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
  #81  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:42 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Did the panel specifically say "remand" in the context of the notice issue? If so, can you point me to the point in the audio where they said that?
At approximately 3:30 through roughly 4:30 in the argument, Gura answeres a question from the panel regarding whether the State needed to be involved, and the issue of notification.

At 9:03 in arguments, the Court specifically asks whether or not Gura is asking for a remand (this was regarding Sheriff Prieto's policy RE: CCW policy guidelines, and the specificity or vagueness of regulations contained within the Sheriff's policy).

(Unrelated to this specific comment, but the panel did seem to be entertaining the notion that there may be a core right to self defense outside of your home or stationary property at about the 22:38 mark)

At 32:20 the Panelist mentions that lower courts have not had the opportunity to weigh in on new statutes, and specifically states "...no one wants us to send it back, what's your position?" To which the Yolo counsel replies generally about Plaintiff has included new and old statutes, and that the Court could "...affirm without sending it back." Additionally, Yolo counsel states that "...we would agree that, under CA law in a 1983 case that the Sheriff is a state actor, acting on behalf of the State, not the Counties."
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
  #82  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:50 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Where did this happen in the audio? I heard the panel talking about remand for other reasons but not the AG notice. Saying listen to the audio is no answer, if you say it's there, point it out.
You are technically correct that at no point did the Panel specifically ask "Do we need to remand this because of improper notification to the state?"

Congratulations, enjoy your "gotcha" moment.

However, the context of the statements made (particularly when you include into thoughtful consideration that the 9th Circuit specifically told BOTH counsels to be prepared to discuss whether a remand might be necessary due to the issue of proper/improper notice) throughout the course of the arguments was the Panel more or less asking in not quite so many words whether the counsels felt that there might be a reason to remand, and both times they were referencing the idea of the state being present in the court to participate (and by extension, the question of notification comes into play. If the state had not been notified by either party in this particular case, I feel relatively certain that the 9th Circuit either would have post-poned argument pending notification, or remanded for the same reason). However, the point is moot since Mr. Gura did provide proper notification.
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
  #83  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:51 PM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Please! don't take my post out of context! I replied to another poster stating that most of the LE in this state don't issue. My statement was that most LE in this state do issue by a super majority. I think it is irrelevant that those that don't are in higher populated areas.

My point being that a sheriff is a sheriff and elected by individual counties. If you put them all in one room and they voted to issue or not in this state the vote would be overwhelmingly to issue to all citizens.
But your 80% of the sheriffs, say, represent 20% of the people.

Put all of the people in California in a room, and 80% of them would vote to not issue. It, after all, is NOT the sheriffs that vote for the stateg legislature, or we would be laughing.

OK, over simplification, using Pareto analysis (aka the 80:20 rule) but close enough to be realistic.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

  #84  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:54 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: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The first instance (3:30) was discussed a few posts back; the state could be involved as an intervening party on appeal, no remand required and no discernible reason to remand for this reason. When the panel mentioned remand it was unrelated to the AG notice. The premise of the inflammatory thread that engendered this thread was that a remand was inevitable in Peruta because of the AG notice; predictably, this did not play out at oral arguments.
  #85  
Old 12-07-2012, 5:59 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The first instance (3:30) was discussed a few posts back; the state could be involved as an intervening party on appeal, no remand required and no discernible reason to remand for this reason. When the panel mentioned remand it was unrelated to the AG notice. The premise of the inflammatory thread that engendered this thread was that a remand was inevitable in Peruta because of the AG notice; predictably, this did not play out at oral arguments.
I'm not certain that anyone thought a Remand was inevitable in the Peruta case (maybe some did?), but rather, were concerned that it was a much stronger possibility due to the lead attorney in that case not properly following procedures. The concern, it seemed, was that because the two cases were similar enough, the Panel might decline to hear any of them, pending a remand for notification issues, thereby delaying action until proper procedures could be followed, and consolidating the two cases for purposes of expediency at a possible later date. Clearly the Panel had entertained this possibility, because they specifically asked counsel to be prepared to address the issue at orals.
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
  #86  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:04 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: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
Congratulations, enjoy your "gotcha" moment.
No gotcha intended, I wanted to know where they said it because I didn't hear it.

Quote:
However, the context of the statements made (particularly when you include into thoughtful consideration that the 9th Circuit specifically told BOTH counsels to be prepared to discuss whether a remand might be necessary due to the issue of proper/improper notice)....
Thanks for pointing this out, what the panel actually said in its order was:

Quote:
At oral argument, the parties should be prepared to discuss the significance, if any, of the absence of the State of California in this appeal.
No mention of remand here, obviously, only participation in the appeal.
  #87  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:12 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
No gotcha intended, I wanted to know where they said it because I didn't hear it.



Thanks for pointing this out, what the panel actually said in its order was:



No mention of remand here, obviously, only participation in the appeal.
So because the Court's notice RE; state participation didn't specifically mention he word "remand" that means A.) they weren't considering it, and B.) they would have no standing to order one if they so chose?
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
  #88  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:33 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
But your 80% of the sheriffs, say, represent 20% of the people.

Put all of the people in California in a room, and 80% of them would vote to not issue. It, after all, is NOT the sheriffs that vote for the stateg legislature, or we would be laughing.

OK, over simplification, using Pareto analysis (aka the 80:20 rule) but close enough to be realistic.
Geez louise!!! I already said i was responding to another poster who said the MAJORITY OF LE DOES NOT WANT TO ISSUE. Thus my response.

How do you think the President is voted in? Its NOT the people but the electoral college. I just crack up when posters who live in forbidden counties cry the blues about not having an LTC but do nothing to convince the constituency in their county and those running for office that issuing is a good thing. ITS YOUR COUNTY! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
  #89  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:41 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

OH! BTW! Our Sheriff is a democrat of Hispanic decent. Also issues for the good cause statement of "self defence" AND spent most of his career as a San Francisco police officer.

Last edited by taperxz; 12-07-2012 at 6:44 PM..
  #90  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:46 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: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
So because the Court's notice RE; state participation didn't specifically mention he word "remand" that means A.) they weren't considering it, and B.) they would have no standing to order one if they so chose?
Everything suggests the panel's interest was in the state's participation in the appeal. The panel could invite the state to participate in the appeal, in either case, based on 28 USC 2403. No purpose whatsoever would be served by vacating the judgment and remanding so that the AG could be notified. In the Peruta case, notifying the AG would have been inconsistent with the plaintiff's litigation position, which was clearly articulated in a variety of briefs and other documents filed in the case.
  #91  
Old 12-07-2012, 6:59 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Everything suggests the panel's interest was in the state's participation in the appeal. The panel could invite the state to participate in the appeal, in either case, based on 28 USC 2403. No purpose whatsoever would be served by vacating the judgment and remanding so that the AG could be notified. In the Peruta case, notifying the AG would have been inconsistent with the plaintiff's litigation position, which was clearly articulated in a variety of briefs and other documents filed in the case.
Yep. Plaintiff made it clear that they were not interested in challenging state law but rather Gores illegal interpretation of state law.
  #92  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:11 PM
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 M. D. Van Norman View Post
[sigh] As I’ve said before, revolutions are difficult to manage. Now, feel free to carry on with the bickering.
Funny you should mention revolution. That's probably what it will take to get "Shall Issue" in this state. We certainly can't get the a law passed through peaceful means. Criminals get more attention and consideration than law abiding citizens.

The problem is, we're playing by their rules, and they keep changing them when it doesn't work in their favor.
__________________
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
  #93  
Old 12-07-2012, 8:28 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
meplat, I did listen and the panel did not say "remand," which is not at all surprising since there was zero chance the panel would do that on account of 2403 / 5.1.
I don't remember which case, (not worth going back and listening to all of them) but one of the judges asked is they wanted a remand or this court to dicide the case. The lawyer said they didn't want a remad.
  #94  
Old 12-08-2012, 6:05 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: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi357 View Post
I don't remember which case, (not worth going back and listening to all of them) but one of the judges asked is they wanted a remand or this court to dicide the case. The lawyer said they didn't want a remad.
My question was about remand because of the AG notice.
  #95  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:21 AM
geeknow geeknow is offline
Lifetime Contributor #1
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,168
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

So this is how they win...?

By watching US tear ourselves apart?

Wow. I didn't think it would be so simple. I guess I was wrong.
  #96  
Old 12-08-2012, 7:55 AM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
My question was about remand because of the AG notice.
I contend that remanding or “sending it back”, as the panel sometimes verbalized it, would not have even come up had it not been for lack of notice in Peruta. So you dodged a bullet (maybe) and now you are dancing in the streets shouting; “I told you so!”
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
  #97  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:14 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,250
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
OH! BTW! Our Sheriff is a democrat of Hispanic decent. Also issues for the good cause statement of "self defence" AND spent most of his career as a San Francisco police officer.
he must of left SFPD in digust because of the backwards thinking in San Francisco.
__________________
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.
  #98  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:18 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,889
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm so freaking sick of the pissing contest here. Despite all his previous rabble rousing, in this one case, I don't believe Fabio was being inflammatory. I didn't recall any suggestion of remand due to notice issues either.

But this is the point at which we have arrived due to the unnecessary and volumous infighting: That Fabio can't even ask someone to clarify or verify a basic point of fact without being suspected and accused of playing gotcha. He may have brought that on himself, but so have we.

We are ALL responsible for the character and tone of the dialog here. Me, you, Fabio, Gray, Gene, Brandon, Kes, etc, etc.

We either engage in it or tolerate it. Either way it continues. And we look like a bunch of too-smart, testosterone-laden teenagers instead of the incredible community of civil rights activists that we are.

We get exactly the forum and community we demand, no more, no less.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
  #99  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:19 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: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
I contend that remanding or “sending it back”, as the panel sometimes verbalized it, would not have even come up had it not been for lack of notice in Peruta. So you dodged a bullet (maybe) and now you are dancing in the streets shouting; “I told you so!”
  #100  
Old 12-08-2012, 9:53 AM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
LOL so.... what do you attribute the rest of the country having the most liberal gun rights the country has seen since the 1800's? Fantasy world? Tell me what org. has done more in this country. NRA is made of of millions of Americans who donate money!! Money talks and your whatever walks.
NY, NJ, Massachusetts, Maryland, Illinois, DC, etc. liberal gun laws........ right
Many of the changes of state laws comes from groups within the state with no affliction with the NRA.
What has all that money done for national reciprocity? Or changed the laws in DC? The NRA has yet to fix many of the laws they help craft.
The SAF has done more to secure 2A rights than the NRA in the past 100+ years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
But this is the point at which we have arrived due to the unnecessary and volumous infighting: That Fabio can't even ask someone to clarify or verify a basic point of fact without being suspected and accused of playing gotcha. He may have brought that on himself, but so have we.
You reap what you sow, Fabio has a tendency to give vague answers, tell people to go research what he means. It should be no surprise that people are going to treat him the same

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro Pistolero View Post
We get exactly the forum and community we demand, no more, no less.
I agree. This topic should have stayed dead but it was given new life. There are far too many ego’s and hurt feelings now to get meaningful change within the community, we are simply going to have to hope that the changes we seek happen out of this chaos, or hope that some of the ego’s shallow their pride and rise above. I am placing money on the former.
  #101  
Old 12-08-2012, 10:18 AM
IrishPirate's Avatar
IrishPirate IrishPirate is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Roseville, PRK
Posts: 6,401
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

what interests me is the notion that someone could be issued a LTC in one county for 10 consecutive years, then move to another county, use the exact same "good cause" and be denied. That in itself seems to be an obvious constitutional deficit. Also, the fact that two people with identical records and personal history, using identical good cause statements, could have different outcomes for issuance because they live in different counties seems to create a class system among the citizenry. If it's a fundamental right of all US citizens, then it shouldn't matter what state you live in, let alone what county...

i know that's what we're trying to fight right now, but i haven't heard those points brought up yet so i figured i'd add them in case someone needed some clarification, or some ammo when debating with anti's.
__________________

Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.
People Should Not Be Afraid Of Their Governments, Governments Should Be Afraid Of Their People

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
  #102  
Old 12-08-2012, 10:26 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,694
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Everything suggests the panel's interest was in the state's participation in the appeal. The panel could invite the state to participate in the appeal, in either case, based on 28 USC 2403. No purpose whatsoever would be served by vacating the judgment and remanding so that the AG could be notified. In the Peruta case, notifying the AG would have been inconsistent with the plaintiff's litigation position, which was clearly articulated in a variety of briefs and other documents filed in the case.
Wow. A concise informative statement that could have prevented two Peruta/Richards threads and days of bickering and insults.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #103  
Old 12-08-2012, 10:56 AM
Quser.619's Avatar
Quser.619 Quser.619 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 781
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

I used to find the bickering a bit dis-concerning, but in truth I think the in-fighting forces us to strengthen our stances & our arguments. It's not like the other side isn't going to argue against us & if anything, a variety of different takes on our side shows just how truly big-tented our side can be overall.

Our opponents, the true opponents in the matter of restoring our natural rights march lock-step & barrel... simply put, they want all guns & individual rights to be squashed. Period.

If your delicate egos & sensibilities cannot handle someone on your side questioning your stances, beliefs or willingness to fight, then you're truly not prepared to face the opposition backed fully by the state & possibly the majority of the masses.

This is nothing less than an uphill battle that only steepens more towards the top. So put on your "big boy" pants, we've got a lot more distance to cover before the Heller 5 are no more & I guarantee that Obama isn't going to appoint anyone that sympathizes with our side.
__________________
‘‘Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?’’

— Patrick Henry

  #104  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:11 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: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Wow. A concise informative statement that could have prevented two Peruta/Richards threads and days of bickering and insults.
The first thread was not intended to be informative. The claims made in that thread by the OP and others were a total load and the criticism in this thread is well-founded.
  #105  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:26 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,694
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The first thread was not intended to be informative. The claims made in that thread by the OP and others were a total load and the criticism in this thread is well-founded.
Correct. It was a bait and there were two ways to handle it. Take the bait, or put an end to it by a two sentence post on Peruta's counsel position. You are way too experienced to have taken the bait accidentally. Not that I blame your choice, just pointing it out...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by IVC; 12-08-2012 at 12:32 PM.. Reason: spelling
  #106  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:51 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,094
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quser.619 View Post
I used to find the bickering a bit dis-concerning, but in truth I think the in-fighting forces us to strengthen our stances & our arguments. It's not like the other side isn't going to argue against us & if anything, a variety of different takes on our side shows just how truly big-tented our side can be overall.

Our opponents, the true opponents in the matter of restoring our natural rights march lock-step & barrel... simply put, they want all guns & individual rights to be squashed. Period.

If your delicate egos & sensibilities cannot handle someone on your side questioning your stances, beliefs or willingness to fight, then you're truly not prepared to face the opposition backed fully by the state & possibly the majority of the masses.

This is nothing less than an uphill battle that only steepens more towards the top. So put on your "big boy" pants, we've got a lot more distance to cover before the Heller 5 are no more & I guarantee that Obama isn't going to appoint anyone that sympathizes with our side.
To a degree I'd agree with you.

It is healthy to have a robust and intense argument over the facts, the law, tactics, and strategy.

It is not at all healthy to be attacking the person unless they are clearly not pro-liberty or they are considered clearly incompetent (e.g. Gorski, Birdt, and Nichols).

Attack the opinion or facts all you want. Disagree vociferously over tactics and strategy. But lay off the personal attacks - they do no one any good.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #107  
Old 12-08-2012, 12:07 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: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Correct. It was a bait and there were two ways to handle it. Take the bait, or put an end to it by a two sentence post on Peruta's counsel position. You are way too experienced to have taken the bate accidentally. Not that I blame your choice, just pointing it out...
Lame threads and claims are the reason for the Fabio persona, why would I handle it any other way?
  #108  
Old 12-08-2012, 12:10 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

Hard to believe the bickering continues here in public. Axe grinding?
  #109  
Old 12-08-2012, 12:59 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishPirate View Post
what interests me is the notion that someone could be issued a LTC in one county for 10 consecutive years, then move to another county, use the exact same "good cause" and be denied. That in itself seems to be an obvious constitutional deficit. Also, the fact that two people with identical records and personal history, using identical good cause statements, could have different outcomes for issuance because they live in different counties seems to create a class system among the citizenry. If it's a fundamental right of all US citizens, then it shouldn't matter what state you live in, let alone what county...

i know that's what we're trying to fight right now, but i haven't heard those points brought up yet so i figured i'd add them in case someone needed some clarification, or some ammo when debating with anti's.
It is worse than that! People with the same background and cause are treated differently within the same county!
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
  #110  
Old 12-08-2012, 1:18 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,159
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The first thread was not intended to be informative. The claims made in that thread by the OP and others were a total load and the criticism in this thread is well-founded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Correct. It was a bait and there were two ways to handle it. Take the bait, or put an end to it by a two sentence post on Peruta's counsel position. You are way too experienced to have taken the bait accidentally. Not that I blame your choice, just pointing it out...
Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Lame threads and claims are the reason for the Fabio persona, why would I handle it any other way?
Then let us take this as a Teachable Moment.

Remember my reference to the Imp of the Perverse? And another reference to Occasions of Sin?

Let us all resolve not to Post Bait, and if some Bait might be posted, Not To Take The Bait.

Bait either conceals a hook, or is a setup for Bad Things.

Try actually answering questions in as straightforward a manner as possible. Don't be coy, don't drag things out -- and if someone should be dragging things out, consider that as Bait, and Do Not Take The Bait.

Over time, each member develops a 'style' of expressing him or herself. Let us further resolve to ignore stylistic expression and focus instead on content.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #111  
Old 12-08-2012, 1:36 PM
orangeusa's Avatar
orangeusa orangeusa is offline
Not a Mod
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 7,502
iTrader: 75 / 100%
Default

Didn't the OP title start the tone of this thread ? A personal statement of a member being wrong? For that, seems like bait (as Librarian and others pointed out).

I've read and re-read this thread, and not sure I learned much.

But, man, we need to team up on pro-2A rights. I believe that with the lame duck we have, it's could be percieved as an open invitation to clamp down on 2A rights. Sorry, kinda extrapolating off topic here, but I'm worried.

.
  #112  
Old 12-08-2012, 1:46 PM
AVS's Avatar
AVS AVS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: LA & OC
Posts: 176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Try actually answering questions in as straightforward a manner as possible. Don't be coy, don't drag things out -- and if someone should be dragging things out, consider that as Bait, and Do Not Take The Bait.
We need a "bait" smiley to go along with the dead horse and waving Gura.
  #113  
Old 12-08-2012, 1:49 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 9,694
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

There are people who are masters in their field, those who are good at baiting and those who prefer both.

Time to stop master baiting.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #114  
Old 12-08-2012, 2:42 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: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Then let us take this as a Teachable Moment.

Remember my reference to the Imp of the Perverse? And another reference to Occasions of Sin?

Let us all resolve not to Post Bait, and if some Bait might be posted, Not To Take The Bait.

Bait either conceals a hook, or is a setup for Bad Things.

Try actually answering questions in as straightforward a manner as possible. Don't be coy, don't drag things out -- and if someone should be dragging things out, consider that as Bait, and Do Not Take The Bait.

Over time, each member develops a 'style' of expressing him or herself. Let us further resolve to ignore stylistic expression and focus instead on content.
Now, if this was "bait" who do you suppose the bait was for? Wasn't me, I rarely post here.
  #115  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:32 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 The Shadow View Post
Just wondering, what is Alan Gura doing in California right now ?
Two well known cases and a couple of more quiet items.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
The funny thing about 'sides' is that they are a recent problem.
Look, lets cut through the BS a bit. When I attempted to get Chuck Michel to work with Alan Gura after Heller he told Alan that he owned California and Alan should get the expletive out. Dancing around and signing a kumbaya lie is so 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The premise of the inflammatory thread that engendered this thread was that a remand was inevitable in Peruta because of the AG notice; predictably, this did not play out at oral arguments.
No, the legal/political point is that because Richards counsel followed the actual FRCP, unlike Peruta takeover counsel or Peruta original counsel, they were salvaged from an easy excuse for the court to punt all three cases. Mr. Michel and Mr. Peruta as well as the rest of California gun owners are welcome for our diligence. The "it's not part of our case" was surely lost on the panel. The panel probably missed that we'd complied in the docket to answer your question. They're response made it pretty clear that they realize they couldn't punt it on that issue since we'd complied.

What would have happened if Chuck had gotten his way and pulled ahead of Richards for oral argument separately as he wanted back at appellate docket 44 or so? Reminds me that I need to upload that so we can see who exactly was stirring the pot....
Quote:
Originally Posted by geeknow View Post
By watching US tear ourselves apart?
See, the sad thing is that some people litigating for your rights keep winning even though they have to fight both the anti-gunners and the pro-gunners. Witness Heller where NRA-ILA tried to torpedo Parker with Seegars, Hanson v. DC which was torpedoed by NRA-ILA's Heller II, and of course McDonald. How did NRA-ILA count to 5 without Thomas exactly? Hanson is particularly pernicious for we Californians. We were challenging the California Handgun Roster in the DC Circuit...

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Now, if this was "bait" who do you suppose the bait was for? Wasn't me, I rarely post here.
So why do you spend so much time defending Chuck?

Look, I'm an NRA member and I want my NRA money spent wisely. I watched Chuck fly himself and about 8 staffers from his office to San Francisco for Peruta. None of them did a thing at oral argument because that was Clement and his staffer's gig. I'm sure NRA got a bill for north of $20,000.00 on top of whatever else Clement charged. Oh, but the one thing he did do is behave in an unprofessional manner to a very hard working CGF volunteer.

It's not bait. It's shame watching people waste money and time to do things shoddily.

-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; 12-08-2012 at 8:50 PM.. Reason: Docket at 44 was already posted...
  #116  
Old 12-08-2012, 8:50 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Oh, but the one thing he did do is behave in an unprofessional manner to a very hard working CGF volunteer.
Just to add. He did it in the courtroom, unleashing a torrent of profanity, with witnesses.
  #117  
Old 12-08-2012, 10:57 PM
GettoPhilosopher's Avatar
GettoPhilosopher GettoPhilosopher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 64 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
It really is about the fame and money for some.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CGF only pays the attorneys. Gene, Brandon, Bill, etc al are not attorneys.
  #118  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:20 PM
tankerman's Avatar
tankerman tankerman is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Posts: 24,258
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali-Shooter View Post
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.
Like he did when he started a thread saying the Prince 50 would be deemed illegal?
  #119  
Old 12-08-2012, 11:30 PM
GettoPhilosopher's Avatar
GettoPhilosopher GettoPhilosopher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 64 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
It's not bait. It's shame watching people waste money and time to do things shoddily.

-Gene

This really sums up where I'm at. I'm a diplomat at heart; I get it from my dad. I've got a counseling background. I don't want to yell, b*tch, or fight; I want to work together and WIN. And I feel no need to compare d**ks with anyone. For instance, I was the volunteer/grassroots coordinator for StopSB249. I built an amazing, cross-state volunteer network in roughly 48 hours with the help of a lot of amazing volunteers and volunteer CGF "staff". I'm proud of the part I played in helping kill SB249 (and immensely proud of all the volunteers who stepped up to the plate to make this work! You guys rock!). So understandably, I was pretty pissed when groups like GOA prematurely declared victory and claimed they had lead the charge with all the groups, blowing off the work we did (or worse, claiming to have been leading/coordinating our and everyone else's work).

But I didn't say a damn word at the time (this is the first time I've mentioned it on CGN, and I'm mentioning it solely to prove a point). Y'know why? Because I didn't need anyone to pat me on the back and say I had the biggest ****. SB249 got killed. I don't really care what percentage of that victory is mine and whether or not so and so took credit for it. It died in 2012, and I (and Brandon, and Howard, and Andrea and Frank and Jonathan and Steve and all my volunteers and everyone else) are ready and waiting to take it on if it rears its ugly head again. That's good enough for me. Maybe GOA or CRPA or NRA-ILA or CGN C3 or some other group really did do most of the work and I'm mistaken. Or maybe we all did equal parts. Or maybe they're all full of crap and StopSB249 was the only reason it didn't pass. Who knows? Who cares? (Hint: I don't)






That being said, I'm also a California gun owner, which means I'm tired of the political theater. I'm tired of the GOP claiming to be the party of gun rights when the majority of the worst gun control bills in my state were written and/or signed by Republicans (the Mulford Act? the AWB? the .50 cal ban?). I'm tired of the bickering, I'm tired of bad cases being pushed by idiots and screwing up MY rights, I'm tired of d**k measuring.

I'm tired of gun rights (a civil and individual right) getting pigeonholed into an OFWG/GOP thing (Hi guys, I'm a liberal gun rights activist and honestly it'd be nice to be able to read CGN for more than 30 seconds without someone growling about "DEM STOOPID LIBRALS!". You wouldn't like it if every third post of mine was about how christians are stupid, so "do unto others", m'kay? ) I want to see good cases pushed well. I'm sticking with the guys who gave us Heller and McDonald, who are big tent and big picture, and who are getting things done.

Work with whoever you'd like; as I said, I really don't care, as long as you don't mess it up for the rest of us. But don't mess it up for the rest of us, and if you are and get called on it, don't get all pissed.


That was quite the "Git off mah lawn!" rant, oy!


Now will someone please answer two questions for me? 1) Who the hell is Mike Schwartz? And 2) Who blew up swearing at who?
  #120  
Old 12-09-2012, 1:36 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,170
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default wztched hearing from overflow room

Since I was watching from overflow room, I missed the drama among our side.

I am not a lawyer, so I can only give you a personal observation of orals. Here is my take.

Paul Clements was very good, he addressed the state AG issue head on, this was a concern of mine.

I didn't think much of san Diego's council. One advantage I did have in the overflow room was that I had a small screen to watch the lawyers as they talked.

His words with lawyer talk, his body language showed he was in trouble.

Alan Gura was also very good, although I personally like Alan better, I would have to say that Paul was slightly better at orals.

The attorney for Yolo county answered with legal BS and from how I read his body language, he was in trouble.

The last attorney was the Hawaii attorney. Truthfully he wasn't good in orals, he was kind of bland and in over his head.

The attorney defending Hawaii was better at orals only because she was a BSer and lose with "facts.

The judges actually asked good questions, what actually concerned me is none of our lawyers closed with the following statements, and if I missed it, so be it.

If the core of the second amendment is self defense and it is a right to be able to have functional arms ready in cases of immediate confrontation, then a firearm must be ready to be used instinctively while under attack.

If a arm is non functional when the attack occurs, it is useless. In Heller the SCOTUS ruled that you had a right to have a functional "loaded' " gun in your home ready for immediate use in case of confrontation.

The truth is in your home you probably would have more time to access your gun than you would while carrying in public and no one on our side made this point.

No one on our side said the following: Since 1987, the number of states that issue CCW permits has gone from XX to 40, more people own guns, more people carry guns and overall gun related crime is down in spite of having one of the worse economies ever.

We can argue stats all we want, but it is self evident carry license permit holders overall are not a meance to society, if anything, they ate probably a public benefit.

The other sides arguments were all emotional at arguments and like it or not, humans respond to emotional arguments 24 x more than logical ones.

I am sorry to see the in fighting, I don't know what the fix is if any.

What I do know is Alan Gura had the guts to take on the Heller case in the first place and do what needed and should have been done decades earlier.

What I do know is Alan Gura has a commitment to the whole bill of rights.

In the long run, I think we will get carry. We might even get it with this panel in that no one may want to go en banc.

Most likely we will see another stall action, especially if the SCOTUS takes a carry case.

Nicki
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 2:57 PM.




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.