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
  #1721  
Old 07-25-2019, 4:02 PM
Ceemack Ceemack is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
The LA/Oakland brief is hilarious.



So I guess the LEO have to give up their LCMs because they don't use them for self defense and they are only for military use on the battlefield.

I have to wonder if these people actually read what they write?
My favorite part was the instance in which a cop with a six-shot revolver was outgunned by a suspect with an "LCM". In 1994.

Bit of a reach.
Reply With Quote
  #1722  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:31 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 599
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post

I thought that attempting to present new evidence on appeal was a no-no absent extraordinary circumstances. If so, isn't the request for judicial notice the state filed unfair to the plaintiffs?
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #1723  
Old 07-26-2019, 10:57 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,254
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
I thought that attempting to present new evidence on appeal was a no-no absent extraordinary circumstances. If so, isn't the request for judicial notice the state filed unfair to the plaintiffs?
Stuff that is judicially noticeable is not considered evidence because it is stuff that is easily verifiable and can't be disputed.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #1724  
Old 07-29-2019, 9:57 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,936
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Off-topic posts deleted - this thread is for the litigation only.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #1725  
Old 08-16-2019, 2:17 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wasn't CRPA's brief due yesterday?
Reply With Quote
  #1726  
Old 08-16-2019, 4:35 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 458
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Stuff that is judicially noticeable is not considered evidence because it is stuff that is easily verifiable and can't be disputed.
If the judge bases their ruling on something "noticeable" that is later proven false is that an easy appeal?
Reply With Quote
  #1727  
Old 08-19-2019, 10:07 AM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 564
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What time are they hearing this?

*EDIT*

Just realized it's at 1030am. Does anyone know when we can expect a decision based on history?
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE

Last edited by USMCmatt; 08-19-2019 at 10:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1728  
Old 08-19-2019, 10:49 AM
Roering's Avatar
Roering Roering is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 575
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
What time are they hearing this?

*EDIT*

Just realized it's at 1030am. Does anyone know when we can expect a decision based on history?
Reply With Quote
  #1729  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:25 AM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 564
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roering View Post
Wait... so it the mag injunction ruling today from the 9th or the ammo injunction req before Benitez?
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #1730  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:34 AM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 495
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
Wait... so it the mag injunction ruling today from the 9th or the ammo injunction req before Benitez?
Ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #1731  
Old 08-19-2019, 11:56 AM
Roering's Avatar
Roering Roering is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 575
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCmatt View Post
Wait... so it the mag injunction ruling today from the 9th or the ammo injunction req before Benitez?
The latter
Reply With Quote
  #1732  
Old 08-19-2019, 12:02 PM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 564
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Copy, thanks!
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #1733  
Old 08-22-2019, 2:36 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wasn't CRPA's brief due on the 15th?

Quote:
Thu., August 15, 2019 Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1
I don't see anything new on the page for this case. Or did they get an extension?
Reply With Quote
  #1734  
Old 08-23-2019, 7:24 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,254
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirearmFino View Post
Wasn't CRPA's brief due on the 15th?



I don't see anything new on the page for this case. Or did they get an extension?
Streamlined request [32] by Appellees California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio and Christopher Waddell to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellees California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio and Christopher Waddell answering brief due 09/16/2019. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [11378081] (DLM)
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #1735  
Old 08-23-2019, 2:14 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 99
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks Wolf!
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 4:15 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.