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
  #561  
Old 04-27-2020, 1:56 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 10,254
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Question

Charles Nichols:



IIRC, COVID 19 hits men 2x as often as women.

If you are >65 yo, you're at heightened risk. (Basically, the older you are the greater your risk.)

Quote:

The most common medical conditions in patients with COVID19:

*57% had high blood pressure

*41% were obese

*34% had Type 2 diabetes

*Men were more likely to die due to the complications from the infection.
From: https://6abc.com/covid-19-coronaviru...ealth/6122825/

What happens to Nichols' lawsuit if he's disabled (he's currently representing himself) or dies (IIRC, he's the only plaintiff)?
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 04-27-2020, 2:31 PM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,322
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
...

What happens to Nichols' lawsuit if he's disabled (he's currently representing himself) or dies (IIRC, he's the only plaintiff)?
Read up on U.S. v. Miller. Miller and council were not present at orals, and Miller was killed before the decision was rendered. SCOTUS had no problem ruling in favor of gun control in that case. Why should the 9th care, either?
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 04-27-2020, 3:00 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 909
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Read up on U.S. v. Miller. Miller and council were not present at orals, and Miller was killed before the decision was rendered. SCOTUS had no problem ruling in favor of gun control in that case. Why should the 9th care, either?
Miller is a very interesting, and in several ways two-sided case. The whole thing was a set up to get the NFA approved. The trial judge was very much in favor of the law, but ruled against it in order to allow the DA to appeal the verdict. Defense counsel was not paid for preparing a brief, nor provided costs to attend orals. To top it off, the Court gave him two weeks to write, publish (in book form as required by the rules) and file his brief, a clearly inadequate amount of time even had there been money to pay for it.

After Brown was killed off by his cohorts, the case should have been declared moot--since you cannot be convicted of anything after you are dead. But the government was in a rush to validate the law so that it could be used against gangsters and bank robbers, so the Court heard the case anyway, and held that the law was valid since it was only a tax--you could still have those firearms as long as the tax was paid and the user registered (which obviously no law-avoiding criminal was going to do). On the other hand, a portion of the opinion (incorrectly) concludes that a short barrelled shotgun is not appropriate for use as a military arm by the militia--suggesting that firearms that ARE useful for fighting wars fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. Part of the decision can be read as stating that the @A is a collective right (and was cited for that proposition for decades) but at the same time other portions support the existence of an individual right.
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 04-27-2020, 8:33 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,807
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Nichols Vs. Brown update...

Quote:
Originally Posted by snapsound View Post
The idea that subjective information about the speaker has no useful information is to say the subjective information about anything has no useful information. That might be true in a world where everyone could repeat the entire chain of objective experiments and thought processes that led up to anything spoken by anyone, but that is not possible, and so subjective information must be used. Is it perfect? No. The alternative is ignoring everything or deducing all knowledge from scratch yourself without relying on any outside influences or sources.
There is a huge difference between "The statement is correct because X said it" and "the statement is likely to be trustworthy coming from X".

The first is a claim that the truth or falsehood of the statement turns on who said it. The second is a claim that one would be wise to take the proposition that the statement is correct seriously since X has a track record of being correct.

See the difference?

Well, in law, the first is what happens. If a statement comes from an authority, then it is declared correct precisely because it came from an authority. This, of course, can lead to all sorts of absurdity, but that's what happens when you pretend that your made-up arbitrary framework (the law), that has nothing but itself as its standard of reference, is the same in character as a discipline (science) that uses the real world as its standard of reference.

And yes, I'm fully aware that some number of practitioners of the latter have been falling down on the job. Peer review in science doesn't exist to be a rubber stamping mechanism. It exists to ensure that someone who comes up with something hasn't done something that would make the results incorrect as measured against the real world. That isn't just limited to looking over the submission and checking it for errors. It includes duplication of the original observations, because claims in science are supposed to be testable through repeatable observations.

But despite the failings of some of the practitioners of science, there is still an enormous difference between a discipline that ultimately uses the real world as its standard of reference and a made up arbitrary and artificial framework of pronouncements.


Anyway, 'nuff said on that.
__________________
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.

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-28-2020 at 1:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 04-27-2020, 8:38 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My understanding is he is or at least was thinking about hiring a lawyer. I at least recall him posting about that on his facebook page.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 04-27-2020, 9:07 PM
snapsound snapsound is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
There is a huge difference between "The statement is correct because X said it" and "the statement is likely to be trustworthy coming from X".

The first is a claim that the truth or falsehood of the statement turns on who said it. The second is a claim that one would be wise to take the proposition that the statement is correct seriously since X has a track record of being correct.

sure that makes sense
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 11-17-2020, 11:04 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 40,762
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

A kind member offers this as the most recent status here:
"Filed order (MARSHA S. BERZON, JAY S. BYBEE and SHARON L. GLEASON) Submission of this case remains vacated pending issuance of the mandate in Young v. Hawai’i, No. 12-17808."
Is that correct? When did that happen? What site/URL has the info on the progress of this case?
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 11-18-2020, 9:38 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,473
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
A kind member offers this as the most recent status here:
"Filed order (MARSHA S. BERZON, JAY S. BYBEE and SHARON L. GLEASON) Submission of this case remains vacated pending issuance of the mandate in Young v. Hawai’i, No. 12-17808."
Is that correct? When did that happen? What site/URL has the info on the progress of this case?
Are you really pretending like you don't know, can't find out?

Seriously?

Mr. Beck knows...
Paul Clement knows...
Chuck Michel knows...
Paul Nordberg knows...
Alan Gotlieb knows...
Sam Paredes knows...
Brandon Combs knows...
Chris Cox knows...
Alan Gura knows...
Gene Hoffman...
The San Diego shooters group knows...
The Maryland shooters group knows...
I know...
KCBrown knows...


All those parties and hundreds more have known for almost 10 years now.

Why, because the horse's mouth has it's own website for status checks as well as a Facebook page, a Youtube account and an editorial / article page at a news site and a Twitter account.

...all discoverable within 15 seconds simply searching Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "

Last edited by mrrabbit; 11-18-2020 at 9:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 11-18-2020, 11:05 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 40,762
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Are you really pretending like you don't know, can't find out?

Seriously?

Mr. Beck knows...
Paul Clement knows...
Chuck Michel knows...
Paul Nordberg knows...
Alan Gotlieb knows...
Sam Paredes knows...
Brandon Combs knows...
Chris Cox knows...
Alan Gura knows...
Gene Hoffman...
The San Diego shooters group knows...
The Maryland shooters group knows...
I know...
KCBrown knows...


All those parties and hundreds more have known for almost 10 years now.

Why, because the horse's mouth has it's own website for status checks as well as a Facebook page, a Youtube account and an editorial / article page at a news site and a Twitter account.

...all discoverable within 15 seconds simply searching Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo.

=8-|
You say there are all these sources, but provide no URLs.

So, rather than be helpful, you prefer to complain.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 11-18-2020, 11:45 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,473
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
You say there are all these sources, but provide no URLs.

So, rather than be helpful, you prefer to complain.
I assume that everyone around me is as intelligent OR more intelligent than I unless THEY tell me otherwise.

http://www.google.com

"charles nichols open carry"
"charles nichols lawsuit"
"open carry lawsuit"
"nichols v. newsom"
"nichols v. brown"

My intellect tells me that YOU like many of the parties I listed above hate open carry, want to ban open carry, and detest the fact that someone actually has a pure open carry lawsuit awaiting a decision before CA9 despite all the interference early on by the very same parties.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant if YOU are going to position YOURSELF as an INFORMATION TRACER and PROVIDER.

If YOU can't be professional enough to track all cases and their updates IRREGARDLESS of whether you approve of them or not . . .

. . . you're just a petty partisan hack who has no business being in a leading role.

Like it or not, Nichols has a 2A case before CA9 awaiting a decision.

Like it or not, Zeleny has a case before the courts.

Like it or not, Beck has a case before CA9 en banc awaiting a decision.

Question:

Does your last name start with a "J", end with an "n" of Northwest European origin that retired to Nevada a few years back?

Just curious...

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 11-18-2020, 11:56 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,834
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

#EatingPopcorn emoji or whatever....
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 11-18-2020, 11:59 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,270
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

mrrabbit making friends again.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

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

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 11-18-2020, 12:31 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,473
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
mrrabbit making friends again.
If calling people out for being patently dishonest is making friends . . . then so be it.

Kinda doubt it though...



=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 11-18-2020, 12:59 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 40,762
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
I assume that everyone around me is as intelligent OR more intelligent than I unless THEY tell me otherwise.

http://www.google.com

"charles nichols open carry"
"charles nichols lawsuit"
"open carry lawsuit"
"nichols v. newsom"
"nichols v. brown"

My intellect tells me that YOU like many of the parties I listed above hate open carry, want to ban open carry, and detest the fact that someone actually has a pure open carry lawsuit awaiting a decision before CA9 despite all the interference early on by the very same parties.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant if YOU are going to position YOURSELF as an INFORMATION TRACER and PROVIDER.

If YOU can't be professional enough to track all cases and their updates IRREGARDLESS of whether you approve of them or not . . .

. . . you're just a petty partisan hack who has no business being in a leading role.

Like it or not, Nichols has a 2A case before CA9 awaiting a decision.

Like it or not, Zeleny has a case before the courts.

Like it or not, Beck has a case before CA9 en banc awaiting a decision.

Question:

Does your last name start with a "J", end with an "n" of Northwest European origin that retired to Nevada a few years back?

Just curious...

=8-|
Still no useful information, just complaining.

I care nothing at all about this case. I'm content to let others follow it, and post events as they occur.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 11-18-2020, 1:42 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
You say there are all these sources, but provide no URLs.

So, rather than be helpful, you prefer to complain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit, probably
D00D JUST READ HELLER!
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 11-18-2020, 1:47 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 909
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wonder why they want to decide Young before they decide Nichols. Nichols must be one of the oldest cases on the docket. Better briefing and m=ore insightful argument, perhaps? At this rate, Nichols will be dead before the case is finally decided.
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 11-18-2020, 2:13 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I wonder why they want to decide Young before they decide Nichols. Nichols must be one of the oldest cases on the docket. Better briefing and m=ore insightful argument, perhaps? At this rate, Nichols will be dead before the case is finally decided.
Because Young is further along than Nichols and is already past the en banc orals. It's quite common practice for courts to let cases that are further along and will likely set precedent for the lower court judge or panel finish than to have them spend all of the time writing an opinion that will be made worthless after they have already written 110 of 130 pages on the matter.
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 11-19-2020, 2:17 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 909
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Because Young is further along than Nichols and is already past the en banc orals. It's quite common practice for courts to let cases that are further along and will likely set precedent for the lower court judge or panel finish than to have them spend all of the time writing an opinion that will be made worthless after they have already written 110 of 130 pages on the matter.
My point was that Nichols was filed years earlier, is fully briefed, and I believe was argued a couple of years ago as well. It got stayed way back in the Peruta days as I recall, then got stayed again by the NYRPA v. NYC case.
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 11-20-2020, 5:35 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 973
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
A kind member offers this as the most recent status here:
"Filed order (MARSHA S. BERZON, JAY S. BYBEE and SHARON L. GLEASON) Submission of this case remains vacated pending issuance of the mandate in Young v. Hawai’i, No. 12-17808."
Is that correct? When did that happen? What site/URL has the info on the progress of this case?
PACER says that's from 2018, though that is generally still correct.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...mund-brown-jr/
(Court Listener updating appeals cases is iffy since RECAP doesn't work for federal court of appeals yet sadly).


His website has updates if you scroll down, last update being 11/14/2020 talking about the case's 10th year:
https://californiaopencarry.com/stat...carry-lawsuit/
He's planning on getting a lawyer for SCOTUS (and/or en banc) last I checked.
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 11-20-2020, 11:46 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 40,762
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
PACER says that's from 2018, though that is generally still correct.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...mund-brown-jr/
(Court Listener updating appeals cases is iffy since RECAP doesn't work for federal court of appeals yet sadly).


His website has updates if you scroll down, last update being 11/14/2020 talking about the case's 10th year:
https://californiaopencarry.com/stat...carry-lawsuit/
He's planning on getting a lawyer for SCOTUS (and/or en banc) last I checked.
Thanks! I'll add this to the first post.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #581  
Old 11-20-2020, 1:14 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,473
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I wonder why they want to decide Young before they decide Nichols. Nichols must be one of the oldest cases on the docket. Better briefing and m=ore insightful argument, perhaps? At this rate, Nichols will be dead before the case is finally decided.
I worry about the health of both YOUNG and NICHOLS.

I want both of 'em to be around to see their cases to their conclusion. It's sad to see a court have to decide a case for someone who has moved on. It's almost like an unintended grave robbery has occurred when that happens.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #582  
Old 11-20-2020, 3:50 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Corn-fed and Iowa-bred
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,650
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Y’all realize that Nichols drew a hostile panel right? You want a hostile panel deciding the carry issue in the Ninth Circuit based on a non-lawyer, pro se lawsuit? Seriously? Y’all should pray that the Ninth either takes up CRPA’s Flanagan case prior to ruling on Nichols, or that it's decided with a memorandum opinion that is not binding on future panels when it almost certainly gives him a loss. I mean you can also pray that the panel rules in Nichols’ favor too. But that would almost certainly require a miracle.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #583  
Old 11-20-2020, 4:51 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 909
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Y’all realize that Nichols drew a hostile panel right? You want a hostile panel deciding the carry issue in the Ninth Circuit based on a non-lawyer, pro se lawsuit? Seriously? Y’all should pray that the Ninth either takes up CRPA’s Flanagan case prior to ruling on Nichols, or that it's decided with a memorandum opinion that is not binding on future panels when it almost certainly gives him a loss. I mean you can also pray that the panel rules in Nichols’ favor too. But that would almost certainly require a miracle.
Nichols case is most harmed by his essentially incomprehensible pleadings and argument. But it is helped by the fact that without open carry there is no right (as opposed to a privilege through a CCW) to bear arms in any urban area in the state. And that is a real sticking point for the Ninth (after Peruta) to try to rule around without proclaiming that the 2A does not apply/can be completely banned in cities and towns "in the interest of public safety", a surefire road to the Supreme Court.
Reply With Quote
  #584  
Old 11-21-2020, 3:21 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,270
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Y’all realize that Nichols drew a hostile panel right?
Exactly. This is the *only* thing that matters. Outcome can be predicted with nearly perfect accuracy by simply looking at the background of the judge(s).

What the lawyers say and do is entirely irrelevant, *except* for forum shopping. Do not believe a word they say about how clever they are, and how that makes a difference. It does not.

Unless they're clever enough to manipulate the system to get a favorable judge.

This is how much of a sham the court system is.

Nichols will lose. Even had I not looked at a single filing, I could say the outcome was determined as soon as the panel was decided on. Librarian may as well delete all court documents save the names of the judges; it would provide as much predictive power.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

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

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 11-21-2020 at 3:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #585  
Old 11-23-2020, 4:27 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 40,762
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

No, we're not going to worry about, or talk about, who member X really is.

I've done the same for Fabio. That's just one of the needed courtesies for public boards.

Any member is, of course, free to discuss/disclose information about him/herself.
__________________
When a Long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, Pursuing Invariably the Same Object, Evinces a Design to Reduce Them [I.E. the People] Under Absolute Despotism, It Is Their Right, It Is Their Duty, to Throw off Such Government, and to Provide New Guards for Their Future Security.”
– Declaration of Independence, July 4th, 1776
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #586  
Old 11-24-2020, 6:54 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What in hell is the matter with you people? We, are in what may be, our last chance to preserve our liberty, and all you can do is back bite one another?
We need to be better than this if there is any hope of winning. Charles has given his time and money for years fighting for open carry. George Young has been fighting for years to win his case for open carry. I’m going into my second year, with no help from any of the gun orgs fighting for open carry. The big gun orgs have been fighting for our 2A liberty for decades in their own way. I support them all. No one is 100 percent correct all the time. We are all flawed humans in some ways. I have been to every single Socialist and Communist pest hole on earth over the last fifty years, and I am here to tell you something. Millions and tens of millions have suffered and died under the system the Democrat Socialists would impose upon YOU! We had better put our petty personality conflicts, our differences of opinion aside or we are going to lose everything. If you lose your Liberty, the socialists will not let you keep your money or your property.
I know not what course others may take but as for me...........you fill in the blank. Stand for something before it’s too late.
Reply With Quote
  #587  
Old 11-24-2020, 9:47 AM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Corn-fed and Iowa-bred
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,650
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbair View Post
What in hell is the matter with you people? ... We need to be better than this if there is any hope of winning.
You are missing the point entirely here. I’m all about encouraging activism and I will support anyone’s efforts that help preserve and advance our 2nd Amendment rights. But sometimes there is a point where one’s activism can have the opposite effect and actually harm the cause. And to that, I will speak up and do what I can to stop it.

I’m not even going to wade into the debate between concealed versus open carry. With Nichols, we don’t need to get that far. Even if Nicholas was handling this case competently, Nichols has drawn a hostile panel. This isn’t Vegas where we are hoping that we hit the right number on the Roulette wheel. This is law, not a game of chance. All of the money and effort Nichols or anyone else puts forth makes not a bit of difference in the eventual outcome.

More importantly, perhaps you have heard the saying that bad cases make bad law. By pushing this abomination of a case to where it sits now on the 9th Circuit, a Nichols loss has the very real possibility of setting back 2nd Amendment litigation in California. I fail to understand why anybody in this forum would support that.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #588  
Old 11-24-2020, 10:55 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 351
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
[...]

More importantly, perhaps you have heard the saying that bad cases make bad law. By pushing this abomination of a case to where it sits now on the 9th Circuit, a Nichols loss has the very real possibility of setting back 2nd Amendment litigation in California. I fail to understand why anybody in this forum would support that.
I think this is exactly right and is why one should seek "strategic" litigators. Fyock v. Sunnyvale was a great example of "know[ing] when to hold 'em, know[ing] when to fold 'em" because the lawsuit was axed after a loss on the preliminary injunction phase. In Duncan v. Becerra, one should read into some of the legal gymnastics the Court had to engage in to accommodate (i.e., at best being obtuse to the point and at worst kind of ignoring it) previous precedent, as well as, be weary of how a competent District Court was sought out ("judge shopping") and a bit of luck (time, and the Senate Judiciary Committee) yielded sympathetic 3-judge panels for the preliminary injunction (PI) appeal and an appeal on the merits.

In the realm of law, no one cares about time, money, or good intentions. In cases with broad impacts, such as those revolving around the nascent 2A case law, it is not just about winning but also about winning in a way in such you do not pigeonhole yourself in other cases (e.g., "You can ban OC for CCW", etc.).
Reply With Quote
  #589  
Old 11-24-2020, 12:55 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Corn-fed and Iowa-bred
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,650
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
In the realm of law, no one cares about time, money, or good intentions.
That reminds me of another key proverb here - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #590  
Old 11-24-2020, 3:47 PM
Davidwhitewolf's Avatar
Davidwhitewolf Davidwhitewolf is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Livermorium -- the best element
Posts: 689
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Miller is a very interesting, and in several ways two-sided case. The whole thing was a set up to get the NFA approved. ...
I'd had one version of the "real story" behind the Miller case in my mind for years, based on John Ross' speculation in his seminal UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES -- but that's fiction.

The reality you point out was much, much worse. Best treatment of it I've seen was Bryan Frye's "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller," in the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty. Never got as much press as I thought it deserved. RCOB material, for those who remember the old Kim Dutoit term.

Online link: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewc...ext=law_facpub

Free pdf download: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....ract_id=981831
__________________

Honorary Board Member, the California Gun Rights Foundation
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
Yes I'm an attorney. No, this post does not contain legal advice or opinion.
The RNS blog will return in late 2020!
Reply With Quote
  #591  
Old 11-27-2020, 4:53 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,618
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Y’all realize that Nichols drew a hostile panel right? You want a hostile panel deciding the carry issue in the Ninth Circuit based on a non-lawyer, pro se lawsuit? Seriously? Y’all should pray that the Ninth either takes up CRPA’s Flanagan case prior to ruling on Nichols, or that it's decided with a memorandum opinion that is not binding on future panels when it almost certainly gives him a loss. I mean you can also pray that the panel rules in Nichols’ favor too. But that would almost certainly require a miracle.
Just like in Young, the 9th is in a box here. For Young to lose they would have to find a system that never issues permits satisfies the 2A.
Here, since there's no open carry permit to be had (and CA9 said CCW wasn't part of the right no matter what), you basically have a ban.
One of the judges on the Young en banc started asking about CCW. Perhaps they're a little nervous and realize Peruta is now a big problem for them.
Reply With Quote
  #592  
Old 11-27-2020, 6:53 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,270
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Just like in Young, the 9th is in a box here. For Young to lose they would have to find a system that never issues permits satisfies the 2A.
One more time: nobody boxes the courts. They are not constrained in the slightest by anything. They have the authority to unilaterally do whatever they want. The notion that a lawyer, through cleverness, can "force" the court to do anything is pure folly. The court will follow political bias with near perfect correlation. All they have to do is ignore everything the plaintiffs say, find for the state, and copy/paste the state's argument, word for word, in to dicta.

Nichols will lose. Not because he is wrong. Or his because lawyers are incompetent. He will lose because he drew a hostile panel. The courts are corrupt. Is that not obvious to everyone yet?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

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

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #593  
Old 11-27-2020, 7:51 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Win win win win
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 8,691
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
If calling people out for being patently dishonest is making friends . . . then so be it.



Kinda doubt it though...







=8-|

You’re patently a piece of dog chit for attacking our robot king.

Seriously f you!
__________________
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac

Reply With Quote
  #594  
Old 11-27-2020, 7:59 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
One more time: nobody boxes the courts. They are not constrained in the slightest by anything. They have the authority to unilaterally do whatever they want. The notion that a lawyer, through cleverness, can "force" the court to do anything is pure folly. The court will follow political bias with near perfect correlation. All they have to do is ignore everything the plaintiffs say, find for the state, and copy/paste the state's argument, word for word, in to dicta.

Nichols will lose. Not because he is wrong. Or his because lawyers are incompetent. He will lose because he drew a hostile panel. The courts are corrupt. Is that not obvious to everyone yet?
I'm in complete agreement but Nichols incompetence and bad luck aside it may not matter. Young v Hawaii en banc opinion will occur first and that will set precedent for Nichols until SCOTUS gets involved.
Reply With Quote
  #595  
Old 11-28-2020, 9:15 AM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
Corn-fed and Iowa-bred
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,650
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Just like in Young, the 9th is in a box here.
LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
One more time: nobody boxes the courts. They are not constrained in the slightest by anything.
Exactly this. This should be painfully obvious to anyone that is paying attention on this forum, which we saw in full display when the Peruta en banc panel had to revert to Medieval English law to justify its decision.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #596  
Old 11-30-2020, 10:59 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,473
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by readysetgo View Post
You’re patently a piece of dog chit for attacking our robot king.

Seriously f you!
When people, especially those in so-called "leadership positions" try to pre-censor information for others . . .

. . . I'm going to call 'em out.

Again...everyone on the "legal dream team", FPC, CGF, CRPA, SAF, San Diego and the Maryland group, GOA, CGOA, Chuck Michel, Alan Beck, and the folks running this website are actively tracking the status of Charles lawsuit.

And anyone of those folks who deny it are straight up lying.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #597  
Old 11-30-2020, 11:06 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,473
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
LOL



Exactly this. This should be painfully obvious to anyone that is paying attention on this forum, which we saw in full display when the Peruta en banc panel had to revert to Medieval English law to justify its decision.
As curtis and I have pointed out, CA9 activist judges create new rules as they go along. That's their history...including transferring cases to courts where they don't belong.

CA9 can send Young back to the district court for the district court to admonish the local authority for not applying state law correctly (REDO) OR moot the case by issuing ANY permit Open or Concealed that satisfies the remedy requested by Young.

CA9 can "Frankenstein Reverse Split the Baby" (if there is such a thing) and simply toss California's ban on Unloaded Open Carry and dare Charles to request cert. on Loaded Open carry with SCOTUS.

Lotsa ways to escape the box . . .

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #598  
Old 11-30-2020, 2:08 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Win win win win
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 8,691
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
When people, especially those in so-called "leadership positions" try to pre-censor information for others . . .



. . . I'm going to call 'em out.



Again...everyone on the "legal dream team", FPC, CGF, CRPA, SAF, San Diego and the Maryland group, GOA, CGOA, Chuck Michel, Alan Beck, and the folks running this website are actively tracking the status of Charles lawsuit.



And anyone of those folks who deny it are straight up lying.



=8-|
You keep dropping a buncha names.

Wtf do they have to do with librarian, a mod here?!

As if he’s part of you’re big boogeyman conspiracy.

You’re so full of chit you can’t even smell it anymore. And you think way too highly of yourself and “Charles.” You’re unpopular because you’re assclowns, not because of your ideas (although they’re probably assclownish too).

Again, F you.
__________________
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac

Reply With Quote
  #599  
Old 11-30-2020, 8:45 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,473
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by readysetgo View Post
You keep dropping a buncha names.

Wtf do they have to do with librarian, a mod here?!

As if he’s part of you’re big boogeyman conspiracy.

You’re so full of chit you can’t even smell it anymore. And you think way too highly of yourself and “Charles.” You’re unpopular because you’re assclowns, not because of your ideas (although they’re probably assclownish too).

Again, F you.
"Wtf do they have to do with librarian, a mod here?!"

Answer your own question . . .

__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
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 9:04 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, 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.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical