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure than I do about your opinion of the FRCP.

-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
  #15  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:00 AM
mike_schwartz@mail.com mike_schwartz@mail.com is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

raperxz, thank you for your efforts and success. Truly. That is fantastic work on your part. To make a point, what would be your reaction if after you did all of this work, Gene posted a thread saying you are incompetent and the reason he did this is because your efforts only affect licensed carry in your county?

To clarify, I have respect and admiration for all the good that Gene and many others have done regarding our right to keep and bear arms. My complaint is with the internal fighting and bashing of others that are also making efforts. Gene could have stated his opinion without bashing the NRA-ILA, their efforts, their case, their client, and their attorney.

Gene, during the Peruta section both Clement and Gore's attorney agreed there was no need to get CA involved since Peruta is a challenge only to Gore’s policies. Gore's office notified the AG and the AG declined to get involved. There was very little further discussion on whether or not the state should be involved. If CA were involved, this would have broadened the scope of Peruta, weakening the focused case they are making and going in the opposite direction of their strategy. This is something you knew when you originally posted that the Peruta attorneys made a mistake and were unfit to try the case. It is not true. And what you just posted purposely leaves out facts pertinent to the discussion which is not the right thing to do.

As a leader in the position you are in you have got to be straight forward in your discussions and you have got to stop bashing other pro-gunners and pro-gun orgs.

The rest of us need to respectfully and honestly hold those who do bash us and the pro-guns orgs we respect responsible. Especially when the basher is on our side.

I am not going to go around and around playing word games. Disagree with the case and/or the strategy, but don't leave out facts and make false accusations in an attempt to disparage respected people in our gun community.
  #16  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:10 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: 2,572
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Then why did the 9th Circuit Panel issue the order asking about compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Peruta?
I dunno, why did the 9th Circuit Panel issue the order asking about compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Richards?

Quote:
Trying to hide from the partial challenge to the state statute is cute and maybe even a strategy, but not the law.
So you did know the counter argument before starting the inflammatory malpractice thread! lol.
  #17  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:12 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

@ Mike

The problems with most of what you are talking about is that all the people concerned that you have mentioned all have a personal type relationship. They all want to have the magic winning case.

There is money involved in winning!!! I don't really care about any of that because i know i will not be getting any money, win lose or draw AND I already have an LTC.

Mr. Peruta left me a PM about my comments above. I personally hope Ed wins his case, for him. I explained my point of view in a reply.

I stand by what i stated though. I have met both Gene and Ed Worley and respect both of them for the work they do.

Last edited by taperxz; 12-07-2012 at 6:25 AM..
  #18  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:48 AM
ZNinerFan's Avatar
ZNinerFan ZNinerFan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 974
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Having listened to the oral arguments in Peruta, it became painfully obvious that the attorney for San Diego County pretty much punted and deflected the plaintiffs argument by basically calling the State law under which the sheriffs authority comes from unconstitutional in regards to CCW permit issuance. The rest of his arguments were emotional pleas.

In contrast with Richards, where Yolo County couldn't pass the buck to the State because the State law was also being challenged.

I understand there is a difference in scope between the two cases but I can't help but wonder if the appellate court judges didn't see the writing in the wall and ask the question "Why aren't you guys challenging the State Law or at least including the State law in your challenge?"

Peruta - No

Richards - Yes

I can't speak to the personal conflicts that have come up but I would like to think we are all on the side of the angels when it comes to fighting for our civil rights.

Disclaimer, I'm not an attorney or employed in the legal profession in any capacity nor do I claim to have any knowledge beyond the average citizen.

I did enjoy listening to all 3 arguments and wish I could get away from the office and attend.
  #19  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:53 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNinerFan View Post
Having listened to the oral arguments in Peruta, it became painfully obvious that the attorney for San Diego County pretty much punted and deflected the plaintiffs argument by basically calling the State law under which the sheriffs authority comes from unconstitutional in regards to CCW permit issuance. The rest of his arguments were emotional pleas.

In contrast with Richards, where Yolo County couldn't pass the buck to the State because the State law was also being challenged.

I understand there is a difference in scope between the two cases but I can't help but wonder if the appellate court judges didn't see the writing in the wall and ask the question "Why aren't you guys challenging the State Law or at least including the State law in your challenge?"

Peruta - No

Richards - Yes

I can't speak to the personal conflicts that have come up but I would like to think we are all on the side of the angels when it comes to fighting for our civil rights.

Disclaimer, I'm not an attorney or employed in the legal profession in any capacity nor do I claim to have any knowledge beyond the average citizen.

I did enjoy listening to all 3 arguments and wish I could get away from the office and attend.
Maybe i'm mistaken, didn't the justices acknowledge the idea that a Sheriff is in fact representative of the state? Or an "actor" for the state? In this instance would they then believe that a challenge to the state would be complete with that actor present?
  #20  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:02 AM
ZNinerFan's Avatar
ZNinerFan ZNinerFan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 974
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

It is my understanding that Counties are technically an extension of the State or at least that was what I always disclosed in my notes when I prepared the Financial Statements. So in that regard you could say that the State was present and represented.

I can see the argument that the state law is good but sheriff Gores policies are bad, which is what this lawsuit is arguing. But how does this address the statewide inconsistencies in the issuance of CCW permits?

I know that is outside of the scope of the case. It's just my question. Sacramento now issues CCW but that has no bearing on Sonoma and Marin Counties.
  #21  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:11 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNinerFan View Post
It is my understanding that Counties are technically an extension of the State or at least that was what I always disclosed in my notes when I prepared the Financial Statements. So in that regard you could say that the State was present and represented.

I can see the argument that the state law is good but sheriff Gores policies are bad, which is what this lawsuit is arguing. But how does this address the statewide inconsistencies in the issuance of CCW permits?

I know that is outside of the scope of the case. It's just my question. Sacramento now issues CCW but that has no bearing on Sonoma and Marin Counties.
I think the state law is terrible. It allows Sheriffs like Gore to abuse the statute.

What i would have liked to hear from Peruta is the opposite of what the justice asked in regards to Sac. Peruta should have told the judges that IF tomorrow, Sheriff Gore was for some reason no longer sheriff, and a newly appointed or voted sheriff were put into place. That new sheriff could wake up the next day, feel like issuing LTC's for no other reason than "because he feels like it" and accept a good cause of "it's because of the unicorns"
  #22  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:16 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bottom line to all here, I don't see "Shall Issue" happening in California anytime soon because a majority of California law enforcement, and the legislators will not let it happen.

In other words, rank and file cops and their handlers will be brought in to testify in front of the senate and assembly, and they will paint a horrific picture of the old "blood in the streets" scenario, which of course will be opposed by our side. But the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS will ignore the pro-gun rebuttal, and all of the historical evidence that goes with it, and vote any legislation down that attempts to enact "Shall Issue". If the state loses in court, "Shall Issue" will still not be implemented because they have other means by which they can drag their feet and stall implementation.

Even if it goes to the Supreme Court, the chances of getting "Shall Issue" will still be far off, if it occurs at all. Who are you going to arrest ? Who will be fined ? Sure you can sue, but how long will it take ? Then of course there are the appeals.

Nordyke is an isolated case of perseverance, but how many people can afford the time and money to go the distance like the Nordyke's did ?

I'm glad that people are fighting the good fight. Perhaps my grandkids will see the day when they will have "Shall Issue". But as things stand now, there is no way "Shall Issue" will be a reality in California. We have way too many sheep, too many wolves, and not enough sheepdogs.
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
  #23  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:19 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Bottom line to all here, I don't see "Shall Issue" happening in California anytime soon because a majority of California law enforcement, and the legislators will not let it happen.

In other words, rank and file cops and their handlers will be brought in to testify in front of the senate and assembly, and they will paint a horrific picture of the old "blood in the streets" scenario, which of course will be opposed by our side. But the LIBERAL DEMOCRATS will ignore the pro-gun rebuttal, and all of the historical evidence that goes with it, and vote any legislation down that attempts to enact "Shall Issue". If the state loses in court, "Shall Issue" will still not be implemented because they have other means by which they can drag their feet and stall implementation.

Even if it goes to the Supreme Court, the chances of getting "Shall Issue" will still be far off, if it occurs at all. Who are you going to arrest ? Who will be fined ? Sure you can sue, but how long will it take ? Then of course there are the appeals.

Nordyke is an isolated case of perseverance, but how many people can afford the time and money to go the distance like the Nordyke's did ?

I'm glad that people are fighting the good fight. Perhaps my grandkids will see the day when they will have "Shall Issue". But as things stand now, there is no way "Shall Issue" will be a reality in California. We have way too many sheep, too many wolves, and not enough sheepdogs.
You do realize that a super majority of CA Sheriffs issue don't you?
  #24  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:20 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You do realize that a super majority of CA Sheriffs issue don't you?
I can think of a few Sheriffs that I can count on one hand. I'd hardly call that a supermajority. And then there are those that make up their own rules before they issue, that's almost as bad.

Rereading your post, you're propbably right. But to who, is the real question. You know, like Baca only issuing to celebs and contributors.
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law

Last edited by The Shadow; 12-07-2012 at 7:23 AM..
  #25  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:30 AM
ZNinerFan's Avatar
ZNinerFan ZNinerFan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 974
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying the State law was good. Only what I thought was being argued.

When it comes to constitutional rights they should never be left to the discretion of any individual when it comes to their exercise. Otherwise we would be back to the old taxes on voting.
  #26  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:33 AM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,141
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I get why "the right people" are butthurt over Peruta and I get why other people are butthurt over "the right people" disparaging people on our side. What I don't get is why anybody thinks it's a good idea to vent all of this on a hugely public forum. It doesn't exactly increase my optimism about CGF's efforts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm behind you guys 100% (er... at least with the spare change I throw you now and then) but all the internet infighting seems counter-productive to me.
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
  #27  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:35 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
I get why "the right people" are butthurt over Peruta and I get why other people are butthurt over "the right people" disparaging people on our side. What I don't get is why anybody thinks it's a good idea to vent all of this on a hugely public forum. It doesn't exactly increase my optimism about CGF's efforts.

Don't get me wrong, I'm behind you guys 100% (er... at least with the spare change I throw you now and then) but all the internet infighting seems counter-productive to me.
All other gun rights groups do the same thing. Its called competition. Michel and assoc. do the same kind of bantering right back at CGF.

It really is about the fame and money for some.
  #28  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:41 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

BTW ZNinerFan, do you have "Shall Issue" in Stanislaus county yet ? The Sheriff and his challenger talked big about it, and I believe the Madison Society was even doing their bit to get "Shall Issue", but I still don't see it there.
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
  #29  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:54 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,021
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
You do realize that a super majority of CA Sheriffs issue don't you?
the one here in OC sure as hell does'nt.
__________________
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.
  #30  
Old 12-07-2012, 7:54 AM
ZNinerFan's Avatar
ZNinerFan ZNinerFan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 974
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

It is defacto shall issue but I don't believe they are 100% in compliance. I have plenty of freinds who have theirs. I am waiting on getting my S&W sheild and then applying myself as I have heard it is a pain to add more guns to the permit.
  #31  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:02 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
the one here in OC sure as hell does'nt.
Isn't that a problem that the local constituency needs to rectify? Current state law allows these practices. The residents of that county need to vote him out.

If you can't, then the majority of the people in your county like his practices
  #32  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:19 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,463
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

From a seriously distant perspective of the average Joe, the NRA needs to have it's nose tweaked on this, and I'm glad Gene did it. I would have gone much further.

From the perspective of those of us suffering under inane CA laws, we look around, and we see CGF:

1) Giving leadership to average Joes like me -- hey, here's what you can do locally to help the fight.
2) We have CGF lawyers and peeps like Gene et al giving advice and helping CA shooters all while filing suits against unconstitutional CA laws (and oh yeah, trying to pay their mortgages).

Then we have the NRA. Tens of millions of dollars to throw around. I look around, and what do I see them doing:

1) Inane spam and snail mail which spews crap that panders to the lowest common denominator. Anyone on the fence about the 2A issue would read their garbage and IMMEDIATELY assume all gun owners are Timothy McVeigh.
2) Trying to grab credit earned by others and discredit those who have accomplished great things. (Already addressed in the other thread)
3) Wasting money and time with egregious mistakes, when Californians have no patience left, having dealt with so much crap for so long. (Again, already addressed in the other thread)

Gene, who actually does real work and gets real results for Californians, has every right to be frustrated with the NRA, and if he needs some NRA scalps on his wall to blow off some steam then we should all volunteer to sharpen his hatchets. The NRA has confused political pandering with actual work, and now seems to believe themselves above things like results.
__________________

Last edited by speedrrracer; 12-07-2012 at 10:35 AM..
  #33  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:47 AM
ironpete's Avatar
ironpete ironpete is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orange County
Posts: 299
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Important to differentiate facts from feeling.

Hutchens does issue.

It isn't easy or fun. It is a total pain and expensive. Your approval is subject to many things including evaluation of, "Good Cause". Many have quit, let expire, not bothered or given in to suggested blackmail (you don't really want a denial on your record do you?). It is exactly the way she wants it.

Anyway, never say never. She would easily counter your statement with a record of all the permits she has issued over her tenure and say that she is correctly following state guidelines.

Along the lines of Peruta you can either change sheriff or change the rules. Pick which you will fight but don't waste energy by lamely whining with statements devoid of truth.

-Pete

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
the one here in OC sure as hell does'nt.
__________________
Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Knowledge without character
Commerce without morality
Science without humanity
Worship without sacrifice
Politics without principle
- Ghandi, Mohandas (The Blunders of the World)
Rights without responsibilities
- Ghandi, Arun
  #34  
Old 12-07-2012, 9:17 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,476
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Shadow View Post
Bottom line to all here, I don't see "Shall Issue" happening in California anytime soon because a majority of California law enforcement, and the legislators will not let it happen.
Defining "good cause = self protection" and "good moral character = clean record" achieves the goal of "shall issue," while keeping the legislators happy that it's still called "may issue."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #35  
Old 12-07-2012, 9:37 AM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,839
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
From a seriously distant perspective of the average Joe, the NRA needs to have it's nose tweaked on this, and I'm glad Gene did it. I would have gone much further.

From the perspective of those of us suffering under inane CA laws, we look around, and we see CGF:

1) Giving leadership to average Joes like me -- hey, here's what you can do locally to help the fight.
2) We have CGF lawyers like Gene et al giving advice and helping CA shooters all while filing suits against unconstitutional CA laws (and oh yeah, trying to pay their mortgages).

Then we have the NRA. Tens of millions of dollars to throw around. I look around, and what do I see them doing:

1) Inane spam and snail mail which spews crap that panders to the lowest common denominator. Anyone on the fence about the 2A issue would read their garbage and IMMEDIATELY assume all gun owners are Timothy McVeigh.
2) Trying to grab credit earned by others and discredit those who have accomplished great things. (Already addressed in the other thread)
3) Wasting money and time with egregious mistakes, when Californians have no patience left, having dealt with so much crap for so long. (Again, already addressed in the other thread)

Gene, who actually does real work and gets real results for Californians, has every right to be frustrated with the NRA, and if he needs some NRA scalps on his wall to blow off some steam then we should all volunteer to sharpen his hatchets. The NRA has confused political pandering with actual work, and now seems to believe themselves above things like results.
QFT.

If we had relied solely on the NRA and their lawyer in McDonald vs Chicago I don't think we would have had the outcome we did with Mr. Gura's arguments.

IMO, I think the NRA has given up too much over the years. I also think they should change their approach from mainly supporting hunters and sportsmen to also supporting the civil right of self defense as such as well as the right to keep and bear arms being a fundamental civil right. An inalienable right.

I think some of their programs are great, their shooting programs, firearms safety education, etc, but the basic public image is of a good old white men's club more or less, it could be so much more. It SHOULD be so much more.
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
  #36  
Old 12-07-2012, 9:38 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Defining "good cause = self protection" and "good moral character = clean record" achieves the goal of "shall issue," while keeping the legislators happy that it's still called "may issue."
Theoretically, that's true. But in practice, in the State of California, not so much.

Just wondering, what is Alan Gura doing in California right now ?
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
  #37  
Old 12-07-2012, 9:53 AM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,839
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Defining "good cause = self protection" and "good moral character = clean record" achieves the goal of "shall issue," while keeping the legislators happy that it's still called "may issue."
I don't believe we should even require a good cause.

"Good moral character" is also such a subjective thing. I think as long as you can legally possess a firearm then you satisfy the requirement. The law should be re-written.

Shall Issue
No cause required
If you are under no restriction from possessing firearms then you're GTG
I'm okay with shooting course and shooting test, but no higher requirement than the LEOs get.

And now I shall wake up because we will never have this in California, at least in my lifetime.
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
  #38  
Old 12-07-2012, 10:00 AM
tcrpe's Avatar
tcrpe tcrpe is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bakersfield, California
Posts: 10,272
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
From a seriously distant perspective of the average Joe, the NRA needs to have it's nose tweaked on this, and I'm glad Gene did it. I would have gone much further.

From the perspective of those of us suffering under inane CA laws, we look around, and we see CGF:

1) Giving leadership to average Joes like me -- hey, here's what you can do locally to help the fight.
2) We have CGF lawyers like Gene et al giving advice and helping CA shooters all while filing suits against unconstitutional CA laws (and oh yeah, trying to pay their mortgages).

Then we have the NRA. Tens of millions of dollars to throw around. I look around, and what do I see them doing:

1) Inane spam and snail mail which spews crap that panders to the lowest common denominator. Anyone on the fence about the 2A issue would read their garbage and IMMEDIATELY assume all gun owners are Timothy McVeigh.
2) Trying to grab credit earned by others and discredit those who have accomplished great things. (Already addressed in the other thread)
3) Wasting money and time with egregious mistakes, when Californians have no patience left, having dealt with so much crap for so long. (Again, already addressed in the other thread)

Gene, who actually does real work and gets real results for Californians, has every right to be frustrated with the NRA, and if he needs some NRA scalps on his wall to blow off some steam then we should all volunteer to sharpen his hatchets. The NRA has confused political pandering with actual work, and now seems to believe themselves above things like results.
Looks like a turf war to me. Crap, it always gets down to that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Considering the facts of how easily safes can be defeated, a park bench offers the same amount of protection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loose_electron View Post
PE card? LOL! Any green kid out of engineering school can get that with a few years of experience.

Last edited by tcrpe; 12-07-2012 at 10:04 AM..
  #39  
Old 12-07-2012, 10:32 AM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,839
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tcrpe View Post
Looks like a turf war to me. Crap, it always gets down to that.
I think it may run a little deeper than that. In some ways the NRA's position of being preeminent for firearms rights in America (not to mention the individual states) reminds me a little bit of the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm.
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
  #40  
Old 12-07-2012, 11:05 AM
wash's Avatar
wash wash is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sillycon valley
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Blog Entries: 13
Default

It's interesting talking about which side you are on.

Are you on the side that wants to win or the side that keeps screwing things up for us?

There would be no issue of sides if the NRA was actually good at litigation (in terms of choosing the right cases, not in throwing really good attorneys at bad cases).

Chuck seems like an OK lawyer to me despite his connection to "Nooch" Truantich but NRA is pulling the strings and it sure seems like their strategy is to beat SAF to the punch or screw up their cases in the process. Since the direction is coming from someone sitting pretty in a state with decent gun laws, they don't really care which way things go for us.

The problem is sides and the "side" I'm on isn't the one that created these sides.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander
Dear Kevin,

You suck!!! Your are wrong!!! Stop it!!!
Proud CGF and CGN donor. SAF life member. Former CRPA member. Gpal beta tester (it didn't work). NRA member.
Closed Thread

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 4:20 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.