Calguns.net  

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

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 06-24-2014, 2:54 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,201
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
If that line of reasoning worked, we wouldn't get this brilliantly written decision in the first place. What gives?
That doesn't follow. Statistical outliers may still occur even when they deviate substantially from the general trend. The question is not if they happen, it is how often.

The legal system has a substantial randomness factor built into it, namely the mechanism of drawing panels and assigning them to cases. It appears that, for the 9th Circuit, the process is computerized. Inasmuch as the general orders don't specify the method by which judges are selected for panels and cases assigned to those panels (only that the clerk's office is the entity that does the assignments, and that the process is computerized), it's difficult to say how random the assignment method really is.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #242  
Old 06-24-2014, 2:59 PM
lhecker51's Avatar
lhecker51 lhecker51 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Formerly From People's Republic of Dumphucistan
Posts: 632
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frisco3Gun View Post
Please just someone tell me when it's over.
It will never be over. Our elected officials already are doing an end run by proposing new laws that will eventually make ALL California residents prohibited persons. If you can't get rid of the 2nd Amendment, then just make it impossible to exercise through these new "common sense" gun control laws. Eventually they will have a zero tolerance law that will permanently strip 2nd Amendment rights for even the slightest infraction. That is the direction our legislature is going in.
__________________
NRA Life Member
  #243  
Old 06-24-2014, 3:18 PM
Bigbuyer2477's Avatar
Bigbuyer2477 Bigbuyer2477 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 88
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CG of MP View Post
But do we not stand a better chance than not of it NOT being granted en banc?

Is not the original pannel (the ones that sided with us and wrote that brilliant piece) the ones that will be allowed to tell K Harris to sit this one out?

If it is the original pannel why would they put their work up for en banc if they did not have to?


If I am wrong about that then yea all bets are off.
There are more "California" judges than not, so when you get a majority group to hear en banc you are more likely to get the anti gun judges on the panel.

Of course if no en banc is granted then I would bet scotus won't hear it. In any case it won't automatically make the standards lower than what it is now besides removing the "need" requirement. Who knows, 50 yard qualifying test, 20 year background check, and possibly mandatory liability insurance coverage.
  #244  
Old 06-24-2014, 4:25 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,678
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Statistical outliers may still occur even when they deviate substantially from the general trend.
Statistical outliers have treated us pretty well recently...

An "outlier" of the kind we talk about can erase a lot of bad decisions.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #245  
Old 06-24-2014, 4:48 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,201
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Statistical outliers have treated us pretty well recently...
The only post-Heller statistical outlier that I'm aware of is Peruta. Moore isn't one because the dominant political affiliation there is Republican.


Quote:
An "outlier" of the kind we talk about can erase a lot of bad decisions.
That doesn't make it any less of an outlier.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #246  
Old 06-27-2014, 12:36 PM
ryan_j ryan_j is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sussex County, NJ
Posts: 292
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigbuyer2477 View Post
There are more "California" judges than not, so when you get a majority group to hear en banc you are more likely to get the anti gun judges on the panel.



Of course if no en banc is granted then I would bet scotus won't hear it. In any case it won't automatically make the standards lower than what it is now besides removing the "need" requirement. Who knows, 50 yard qualifying test, 20 year background check, and possibly mandatory liability insurance coverage.



If SCOTUS doesn't hear it we will have a split billions of miles wide...that is unprecedented.
  #247  
Old 06-27-2014, 12:58 PM
LoneYote's Avatar
LoneYote LoneYote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 614
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan_j View Post
If SCOTUS doesn't hear it we will have a split billions of miles wide...that is unprecedented.
It also means nothing... SCOTUS can ignore anything it wants to ignore. If there is some rule, regulation, or petition with the ability to FORCE SCOTUS to take a case please enlighten us all.
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Need we have a moderator behind every blade of grass?
  #248  
Old 06-27-2014, 3:19 PM
CZ man in LA's Avatar
CZ man in LA CZ man in LA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,090
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneYote View Post
It also means nothing... SCOTUS can ignore anything it wants to ignore. If there is some rule, regulation, or petition with the ability to FORCE SCOTUS to take a case please enlighten us all.
Certiorari before judgment

Could be tried, but rarely granted.
__________________
"Prohibit the peasants from owning katanas, wakizashis, arrows, spears, or matchlock rifles. If the peasants are armed, they will not pay nengu (taxes) and they will not be subordinate to the officials."

Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Sword Hunt Edict of 1588, establishing the class division between the peasants (commoners) and the samurai (the governing elites).

  #249  
Old 06-30-2014, 8:20 AM
Bolt_Action Bolt_Action is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 253
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

This whole situation is outrageous. The 9th ruled MONTHS AGO that millions of people were having their constitutional rights violated, and what's being done about it? NOTHING! The amount of time that has passed since the court's ruling would not be considered reasonable in anyone's book. At this rate, it looks as if people's rights will be violated indefinitely.
  #250  
Old 06-30-2014, 8:27 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,583
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolt_Action View Post
This whole situation is outrageous. The 9th ruled MONTHS AGO that millions of people were having their constitutional rights violated, and what's being done about it? NOTHING! The amount of time that has passed since the court's ruling would not be considered reasonable in anyone's book. At this rate, it looks as if people's rights will be violated indefinitely.
And what about the Palmer v. DC case.....that court has just be "sitting on" that case for over 5 YEARS now!!! That is simply unacceptable. There is simply no excuse or justification for such a thing.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
  #251  
Old 06-30-2014, 10:55 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,887
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

maybe if people showed up with pitchforks and torches...
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
  #252  
Old 06-30-2014, 11:17 AM
e90bmw e90bmw is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northern Ca.
Posts: 1,268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"A right delayed is a right denied."

The courts are not doing their jobs.
  #253  
Old 06-30-2014, 12:50 PM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,547
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

has this case been officially filed under the "perpetual delay" heading yet?
  #254  
Old 06-30-2014, 2:09 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,385
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
what about the Palmer v. DC case.....that court has just be "sitting on" that case for over 5 YEARS now!!! That is simply unacceptable. There is simply no excuse or justification for such a thing.
Is there a time limit to those types of things as to where the plaintiff or defendant can then by pass that court and take it to the next level . I know nothing about the palmer case but I have to assume there must be something going on in the case how ever small to keep it going that long . Are the judges asking questions and giving a really long time to respond the responding later as well with another question ? With not knowing anything about it . It sure seem it would be unconstitutional not to rule on a case that is ready to be ruled on .

I asked the question a few pages back . Is it possible this court never finalizes the ruling like the DC case and is that legal ? if so how and or why ???
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
  #255  
Old 06-30-2014, 2:31 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,583
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Is there a time limit to those types of things as to where the plaintiff or defendant can then by pass that court and take it to the next level . I know nothing about the palmer case but I have to assume there must be something going on in the case how ever small to keep it going that long . Are the judges asking questions and giving a really long time to respond the responding later as well with another question ? With not knowing anything about it . It sure seem it would be unconstitutional not to rule on a case that is ready to be ruled on .

I asked the question a few pages back . Is it possible this court never finalizes the ruling like the DC case and is that legal ? if so how and or why ???
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=841721
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
  #256  
Old 06-30-2014, 4:22 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolt_Action View Post
This whole situation is outrageous. The 9th ruled MONTHS AGO that millions of people were having their constitutional rights violated, and what's being done about it? NOTHING! The amount of time that has passed since the court's ruling would not be considered reasonable in anyone's book. At this rate, it looks as if people's rights will be violated indefinitely.
We're waiting for CA AG Harris' request to intervene to be decided. My guess has been we'll most likely hear re. that in July or Aug. I won't get concerned unless we don't hear by Sept. As the old saying goes, "A watched pot never boils."

Until then, just prep for carry (gun, holster, clothing that fits w/both of those, fill out application, submit if Sheriff will hold, enter IDPA comps to get used to drawing & firing from concealed while under stress, etc.).

If intervention is allowed, then the Q of en banc appeal kicks in. I'd give it another 6 - 12 months for that (think by Valentine's Day 2015 earliest so you won't be disappointed). Getting upset won't speed up "the wheels of justice".
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 06-30-2014 at 4:26 PM..
  #257  
Old 06-30-2014, 10:32 PM
cs101's Avatar
cs101 cs101 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 475
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6114DAVE View Post
Problem is the cops will show up with guns and MRAPs
No, the real problem is not enough people will show up. There needs to enough people to show up to where there is a sizable economic disruption. What are you going to do? Arrest half of the State of California?!
  #258  
Old 07-03-2014, 12:45 PM
lorax3's Avatar
lorax3 lorax3 is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Santa Clara
Posts: 4,668
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Blog Entries: 3
Default

Keep the discussion case related folks. The MRAP discussion is for another thread.
__________________
You think you know, but you have no idea.

The information posted here is not legal advice. If you seek legal advice hire an attorney who is familiar with all the facts of your case.
  #259  
Old 07-03-2014, 12:53 PM
Bhart356 Bhart356 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

^^^^ Thank you.
  #260  
Old 07-08-2014, 8:50 PM
Baja Jones's Avatar
Baja Jones Baja Jones is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 223
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

"the wheels of justice".
The wheels of Injustice would be more accurate
  #261  
Old 07-09-2014, 4:01 AM
pilot613 pilot613 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

wasnt there a scheduled update for last week or the week before.
  #262  
Old 07-09-2014, 6:56 AM
coryhenry's Avatar
coryhenry coryhenry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,239
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Jones View Post
"the wheels of justice".
The wheels of Injustice would be more accurate
I don't see anything rolling here. No wheels to speak of
__________________
Cory

"Every man dies, not every man really lives!"

  #263  
Old 07-09-2014, 5:04 PM
Peaceful John's Avatar
Peaceful John Peaceful John is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 308
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Giddy Speculation

They are both taking their sweet time, but there's reason to be hopeful.

1: Palmer may well be decided in our favor. It seems to me that if it were otherwise the decision would have been gleefully announced a long time ago. If it favors us, the other side will be strongly tempted to appeal to SCOTUS. If it does not serve us, we'll almost certainly appeal. Either way, Palmer rises.

2: Peruta favors us now and that is likely to be the case even when the 9th CA has quite finished their housekeeping. In that event there is a non-zero chance, I think, that Ms. Harris will appeal. If it turns out that the panel's judgement is overturned, we're nearly sure to appeal. As with Palmer, this case will not terminate at the CA level.

3: Should either or both Palmer and Peruta be appealed and cert granted, a year from now we may expect to have "bear". This would be especially true if Palmer and Peruta mutually support each other.

Then it's on to "infringed".
__________________
America -- once a country, now a game show.
  #264  
Old 07-10-2014, 12:33 PM
wazdat's Avatar
wazdat wazdat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Diego, PRK
Posts: 504
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
Giddy Speculation

They are both taking their sweet time, but there's reason to be hopeful.

1: Palmer may well be decided in our favor. It seems to me that if it were otherwise the decision would have been gleefully announced a long time ago. If it favors us, the other side will be strongly tempted to appeal to SCOTUS. If it does not serve us, we'll almost certainly appeal. Either way, Palmer rises.

2: Peruta favors us now and that is likely to be the case even when the 9th CA has quite finished their housekeeping. In that event there is a non-zero chance, I think, that Ms. Harris will appeal. If it turns out that the panel's judgement is overturned, we're nearly sure to appeal. As with Palmer, this case will not terminate at the CA level.

3: Should either or both Palmer and Peruta be appealed and cert granted, a year from now we may expect to have "bear". This would be especially true if Palmer and Peruta mutually support each other.

Then it's on to "infringed".
Cynical optimism?

I'll take it...
__________________

ET1 - U.S. Navy, Retired
________________________________________

Politicians take note...

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic..."
  #265  
Old 07-10-2014, 12:42 PM
sd_shooter's Avatar
sd_shooter sd_shooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Diego
Posts: 8,710
iTrader: 75 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peaceful John View Post
Giddy Speculation

They are both taking their sweet time, but there's reason to be hopeful.

1: Palmer may well be decided in our favor. It seems to me that if it were otherwise the decision would have been gleefully announced a long time ago. If it favors us, the other side will be strongly tempted to appeal to SCOTUS. If it does not serve us, we'll almost certainly appeal. Either way, Palmer rises.

2: Peruta favors us now and that is likely to be the case even when the 9th CA has quite finished their housekeeping. In that event there is a non-zero chance, I think, that Ms. Harris will appeal. If it turns out that the panel's judgement is overturned, we're nearly sure to appeal. As with Palmer, this case will not terminate at the CA level.

3: Should either or both Palmer and Peruta be appealed and cert granted, a year from now we may expect to have "bear". This would be especially true if Palmer and Peruta mutually support each other.

Then it's on to "infringed".
  #266  
Old 07-10-2014, 5:54 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'd just point out that if (as is likely) we maintain our Peruta win, Kamala will likely find it politically unacceptable not to request cert.

My understanding is that SCOTUS is much more likely to grant cert when a governmental entity requests than when mere citizens petitions.

So I assess it as greater than 50% chance that if we maintain our win on Peruta we end up being granted cert on a very good RKBA case.

If the 9th Circuit somehow kills the Peruta win, then I'm sure that we request cert - and I think we have at least a modest chance at getting cert in that case. I don't like our odds in this situation nearly as well (to state the obvious).

And yeah, I know that it is a strategic error for the anti-liberty folk for Kamala to request cert in the case of a loss. But I don't see a political way out for her. I am quite certain she wants a governorship or Senate seat and eventually the presidency. She would almost certainly be taken to task by any of her Democrat opponents for allowing the entire (geographically huge) 9th Circuit to go RKBA. The only political way out would be for her to get Obama and/or the Brady Bunch and company to loudly request that she not request cert - and that would be hugely problematic for them.

These folk are about suppressing liberty but they are even more concerned about personal prestige, power, and money.

One other thing enters into it. . . I don't know if there are back-channel communications between people like Kamala and the anti-liberty folk on the SCOTUS.

If there is such back-channel communication, the Kamala request for cert could be very interesting - in part because some consider Kamala to be a potential future SCOTUS justice.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #267  
Old 07-10-2014, 7:05 PM
zoid52 zoid52 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 774
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

The whole thing stinks!
__________________
CALIFORNIA-IF THERES NOT A LAW AGAINST IT THERES A TAX ON IT
  #268  
Old 07-11-2014, 8:33 AM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
I'd just point out that if (as is likely) we maintain our Peruta win, Kamala will likely find it politically unacceptable not to request cert.

My understanding is that SCOTUS is much more likely to grant cert when a governmental entity requests than when mere citizens petitions.

So I assess it as greater than 50% chance that if we maintain our win on Peruta we end up being granted cert on a very good RKBA case.

If the 9th Circuit somehow kills the Peruta win, then I'm sure that we request cert - and I think we have at least a modest chance at getting cert in that case. I don't like our odds in this situation nearly as well (to state the obvious).

And yeah, I know that it is a strategic error for the anti-liberty folk for Kamala to request cert in the case of a loss. But I don't see a political way out for her. I am quite certain she wants a governorship or Senate seat and eventually the presidency. She would almost certainly be taken to task by any of her Democrat opponents for allowing the entire (geographically huge) 9th Circuit to go RKBA. The only political way out would be for her to get Obama and/or the Brady Bunch and company to loudly request that she not request cert - and that would be hugely problematic for them.

These folk are about suppressing liberty but they are even more concerned about personal prestige, power, and money.

One other thing enters into it. . . I don't know if there are back-channel communications between people like Kamala and the anti-liberty folk on the SCOTUS.

If there is such back-channel communication, the Kamala request for cert could be very interesting - in part because some consider Kamala to be a potential future SCOTUS justice.
What's so *** backwards about this whole things, is that if the dem. party saw where the road was going and just support the base of the right to bear arms for self defense, Kamela would be able to drag a chunk of middle or undecided voters to her side in future elections.
  #269  
Old 07-11-2014, 9:51 AM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I guess someone answered this, but how does Harris go for cert if her request to intervene is denied? She has no standing. Based on the Prop 8 decision, SCOTUS would deny cert. Harris has far less history of involvement with Peruta than those working on the Prop 8 case.
  #270  
Old 07-11-2014, 12:08 PM
MagnumDweeb MagnumDweeb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 75
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just want it to go through the motions already. I hate this waiting bit......Back to waiting.
  #271  
Old 07-11-2014, 12:31 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryS View Post
I guess someone answered this, but how does Harris go for cert if her request to intervene is denied? She has no standing. Based on the Prop 8 decision, SCOTUS would deny cert. Harris has far less history of involvement with Peruta than those working on the Prop 8 case.
I'm not at all betting against Kamala getting intervenor status. I don't know all the legalities, but I'm betting the courts will have a problem with the idea that the state AG cannot intervene (however late) in a case involving that state's law.

Remember that the sheriff was the defendant and could (in some sense) have been thought of as a proxy for the state AG. When the sheriff bowed out that meant that the proxy went away and one could argue that it now makes sens for the AG to step in and take over the case.

But again, I don't claim to know how the courts will actually act. I'm just saying that they are going to be reluctant to deny the intervenor status - which doesn't mean they won't deny it.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #272  
Old 07-11-2014, 12:41 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
What's so *** backwards about this whole things, is that if the dem. party saw where the road was going and just support the base of the right to bear arms for self defense, Kamela would be able to drag a chunk of middle or undecided voters to her side in future elections.
The Democrat party is devoted to big government and control of every aspect of peoples' lives. If a Democrat politician shifted to a position which valued the inherent right to self-defense they would lose their funding and power.

There are limited circumstances where Democrats are allowed to vote for a certain amount of liberty if it is considered necessary to maintain their seat so that they can vote for the Speaker of the House or a similar circumstance. But you have to understand that these are special dispensations.

If the Democrat party went pro-RKBA they would cease to be the Demokrat party as we know it today. For those who own the party that would be a total disaster and they will do everything they can to prevent it. And I do mean everything they can - there is nothing they would not do to maintain power if they could get away with it.

Not saying the Republican party is remarkably better, but the constituency they serve won't quite tolerate everything that the Demokrat constituency will tolerate.

It is very safe to assume that for the foreseeable future the Demokrat party will be the implacable foe of the RKBA - and most aspects of personal responsibility.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #273  
Old 07-11-2014, 12:50 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,201
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
The Democrat party is devoted to big government and control of every aspect of peoples' lives. If a Democrat politician shifted to a position which valued the inherent right to self-defense they would lose their funding and power.

There are limited circumstances where Democrats are allowed to vote for a certain amount of liberty if it is considered necessary to maintain their seat so that they can vote for the Speaker of the House or a similar circumstance. But you have to understand that these are special dispensations.

If the Democrat party went pro-RKBA they would cease to be the Demokrat party as we know it today. For those who own the party that would be a total disaster and they will do everything they can to prevent it. And I do mean everything they can - there is nothing they would not do to maintain power if they could get away with it.

Not saying the Republican party is remarkably better, but the constituency they serve won't quite tolerate everything that the Demokrat constituency will tolerate.

It is very safe to assume that for the foreseeable future the Demokrat party will be the implacable foe of the RKBA - and most aspects of personal responsibility.
Exactly. I believe we can expect to see speech come under attack by them at some point, as well, though it may be the last thing to come under attack, since speech that lacks action is of no consequence to those who exercise power.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
  #274  
Old 07-11-2014, 2:52 PM
dca965's Avatar
dca965 dca965 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 818
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Exactly. I believe we can expect to see speech come under attack by them at some point, as well, though it may be the last thing to come under attack, since speech that lacks action is of no consequence to those who exercise power.
Very well said Sir!
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by dca965 View Post
CA CCW 2013 | Applied in person 11/4 | App approved 12/10 | Interview 12/17 | Denial (GC) Ltr. 1/14 | AZ CCW 2014 | Applied via mail 03/20 | Entered by DPS 05/02 | Approved 5/10 | Received 5/16 | OR CHL 2014 | Applied in person 04/17 | Approved 4/30 | Received 5/9 | WA CPL 2014 | Applied in person 04/18 | Approved 6/9 | Received 6/12 | NV CFP 2014 | Applied 09/25 | Received 1/15 | UT CFP 2015 | Applied 11/26 | Received 1/16
  #275  
Old 07-11-2014, 3:44 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,591
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Liberals are definitely looking forward to gutting the 1a. They hate the Citizens United ruling and understand that the only way forward on it is to amend the 1a. They would also like to get some legal tools against hate speech, similar to what they have in Europe.
__________________
I will spit whenever I hear the word Libertarian from now on.

In the 2016 election, Libertarian voters threw the swing states of Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine to Hillary, for a total of 38 electoral college votes. Hillary would have created a permanent a permanent entitlement class and permanent Democratic control over the US.
  #276  
Old 07-11-2014, 5:28 PM
nbirnbaum2 nbirnbaum2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 818
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Well if it helps I can release cctv footage of multiple drug deals @ city admin, the homicide video from the new library last year and the maybe a trolly driver not paying attention and hitting someone. Then there are the incident reports from the jumpers from the parkade @ city admin. Want to talk about the child molester in the teen are at the new library.



Im more then happy to show how dangerous San Diego is and open up a world of lawsuits against the city. Ill show a reason why people have a need to carry here. The city is great at cover up.
  #277  
Old 07-11-2014, 5:35 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Some D Senators have already put together a bill that would allow them to define what journalism is and define journalism as being protected. They say they want to be sure the Freedom of Speech is protected....

The IRS targeting conservative groups is an egregious violation of Freedom of Speech and the Right to Vote.

HHS passed multiple healthcare rules, which, they then got sued on. So far the SCOTUS has upheld Freedom of Religion, but the D's and current administration haven't given up

Their assault on the 1A is already well underway.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
  #278  
Old 07-11-2014, 9:35 PM
TeddyBallgame's Avatar
TeddyBallgame TeddyBallgame is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Under the Dome
Posts: 5,745
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryS View Post
I guess someone answered this, but how does Harris go for cert if her request to intervene is denied? She has no standing. Based on the Prop 8 decision, SCOTUS would deny cert. Harris has far less history of involvement with Peruta than those working on the Prop 8 case.
well, it appears that if intervene is denied, she would first have to appeal that decision to SCOTUS, then, if they agree, im guessing the 9th would allow her intervene status, then, decide whether or not to grant her en banc

if, they deny her en banc, she would then have to appeal that decision too, with SCOTUS, blah, blah, blah...it's kind of like ping pong, back and forth, back and forth

i hope your young, because at this rate, some of us may not even be around by the time this gets decided
__________________

"We want food, medicine, and one of those cows" - Daryl Dixon TWD
  #279  
Old 07-12-2014, 3:21 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,232
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't think an en banc denial is something she could use to request cert. Well, I suppose it could be requested, but I think SCOTUS would treat that petition with contempt and that Kamala wouldn't even try that one.

If intervenor status is not granted I would expect some sort of attempt to appeal/petition - and I think that request would be treated seriously.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
  #280  
Old 07-13-2014, 1:17 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I saw a video of SAF's Alan Gottlieb speculating on Drake and why it was denied and status of Peruta/Richards. It gave me a thought (maybe mentioned here).

Couldn't the 9th deny the AG's standing based on the fact that Prieto is appealing the ruling, thus, her "interests" are being represented? I would assume if Gore were appealing that she's stay away.
Or, has SAF effectively shut the door on intervention in Richards, where Peruta possibly didn't dot their I's and cross their T's and leave room for the AG to intervene?
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 1:07 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.