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
  #201  
Old 09-04-2013, 2:11 PM
chainsaw chainsaw is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 660
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyonwall View Post
Personally, I watched this group tear him to shreds and he defended himself from a rabid pack of computer engineers, but you got to edit that history and those attacks.
It is rare that I come to Kestryll's defense, but he is correct. Mr. Birdt did act like a dick. And while it saddens me that we won't hear his viewpoint any more (except occasionally second-hand, from some of his acolytes), he fully deserved to be banned. With his manners, he was making a reasoned debate difficult.

Now it is true that there are lots of other people who are dicks, not just Kestryll and ivanimal. As an example, bwiese has recently said things that should earn him at least a long timeout (even though he is correct on the substance, his inflammatory language is unacceptable). And various other CGF board members (as usually ably led by hoffmang and his ED) have said insulting, demeaning and destructive things here (including threats of RL consequences) that should get them banned, and that at times have led to temporary bans.

Clearly, there is two kinds of justice here ... one for "friends of CGN" (which usually includes CGF board members), and one for "enemies of CGN". And sometimes, "enemies of CGN" aren't banned by moderators or admins, but are instead bullied to the point that they leave voluntarily. And the echo chamber and totalitarian style of discussions on this forum causes other members to just stay away. Since, for better or for worse, this forum is the primary place to exchange information about California gun politics, that probably means that people are driven away from participating in gun rights activism.

Most remaining members probably see this as a good thing. For the most part, they seem to be more interested in ideological purity, and being among like-minded people.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The second worst enemy of gun rights are gun people. The worst enemy are gun rights organizations.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 09-04-2013, 3:15 PM
five.five-six's Avatar
five.five-six five.five-six is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,990
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Oh definitely, one day I want to take over the world and remake it in my vision..
I read that in the voice of "the brain"

Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 09-04-2013, 3:23 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,279
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Oh definitely, one day I want to take over the world and remake it in my vision.

Unfortunately I'm also cripplingly lazy and world domination sounds like an awful lot of work and my couch is so comfy...

ETA I think in still frames, but great minds ...
__________________
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.



Last edited by Librarian; 09-04-2013 at 3:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 09-04-2013, 4:20 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 9,111
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highbrass View Post
Are you including the Gray Peterson debacle in that total? While not a California case, CGF was heavily involved.
What did I miss in the Gray Peterson debacle??

-hanko
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

I never once felt out of place or that people were intolerant...but then again, I didn't ask any dumbass questions ...saxman

“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 09-04-2013, 10:01 PM
naeco81's Avatar
naeco81 naeco81 is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Atherton, CA
Posts: 1,073
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
And frankly there are only two dicks allowed on CGN, ivanimal and me.


On a more serious note, I haven't been here nearly long enough to account for the drama between various pro-2A orgs, but it certainly sucks to hear about it. That said, I'm convinced the OT forum on Calguns is far more damaging to our brand. It is a cesspool of closed-mindedness full of politicized BS. I'm less concerned with ego driven popularity contests within our ranks and more concerned with our collective image as gun owners to the world at large. Maybe I'm naive, but that's how I feel.
__________________
"Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein, December 1930
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 09-04-2013, 10:06 PM
ad40 ad40 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 690
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyonwall View Post
Donations don't go to Kestryl, they go the CGF which Gene Hoffman runs.
There is no criticism of Kestryl here except for his past acts of censorship, but that was his right.
The issue is transparency in CGF donations. Where does the money go? I frankly don't care, i have seen enough good work product arising from their actions to justify the contributions they report and even with all of their stunning and embarrassing defeats I continue to cheer them on because the good far outweighs the bad, especially for a bunch of bay are computer geeks without law degrees!
^ THIS!
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 09-04-2013, 11:00 PM
moleculo moleculo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 646
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
What did I miss in the Gray Peterson debacle??

-hanko
From Lawyers.com analysis of Peterson v. Martinez:

"The strategy backfired because the lawsuit focused on the narrow issue of permits for non-residents, and blew up into an expansive ruling limiting gun rights. The ruling is a precedent in all federal courts."

And text from the actual ruling, courtesy the same article:

"We conclude that carrying a concealed weapon is not a privilege or immunity protected under Article IV [of the constitution],” the court ruled. “Given that the concealed carrying of firearms has not been recognized as a right … we cannot declare this activity sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation.”

And now Gray is a little less pompous around these parts....
__________________
Quote:
Those acting in the public interest assume obligations of accountability and transparency. Retroactively redefining goals while claiming — yet refusing to disclose — some “master plan” is just the opposite. So is viciously trashing anyone who questions your judgment. -navyinrwanda
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:11 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,716
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthonysmanifesto View Post
the court cases are still in motion and are part of a global strategy. please explain yourself- where did they go wrong? a particular civil rights case you dont like?

you dont like gun owners having a hotline?

please clarify
I think that he doesn't like a non-profit, non-lobbyist group that isn't able to lobby our entrenched anti-Constitution politicians and overturn all of the crap that they pass.

I doubt that even a highly funded group such as an NRA with 100% of gun owners as members would be able to accomplish much more. The problem is that the voters keep these corrupt politicians in power. NO group is going to be able to have a significant effect when having to take things through the highly expensive, very slow and typically also corrupt judicial route.

As far as I can see, CGF has accomplished far more than I could have expected with the money available.
__________________
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"
"The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
-Anton Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:16 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,716
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
From Lawyers.com analysis of Peterson v. Martinez:

"The strategy backfired because the lawsuit focused on the narrow issue of permits for non-residents, and blew up into an expansive ruling limiting gun rights. The ruling is a precedent in all federal courts."

And text from the actual ruling, courtesy the same article:

"We conclude that carrying a concealed weapon is not a privilege or immunity protected under Article IV [of the constitution],” the court ruled. “Given that the concealed carrying of firearms has not been recognized as a right … we cannot declare this activity sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation.”

And now Gray is a little less pompous around these parts....
It is often not the fault of the lawyers or their arguments when a case ends up not only being unsuccessful but even more damaging like Peterson. There are far too many "judicial activists" on the bench who are just looking for any excuse to legislate their favorite causes.

You can't take a single case that went horribly wrong and view it as the fault of the legal team unless you can clearly demonstrate that they picked a horrible plaintiff, argued an indefensible theory or otherwise personally botched the job. Look at how Alan Gura typically loses at EVERY stage except the Supremes. There are a lot of judges who aren't even looking at the law, the facts or the arguments to make their ruling.
__________________
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"
"The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
-Anton Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 09-05-2013, 2:17 PM
Gutpile66's Avatar
Gutpile66 Gutpile66 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 391
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by X-NewYawker View Post
You got a problem? VOTE! That's the only way to take the State back.
Seriously? Man, that's sad.

Vote, call, city hall & community meetings, volunteer, e'mail, etc. Not working out for us so far, is it? We are so outnumbered in this state; and the leftists know it. They don't care what we think.

If we want this state back we're going to have to take it back. Period. The tea needs to go into the bay.
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 09-05-2013, 3:21 PM
Simi-Surfer's Avatar
Simi-Surfer Simi-Surfer is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ventura Co
Posts: 719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

We Need a TROLL smilie
__________________
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" [Matt 28:19]

Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 09-05-2013, 3:50 PM
jwkincal's Avatar
jwkincal jwkincal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,261
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simi-Surfer View Post
We Need a TROLL smilie
Like this one?

Seriously, I thought this thread was about candy with logos on them????
__________________
Get the hell off the beach. Get up and get moving. Follow Me! --Aubrey Newman, Col, 24th INF; at the Battle of Leyte

Certainty of death... small chance of success... what are we waiting for? --Gimli, son of Gloin; on attacking the vast army of Mordor

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
--Patrick Henry; Virginia, 1775
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 09-05-2013, 4:07 PM
Gryff's Avatar
Gryff Gryff is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Castro Valley, CA
Posts: 10,757
iTrader: 55 / 98%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Squid View Post
Perhaps some of you remember me a while back I posted about how you guys who donated to Calguns Foundation and its lawyers were all just suckers. I am here to gloat and say I Told You So. I told you those guys never did anything for improving the 2A in CA and never would. Now here we are on the brink of a major @$$ whupping with the Appropriations, and I don't see those guys who collected your money anywhere in sight telling you to not fear and that they'd do something about it. Where are they now? They knew all along they couldn't do jack squat but did they tell you to stop donating money to a lost cause? Nope.

How much money did they get off you suckers in the last 5 years? $$Millions?? They predicted 2A rights would start improving real soon and here we are losing more and more by the minute. Do you even feel cheated at all? I know I would.

Listen, I think Calguns is cool and all to talk about guns, learn about guns, the marketplace and other stuff. But this whole donating thing to some crook lawyers who gave you all false hope is some serious bullspit.

At first I bought into the bullspit too. I had high hopes when I first joined this forum, was told to get ready for major changes. And that Shall Issue CCW was just over the horizon. Oh don't tell me there's CCW in Sacramento, because if it's not for all of CA then it means nothing to me.

Over time I realized what bullspit this falsely given hope was. I'm usually not one to be easily duped so perhaps that's why I feel so strongly about this issue. But for you guys that actually threw away money due to some false propaganda? Ouch.

So in closing, I'd just like to poll what you guys that actually donated money think about it now? Do you see the light and agree with me? Or will you continue to listen to the crook lawyers that now is not the time to give up and they need more funds? How do you feel about how much difference your donations made now with the Appropriations @$$ whupping?
Wow. Yee's staff is working overtime trying to undermine California 2A.
__________________
My friends and family disavow all knowledge of my existence, let alone my opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 09-05-2013, 4:20 PM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Did the olde Squidmeister stir up a shizz storm or what? Do ya suppose that's exacgtly what he intended and is sitting back reading the lengthy thread with a big smile on his mug? Just sayin'.....
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 09-05-2013, 4:26 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,991
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
From Lawyers.com analysis of Peterson v. Martinez:

"The strategy backfired because the lawsuit focused on the narrow issue of permits for non-residents, and blew up into an expansive ruling limiting gun rights. The ruling is a precedent in all federal courts."

And text from the actual ruling, courtesy the same article:

"We conclude that carrying a concealed weapon is not a privilege or immunity protected under Article IV [of the constitution],” the court ruled. “Given that the concealed carrying of firearms has not been recognized as a right … we cannot declare this activity sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation.”

And now Gray is a little less pompous around these parts....
Could someone please explain to me how "The ruling is a precedent in all federal courts."?

I was not aware that a circuit court ruling is precedential in all federal courts. If they are correct that it is, then I'm obviously not a lawyer (and I'm not a lawyer).

But if they are wrong about a circuit court ruling being precedential in all federal courts - then they might not be such a credible source of legal analysis.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 09-05-2013, 5:10 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Could someone please explain to me how "The ruling is a precedent in all federal courts."?

I was not aware that a circuit court ruling is precedential in all federal courts. If they are correct that it is, then I'm obviously not a lawyer (and I'm not a lawyer).

But if they are wrong about a circuit court ruling being precedential in all federal courts - then they might not be such a credible source of legal analysis.
There is a minor semantic issue here. There are two kinds of authority that are referred to as "precedent". Often precedent means "mandatory authority" (binding). It can also mean "persuasive authority" (not binding). Circuit court opinions are mandatory authority for federal courts in the same circuit. They are persuasive authority in all other federal courts (including SCOTUS). Persuasive authority is still citable and often followed (particularly absent mandatory authority from the same circuit), however courts can and do deviate from it, unlike mandatory authority which must be followed unless the case can be distinguished (which it almost always can if the court doesn't want to follow the "mandatory authority").
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 09-05-2013, 6:19 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 918
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Do we expect the 9th to use Gray's ruling if it helps them promulgate gun control?

Do we expect the 9th to ignore other precedent if it helps them promulgate gun control?
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 09-05-2013, 7:39 PM
Daveca Daveca is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 280
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Calgun's has put us in such a better position than we would be in w/o them that it can't be measured. It can't be all things to all people, but they do a great job on behalf of members. They can't do it all. All members should be talking to friends, relatives and others on a regular basis in support of our beliefs, so that Calgun's only reinforces our position. It can't start and stop with them. It has to start with us, and they are just one of the wheels that turn the drive for all 2nd amd supporters. There are a lot of wheels out there that just need some turning and we have to exercise our efforts in those areas every day, not just during congressional sessions. We'll see what happens soon, and then redouble our resolve and efforts. The truth is, "We are Calguns", because w/o us, it wouldn't exist. To sit by and do nothing, and to let our true beliefs be overrun is tantamount to rolling over and playing dead. You can do that if you want to, but I'll never call you a friend.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 09-05-2013, 7:40 PM
Gutz's Avatar
Gutz Gutz is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Crimea
Posts: 4,157
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

**** YOU OP!!!
__________________
I like big guns and I cannot lie.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 09-05-2013, 7:42 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveca View Post
Calgun's has put us in such a better position than we would be in w/o them that it can't be measured. It can't be all things to all people, but they do a great job on behalf of members. They can't do it all. All members should be talking to friends, relatives and others on a regular basis in support of our beliefs, so that Calgun's only reinforces our position. It can't start and stop with them. It has to start with us, and they are just one of the wheels that turn the drive for all 2nd amd supporters. There are a lot of wheels out there that just need some turning and we have to exercise our efforts in those areas every day, not just during congressional sessions. We'll see what happens soon, and then redouble our resolve and efforts. The truth is, "We are Calguns", because w/o us, it wouldn't exist. To sit by and do nothing, and to let our true beliefs be overrun is tantamount to rolling over and playing dead. You can do that if you want to, but I'll never call you a friend.

The Calguns Foundation does not have members. Are you referring to Calguns.net?
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 09-05-2013, 8:28 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
There is a minor semantic issue here. There are two kinds of authority that are referred to as "precedent". Often precedent means "mandatory authority" (binding). It can also mean "persuasive authority" (not binding). Circuit court opinions are mandatory authority for federal courts in the same circuit. They are persuasive authority in all other federal courts (including SCOTUS). Persuasive authority is still citable and often followed (particularly absent mandatory authority from the same circuit), however courts can and do deviate from it, unlike mandatory authority which must be followed unless the case can be distinguished (which it almost always can if the court doesn't want to follow the "mandatory authority").
This is completely correct in a theoretical sense.

In the real world, however, there is no such thing as "mandatory authority".

Want proof? Then look at Osterweil v Bartlett, and tell me how the district court managed to rule as it did despite Heller, even though Heller is "binding authority".

No, in the real world, courts can and will rule as they please, "mandatory authority" be damned.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 09-05-2013, 8:33 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
This is completely correct in a theoretical sense.

In the real world, however, there is no such thing as "mandatory authority".

Want proof? Then look at Osterweil v Bartlett, and tell me how the district court managed to rule as it did despite Heller, even though Heller is "binding authority".

No, in the real world, courts can and will rule as they please, "mandatory authority" be damned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
mandatory authority which must be followed unless the case can be distinguished (which it almost always can if the court doesn't want to follow the "mandatory authority").


The veracity of your supposition has no bearing on the question posed by OleCuss. We all know you think the courts do whatever they please and that nothing argued nor any prior law makes any bit of difference.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 09-05-2013, 8:39 PM
Simply115's Avatar
Simply115 Simply115 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: San Nicolas Island
Posts: 2,275
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

-10/10 fail attempt at rustling jimmies.
__________________
California Über Alles

Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 09-05-2013, 8:44 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post


The veracity of your supposition has no bearing on the question posed by OleCuss. We all know you think the courts do whatever they please and that nothing argued nor any prior law makes any bit of difference.
Absolutely correct!

However, what matters is not what I think, but rather what happens in the real world. And what happens in the real world appears to be, in this case, precisely what I think based on the evidence at hand.

My message was not intended to illustrate that your answer is in any way incomplete as regards OleCuss' question, only to show that only as regards the real world, it's woefully incomplete (except for the notable exception you included, that I somehow missed. Sorry about that! ). And that's not a criticism of your answer in the slightest, precisely because you were answering a specific question (and you answered it quite well, I might add). My comment was meant more for those in the wider audience that might set their expectations based on the meat of your answer, and be gravely disappointed by what they actually find in the real world.


Methinks we're a lot more in agreement than some might think...
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 09-05-2013 at 8:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 09-05-2013, 8:46 PM
Simi-Surfer's Avatar
Simi-Surfer Simi-Surfer is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Ventura Co
Posts: 719
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwkincal View Post
Like this one?

Seriously, I thought this thread was about candy with logos on them????
Thanks
__________________
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" [Matt 28:19]

Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:23 PM
Daveca Daveca is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 280
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post


The veracity of your supposition has no bearing on the question posed by OleCuss. We all know you think the courts do whatever they please and that nothing argued nor any prior law makes any bit of difference.
So your point is that you know nothing, can do nothing, and really support nothing!!!
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:25 PM
Daveca Daveca is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Orange County
Posts: 280
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

That sets the posture for lost souls.
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:27 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daveca View Post
So your point is that you know nothing, can do nothing, and really support nothing!!!
Quite the opposite. Try reading that exchange a few more times and see if you have any better luck understanding it.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:30 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
My message was not intended to illustrate that your answer is in any way incomplete as regards OleCuss' question, only to show that only as regards the real world, it's woefully incomplete (except for the notable exception you included, that I somehow missed. Sorry about that! ). And that's not a criticism of your answer in the slightest, precisely because you were answering a specific question (and you answered it quite well, I might add). My comment was meant more for those in the wider audience that might set their expectations based on the meat of your answer, and be gravely disappointed by what they actually find in the real world.


Methinks we're a lot more in agreement than some might think...
Fair enough, but it is my opinion (and only just an opinion) that good lawyering can and does change the law for the better (or worse). Such lawyering uses the existing law to establish a position and apply it to the facts. Certainly though I would never say something as crazy as Judges always follow what (I think) the law clearly is.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:00 PM
arrix's Avatar
arrix arrix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 1,194
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Seven pages for a troll thread?
__________________
Quote:
There is no week nor day nor hour, when tyranny may not enter upon this country, if the people lose their supreme confidence in themselves -- and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance -- Tyranny may always enter -- there is no charm, no bar against it -- the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.

-Walt Whitman
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:13 PM
vliberatore's Avatar
vliberatore vliberatore is offline
Make Calguns Great Again
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 9,007
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Maybe OP should have read this

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/our-work/
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fighterpilot562 View Post
Damn it man! We could have got drunk, called a taxi and drop by Kest house with a mega phone.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 09-06-2013, 12:55 AM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: equestria
Posts: 6,057
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

this thread is still open?????
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739

Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 09-06-2013, 1:12 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Fair enough, but it is my opinion (and only just an opinion) that good lawyering can and does change the law for the better (or worse). Such lawyering uses the existing law to establish a position and apply it to the facts. Certainly though I would never say something as crazy as Judges always follow what (I think) the law clearly is.
I agree with you on this. It's important to know the conditions under which it applies. My best guess (based on thinking it through logically) is that those conditions are:

  • the judge in question has no strong opinion on or about the subject at hand or (in very rare cases) is capable of and willing to ignore his own opinion and go where the arguments, jurisprudence, and proper historical understanding of the relevant historical law lead,
  • the judge in question is good at following a strong logical argument, and
  • the judge in question is relatively unswayed by his personal opinions and/or relationships with the players involved.

Fail any one of them, and the quality of lawyering will have no effect on the instant outcome, only on the stated reason for that outcome, something that can affect the eventual outcome through appeal (but note that the above conditions apply just as well to every level in the appeals hierarchy).


Even in the worst of cases, good lawyering is a must. It's necessary because it will determine the lengths the court must go to in order to reach the wrong conclusion. Bad lawyering is basically the equivalent of giving away the case to the other side, because it is more likely to give the court a legitimate reason to rule unfavorably.

Finally, there's always the chance (however slight it may be) that the court one is faced with is one that meets the conditions previously outlined. In that case, bad lawyering may cause the case to be lost when it otherwise would be won. To, in essence, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But that is no guarantee of defeat, either, for a court that is properly reviewing the laws and the arguments can easily reach the proper conclusions on its own. For nothing (that I'm aware of) prevents the court from using proper logic when none is supplied. It is, after all, tasked with reviewing the issue, and it is (as far as I know) certainly capable of doing its own research if it chooses to.


The mistake is not in believing that good lawyering makes a difference -- it surely does. No, the mistake (which you may not be making, but which others certainly have) is in believing that good lawyering is sufficient or that it makes a substantial difference when the issue at hand is one, such as that of RKBA, for which there is almost certainly bias on the court due to the very nature of the issue.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 09-06-2013 at 1:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 09-06-2013, 1:39 AM
ConfucianScholar ConfucianScholar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Southern California
Posts: 370
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

OP, you are wrong about everything and a coward. Don't ever post your absurd opinion on any internet forum ever again.
__________________
Things are a lot more like they used to be than they are now...
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 09-06-2013, 2:18 AM
socal147's Avatar
socal147 socal147 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 873
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Reading through this thread makes me want to go shooting and eat lots of pizza. In no particular order.........
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 09-06-2013, 6:16 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,991
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
The Calguns Foundation does not have members. . . .
I don't think you are correct on that.

IIRC, if you donate to Calguns Foundation you are considered a "member". You may not have any sort of vote or say in what they do in the future, but I believe you are considered a "member" for legal purposes.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 09-06-2013, 6:37 AM
El Toro's Avatar
El Toro El Toro is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,334
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrix View Post
Seven pages for a troll thread?
Its just here to help boost post counts for those with low self-esteem and post-count envy.
__________________
Quote:
You don't take a knife to a gun fight...

Justice Consuelo María "Connie" Callahan, Judge, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Presiding
PERUTA V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Hear history being made here... Listen at 28:31
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...6/10-56971.wma
HIRING: Part Time Estate Sale Helper - Orange County
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 09-06-2013, 1:25 PM
highbrass highbrass is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 51
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
It is often not the fault of the lawyers or their arguments when a case ends up not only being unsuccessful but even more damaging like Peterson. There are far too many "judicial activists" on the bench who are just looking for any excuse to legislate their favorite causes.

You can't take a single case that went horribly wrong and view it as the fault of the legal team unless you can clearly demonstrate that they picked a horrible plaintiff, argued an indefensible theory or otherwise personally botched the job. Look at how Alan Gura typically loses at EVERY stage except the Supremes. There are a lot of judges who aren't even looking at the law, the facts or the arguments to make their ruling.
The Peterson/CalGuns bunch deliberately withheld certain arguments from the court because they didn't like the direction that those arguments could offer relief or lead the court's opinion.

Specifically, they deliberately withheld any opportunity for the court to consider allowing open carry in Denver, because plaintiffs didn't care about open carry. They wanted concealed carry only, and they really thought they could get away with playing cute with a Federal Appellate Court.

That arrogant strategy backfired horribly, and we all have to deal with Gray's abject failure being cited by every opposing counsel and hostile court in a gun rights case.

Flyonthewall is exactly right. Gray Peterson is the face of failure, and that deliberately sabotaged Gray/CalGuns case is going to do so much permanent damage to gun rights.

This thread caught my eye solely because it was titled "Calguns Suckers." Calguns really stepped in it with that case, but Gray was all over the gun forums prior to his defeat, strutting like a peacock, dead sure he had it all figured out, confident he was going to win.

I haven't checked in a while, so I don't know if he's still up to his old tricks. If funding Calguns means more funding of Gray Peterson-type cases, keep your money in your wallets, folks.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 09-06-2013, 2:01 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by highbrass View Post
The Peterson/CalGuns bunch deliberately withheld certain arguments from the court because they didn't like the direction that those arguments could offer relief or lead the court's opinion.

Specifically, they deliberately withheld any opportunity for the court to consider allowing open carry in Denver, because plaintiffs didn't care about open carry. They wanted concealed carry only, and they really thought they could get away with playing cute with a Federal Appellate Court.

That arrogant strategy backfired horribly, and we all have to deal with Gray's abject failure being cited by every opposing counsel and hostile court in a gun rights case.
This is true as far as it goes.

However, open carry remains on the table.

In what way could simultaneously challenging the open carry ban possibly have yielded a better result than the one we might get with further litigation? On the other hand, doing so could easily have yielded an even worse result (public carry itself being declared not-a-right).

If plaintiffs would have won the challenge against the open carry ban, the court would still have had to address the challenge to the concealed carry ban, and would thus have ruled in exactly the same way and thus would have given opposing counsel and hostile courts exactly the same citable precedent.

The only difference would be that we'd either have open carry declared as a right, or we would have open carry also declared as not-a-right.


Now you tell me: which of the two approaches, the one that was taken, or the one you favor, presents greater risk to RKBA? Remember that in the case of the approach you favor:

  • The best outcome is, given what we know of how the 10th Circuit "thinks", no better than what we may currently have.
  • The worst outcome (a declaration that there is no right to carry in public at all) is much worse than what we currently have.
  • A simultaneous challenge to the open carry ban would, of necessity, complicate the case even more than it already was, in a situation where clarity is paramount, thus reducing the chance of a win.


What we have now is a situation in which the open carry ban could be challenged directly and with directly citable precedence that can yield only one of two conclusions: open carry is protected by the 2nd Amendment, or there is no right to carry in public at all.


While I agree that a simultaneous challenge to the open carry ban would have been a more comprehensive approach, it is also a more risky approach. And had that approach failed, you would be sitting here with even more vitriol than you do. The more interesting question is what your opinion would be if the case had won on the basis of open carry but also yielded a declaration that concealed carry is not-a-right.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 09-06-2013 at 10:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 09-06-2013, 2:08 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 5,991
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OK, look.

It may be fun to bash CGF and all, but I think something is being missed.

CGF if actually a very effective organization at the day-to-day tactical level. They have benefited individuals and cities up and down the state. They have ensured that thousands have Personal Defense Weapons who would otherwise never have them.

CGF is undoubtedly, IMHO, a force for good in this state at this kind of tactical level.

I'm unconvinced that CGF and its preferred lawyers and the relevant strategic lawsuits are (or will be) effective. At this time the NRA/Chuck Michel association seems to be more effective at this level.

Chuck Michel and his associates also represent a lot of folk that we likely never hear about - but I don't hear about them so I don't know how effective they are at the low-level day-to-day stuff which is so important to so many.

Anyway, I think it is healthy to always question the viability of an organization and approaches to problems.

But to deprecate CGF in general because its strategic lawsuits have so far not been very successful is to give them short-shrift.

CGF has done a lot of good in this state. And it is done by folk who have generally not been compensated for their efforts.

I'm grateful to CGF for their great contributions to the citizenry of this state. Not sure I want them doing strategic litigation, but I'm not sufficiently legally sophisticated to know whether they should.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:50 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.