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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2361  
Old 07-21-2021, 10:58 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,452
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbinator View Post
But but, Freedom Week was in 2019...

Turby
Magazine(s) could have been manufactured in 2018, but 'bought' during Freedom Week in 2019. That is my circumstance with the PMAGs that I 'bought' during Freedom Week.
Reply With Quote
  #2362  
Old 07-23-2021, 9:09 PM
Turbinator's Avatar
Turbinator Turbinator is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 11,765
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Magazine(s) could have been manufactured in 2018, but 'bought' during Freedom Week in 2019. That is my circumstance with the PMAGs that I 'bought' during Freedom Week.
I understand now, got it. As in, actually manufactured by the manufacturer in 2018, then purchased legally during Freedom Week in 2019.

Turby
Reply With Quote
  #2363  
Old 07-24-2021, 12:08 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,078
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

We won’t even mention my Delorean and future date codes.
__________________


NRA/DOJ/ILEETA instructor, NRA RSO, Journalist
Reply With Quote
  #2364  
Old 07-29-2021, 3:29 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,061
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I saw that the state responded to the plaintiff's Rule 28(j) letter a couple of days ago.

Sounds like they are trying to wave away the recent SCOTUS cases with potential implications for this case (regarding scrutiny and takings).

They also repeat the claim that the plaintiffs have failed to provide any instance in which a Californian has actually fired more than ten rounds in self-defense.

Of course, such instances exist and have been posted in this thread, and more exist that were outside of CA, including some involving over 100 rounds fired in self-defense. I actually just found out about another in CA that happened somewhere along the American River in which 14 men attempted to rob three men on a road. One of the victims was killed immediately and another got off two shots before being killed. The third had two revolvers and fired all twelve shots, killing seven robbers. The remaining seven armed robbers pressed the attack, and not being able to reload under the circumstances, the victim used a knife to defend himself. Despite the gross disparity of force (exactly the sort of circumstance for which firearms are useful), the victim managed to kill four more robbers with his knife and caused the remainder to flee.

It's interesting, because more than ten rounds were fired, but not much more, and these were not adequate to resolve the situation, despite decent shooting. Reloading without being killed in the process was not possible under the circumstances, so that was not an option (the state claims in their response that even if someone needed more than ten rounds, they can just reload). And the only reason all three victims were not killed is that one had exceptional skill with swords and knives, was a combat veteran, and was exceptionally aggressive, combined with the skill of his opponents being inferior (and, IIRC, two were wounded by his gunfire and were diminished in ability as a consequence).

I wonder why the plaintiffs have either been unable or unwilling to counter this. Is there a rule about them citing such cases at this point in the process? They still did not do so at the district level, for whatever reason.
Reply With Quote
  #2365  
Old 07-29-2021, 4:11 PM
Bolt_Action Bolt_Action is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 498
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
I wonder why the plaintiffs have either been unable or unwilling to counter this. Is there a rule about them citing such cases at this point in the process? They still did not do so at the district level, for whatever reason.
My guess would be incompetence.
Reply With Quote
  #2366  
Old 07-30-2021, 1:02 AM
ohsmily ohsmily is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: El Dorado Hills (Sac area)
Posts: 8,547
iTrader: 35 / 97%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
I actually just found out about another in CA that happened somewhere along the American River in which 14 men attempted to rob three men on a road. One of the victims was killed immediately and another got off two shots before being killed. The third had two revolvers and fired all twelve shots, killing seven robbers. The remaining seven armed robbers pressed the attack, and not being able to reload under the circumstances, the victim used a knife to defend himself. Despite the gross disparity of force (exactly the sort of circumstance for which firearms are useful), the victim managed to kill four more robbers with his knife and caused the remainder to flee.
.
What movie was that in?
__________________
Expert firearms attorney: http://www.ajrlaw.net

Check out https://www.firearmsunknown.com/. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego.
Reply With Quote
  #2367  
Old 07-30-2021, 1:28 AM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,061
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohsmily View Post
What movie was that in?
I don't believe it has ever been portrayed on film.

The man who prevailed was named Jonathan Davis, and he was a Mexican War veteran who was a prospector at the time of the incident, as were his companions, James MacDonald and Dr. Bolivar Sparks.

He was attacked by a gang composed of members of the Australian Sydney Ducks gang and a number of others, and they had robbed and killed ten men in separate incidents in the days preceding this attempt.

The incident occurred in a place called Rocky Canyon along the North Fork of the American River, somewhere outside of Sacramento on December 19, 1854. Davis and three witnesses to the event were deposed before a judge on the matter afterwards.

A link to an article on the incident:

https://truewestmagazine.com/the-gang-slayer-1/
Reply With Quote
  #2368  
Old 07-30-2021, 11:03 AM
menancyandsam menancyandsam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 175
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So if Calif can prove that no Californian has written a novel of more that 500 pages & more than 500 page novels are rare in the rest of the nation...then Calif can ban novels of more than 500 pages. Because you don't need that many pages to publish your ideas. And if it's not enough you can just publish a 2nd novel. See nothing unconstitutional to see hear, just move along.

If ammo are considered arms, since an ammoless gun ceases to be an effective weapon, then limitations on ammo capacity is at the core of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Being at the core puts the state justification for arbitrary limitations in peril.
Reply With Quote
  #2369  
Old 07-30-2021, 11:06 AM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,061
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by menancyandsam View Post
So if Calif can prove that no Californian has written a novel of more that 500 pages & more than 500 page novels are rare in the rest of the nation...then Calif can ban novels of more than 500 pages. Because you don't need that many pages to publish your ideas. And if it's not enough you can just publish a 2nd novel. See nothing unconstitutional to see hear, just move along.

If ammo are considered arms, since an ammoless gun ceases to be an effective weapon, then limitations on ammo capacity is at the core of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Being at the core puts the state justification for arbitrary limitations in peril.
I agree that it should be irrelevant, but if that line of argument can be countered with facts, I see no reason not to do so while arguing against the relevancy if that argument to the constitutional issues at play. Of course, if it comes to the judges possibly being swayed by this sort of thing, it's not a good sign, IMO.
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 6:43 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical