Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-16-2013, 7:13 AM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,739
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default CATO: The Heller Ruling, Five Years On

Featuring Alan Gura, Gura & Possessky, Lead Counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; Robert Levy, Chairman, Cato Institute, Co-counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; Clark Neily, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice, Co-counsel, District of Columbia v. Heller; and Emily Miller, Senior Editor, Washington Times, Author, Emily Gets Her Gun (forthcoming, Regnery); moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute





Full video of speakers:
http://www.cato.org/events/heller-ruling-five-years
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

Last edited by SanPedroShooter; 06-16-2013 at 7:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-16-2013, 8:16 AM
RKV's Avatar
RKV RKV is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Santa Barbara County
Posts: 220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Listened to it

Great to hear from Gura et al. That said, we're not winning. Pretty clearly not winning. Not saying its time to quit, just that we really need a couple more decisions from the supes to get out of the box the federal appellate courts are building around the 2nd Amendment. Nice to hear about Ezell - I just can't forget abortions like Kachalsky.
__________________
I am or have been a) a member of the board of directors of a gun club b) NRA certified rangemaster c) been a fund raiser for NRA foundation d) life member of SAF and e) trained several hundred new college age shooters here in the PRK. If you think that posting a bagillion times here on this board makes you special you are part of the problem in this state - put down the [expletive] keyboard and try doing something positive in the real world for a change you Fudd.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-16-2013, 8:32 AM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,107
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Very interesting, thanks for posting it.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-16-2013, 8:32 AM
FourT6and2's Avatar
FourT6and2 FourT6and2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,125
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Awesome, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-16-2013, 11:21 AM
Legasat's Avatar
Legasat Legasat is offline
Intergalactic Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego North County
Posts: 4,156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Very smart man. I learn something everytime I listen to him.
__________________
..

.........STGC(SW)


SAF Life Member


NRA Benefactor
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-16-2013, 12:17 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,348
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

At 8:50 in, you'll hear Gura quote from the Richards v. Co. of Yolo, where the judge says that the RKBA protected by the 2nd A is "no doubt subject to change and evolution over time." As I've often warned on CGN, if justices can use evolution/"evolving standards of justice" to give rights, justices can use evolution to take rights away. Obey the Constitution: use the Amendment process, rather than judicial fiat, if you want to added more rights to the BoR, otherwise you're opening a Pandora's Box of evils....

8 days until the June 24th deadline for IL AG to ask for cert. in Sheppard-Moore.

Just over 3 months until SCOTUS' "long conference" at the end of Sept when they'll start selecting the cases they want to hear in their next term.

Last edited by Paladin; 06-16-2013 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-16-2013, 12:31 PM
ScottB ScottB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simi Valley
Posts: 1,963
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Watch the follow on video of Emily Miller about what she went through to legally own a gun in DC.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=779317

This substantially is what those pinheads in Sacramento want to impose on us
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-16-2013, 3:37 PM
Mr_Monkeywrench's Avatar
Mr_Monkeywrench Mr_Monkeywrench is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chino Hills, Ca
Posts: 2,363
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
At 8:50 in, you'll hear Gura quote from the Richards v. Co. of Yolo, where the judge says that the RKBA protected by the 2nd A is subject to "no doubt subject to change and evolution over time." As I've often warned on CGN, if justices can use evolution/"evolving standards of justice" to give rights, justices can use evolution to take rights away. Obey the Constitution: use the Amendment process, rather than judicial fiat, if you want to added more rights to the BoR.

8 days until the June 24th deadline for IL AG to ask for cert. in Sheppard-Moore.

Just over 3 months until SCOTUS' "long conference" at the end of Sept when they'll start selecting the cases they want to hear in their next term.
Replace the word "evolution" with "progressive" and it should shed some light on it.

Progressive = truth is only applicable to the time and place it was used. Therefore no such thing as natural rights.

Classical liberal = eternal truths applicable to all people at all times. Therefore natural rights are self-evident and inalienable.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-16-2013, 7:16 PM
SanPedroShooter's Avatar
SanPedroShooter SanPedroShooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles Harbor
Posts: 9,739
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

I liked the Robert Levy bit.
__________________
Join the NRA
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-16-2013, 9:12 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 794
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

the whole thing 1hr 20 minutes worth is fascinating encouraging after so much KCbrown lately and his usually accurate reality checks
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Quote:
....."there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” and the public interest always weighs in favor of protecting constitutional rights. See Joelner v. Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004).
I VOTE and contribute to organizations who share my pursuit of freedom
1991
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-16-2013, 9:43 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
the whole thing 1hr 20 minutes worth is fascinating encouraging after so much KCbrown lately and his usually accurate reality checks
Agreed! KCBrown is often right, but one can't digest too much of him at once.

At about fourteen minutes in, the Glenn-Beck-looking dude starts cracking up when Gura recounts the Moore dissenters' definition of "sensitive places." I don't blame him, I was laughing too.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-17-2013, 8:45 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,513
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanPedroShooter View Post
I liked the Robert Levy bit.
I could not disagree more with Levy's take on "high capacity" magazines in this speech.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-17-2013, 8:58 AM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Levy is profoundly mistaken on magazines. The entire point of the 2nd amendment is to put citizens on equal footing with criminals and would-be tyrants. Limiting the lethality of small arms by neutering the magazine capacity definitively swings that advantage toward the criminal/tyrant, and is therefore antithetical to the very purpose of the amendment.
__________________
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

Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 06-17-2013 at 9:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-17-2013, 9:06 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,835
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Agreed. Magazine capacity regulations are based on several false assumptions

1) Lethality scales with magazine capacity
2) Reducing lethality lowers crime rates .. until some some subjective "minimum" lethality is met, upon which suddenly this is no longer the case
3) 10 rounds is the universal "lethality" minimum, regardless of context (e.g. energy, momentum, and type of ammo)
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-17-2013, 9:10 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,011
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

What possible "compelling governmental interest" can there be in reducing the defensive capability of the law abiding citizenry?

The only possible answers to that question are highly illuminating on the discussion of why it must never be allowed to happen.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-17-2013, 11:34 AM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Disappointing that in a speech about Heller he spent little or no time talking about the inferior courts' revolt against it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-17-2013, 2:47 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,798
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
Disappointing that in a speech about Heller he spent little or no time talking about the inferior courts' revolt against it.
I thought he did spend as much time as he could talking about it. I think we're almost seeing a rerun of what happened in the years after Miller. The lower courts purposely misread Miller and try to make it into a militia-only right.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:57 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.