Usage note: (California) "2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion" means it.

[Librarian]

This forum is for CALIFORNIA 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion.

Must be California.

Must be Second Amendment.

Must be existing or completed litigation started here or specific to state or CA local entities, and the legal discussion should be related to the litigation.

Prospective litigation goes to California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism, until the suit is filed.

2A but not California goes to National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion.

How to deal with CA or Federal law, outside the litigation context, goes to How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me forum.

Politics but not Second Amendment generally goes to Off Topic.

[strongpoint]

Is there a reason not to simply insert "California" into the name of the subforum? Thus:

POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM
> California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
> California 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
> National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
> How California Laws Apply to/Affect Me

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by strongpoint

Is there a reason not to simply insert "California" into the name of the subforum? Thus:

POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM
> California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
> California 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
> National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
> How California Laws Apply to/Affect Me

Because we generally expect people to be able to read and figure it out on their own, when

"Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel." is right there in the title?

[strongpoint]

Originally Posted by Spyder

Because we generally expect people to be able to read and figure it out on their own, when "Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel." is right there in the title?

Well, first of all, that's not the title. The title of the subforum is "2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion"; you're referring to a subheading that appears underneath the title, and it's not necessarily visible in every view of Calguns (for instance, those subheadings appear nowhere if you're using Tapatalk to browse the boards).

But more to the point, how's that working out? You don't have to answer; the fact that Librarian felt compelled to write the OP is sufficient.

If people are having trouble understanding the purpose of a subforum, it would be a better solution to push the explanation up a level (from the subheading to the title) rather than down a level (to a post in the subforum itself). It would have the added bonus of making the subforum titles more consistent with each other.

[ddestruel]

brought it up in suggestions a while ago.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1074391


Sorry i have no sympathy for librarian or the other guys now because I’ve seen why it keeps happening. you are exactly right. the main title is all i see on my cell phone, tap talk, and my office computer browser. unless i change the settings to advanced and then it shows the description subtitles otherwise its strictly the main title which 2ND AMEND. LITIGATION UPDATES & LEGAL DISCUSSIONS...... that title in those views communicates nothing about it being CA specific. If all of those above listed use formats i don’t see the subtitles and ill bet you 1000’s of other guys are seeing the same thing as me.

So the current title is misleading especially if you sign in on a limited bandwidth viewing mode. which more and more do.

As well there are still old national threads in there that occasionally rise up inside of it.

And regardless of if its a CA specific website even Maryland shooters has national and maryland listed in the main titles to prevent exactly what everyone else keeps getting pissed about. obviously something is missing either the message isn’t getting communicated until you’ve been here for awhile OR the current format would benefit from one simple word being added to the Main Title.


I get it. i know better because I’ve been here, the end problem is in communications on this. leaving the same sign up over and over and over again expecting different results and then getting mad about it i don’t think is gonna change things

[Dvrjon]

Not to be pessimistic about it but, there are enough, diverse people on this site that regardless of the solution, it will fail.

There will always be a place for Librarian.....

[strongpoint]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

Not to be pessimistic about it but, there are enough, diverse people on this site that regardless of the solution, it will fail.

There will always be a place for Librarian.....

We should try to come up with solutions that minimize the problem even if it can't truly be eliminated.

Speaking of whom ... Librarian, got anything more to say on the subject?

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by strongpoint

We should try to come up with solutions that minimize the problem even if it can't truly be eliminated.

Said Sysiphus.

[David-K]

The outline above by Librarian reads like the following:

Ok, this if this but if not, than this. Unless, of course this is this and then only if this. Then again, there's also this, but only if this. And as always, this, is a given.

Therein lies the problem. What seem obvious in the title, apparently, ain't so obvious again and again and again. Somehow, I tend to think a little simplification would go a long way.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by David-K

The outline above by Librarian reads like the following:

Ok, this if this but if not, than this. Unless, of course this is this and then only if this. Then again, there's also this, but only if this. And as always, this, is a given.

Therein lies the problem. What seem obvious in the title, apparently, ain't so obvious again and again and again. Somehow, I tend to think a little simplification would go a long way.

How about ...

Critical factors to be in this forum

1) must be CALIFORNIA

2) Must be SECOND AMENDMENT related

3) must be about LITIGATION and discussion of the legal arguments of the litigation

"National includes California" is true, but irrelevant - National goes to the National forum.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Librarian

How about ...

Critical factors to be in this forum

1) must be in CALIFORNIA or directly affects CALIFORNIA

Fixed it for you?

Think of a MT RKBA case that is before CA9 or a MA RKBA case that has been granted cert. by SCOTUS (e.g., hopefully, Caetano in a few months).

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Fixed it for you?

Think of a MT RKBA case that is before CA9 or a MA RKBA case that has been granted cert. by SCOTUS (e.g., hopefully, Caetano in a few months).

No - until such things get directly applied to CA, they should usually go to National.

Just being in some Federal Court within the 9th's coverage area is not sufficient.

Nor is a SCOTUS case not up from 9th sufficient - another 'national includes CA' problem.

CA-Provincialism is what I'm trying to accomplish here. In this forum, focus on California cases about California problems - unless SCOTUS might solve one of those problems for us.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Librarian

No - until such things get directly applied to CA, they should usually go to National.

Just being in some Federal Court within the 9th's coverage area is not sufficient.

I did not write "some Federal Court within the 9th", I wrote "before CA9": that means it is before the 9th Federal Court of Appeals in SF, either a 3-judge panel or en banc, not some district (i.e., trial) court somewhere in CA9's jurisdiction. What CA9 decides affects ALL states in the 9th Circuit and that includes CA.

By your reasoning, a federal RKBA case that began in MT does not apply to CA until CA9 decides it, and we win, and thus should not be discussed here until after that win. But by that very same reasoning, a federal RKBA case that began in CA also does NOT apply to CA as a whole until CA9 decides it, and we win, and thus should not be discussed here until after that win.

Originally Posted by Librarian

Nor is a SCOTUS case not up from 9th sufficient - another 'national includes CA' problem.

CA-Provincialism is what I'm trying to accomplish here. In this forum, focus on California cases about California problems - unless SCOTUS might solve one of those problems for us.

ANY decision of SCOTUS re. a RKBA case from ANY federal court of appeals (or, IIRC, directly from a state SC) applies to the entire nation, and that includes California...

The RKBA we're fighting for in CA is the FEDERAL Constitution's 2nd A to the BoR because CA does NOT have a state constitutional RKBA.

By your reasoning the ONLY federal cases we can discuss here, whether they started in a federal court in California or somewhere else, are ones that have already been Litigated, won and finalized. (I'm not talking about state court cases.)

Once a RKBA case is taken by CA9 or is granted cert by SCOTUS, all Californians' RKBA are being Litigated. That's why they belong in the Litigation forum.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Once a RKBA case is taken by CA9 or is granted cert by SCOTUS, all Californians' RKBA are being Litigated. That's why they belong in the Litigation forum.

And that's why there is a National 2A forum. Discuss MT and VT and whatever non-CA cases there.

ETA think, if you will, Oakland Tribune (this forum) vs New York Times (National forum). Local interest should dominate in this one.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Librarian

And that's why there is a National 2A forum. Discuss MT and VT and whatever non-CA cases there.

ETA think, if you will, Oakland Tribune (this forum) vs New York Times (National forum). Local interest should dominate in this one.

1) Just to be clear: I am NOT talking about any state courts, only federal.

2) There is a difference between a federal case in district court in the 9th Circuit and a federal case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A RKBA case before CA9 will have the same effect on CA whether it began in CA or MT (also in the 9th Circuit). Do you understand that? If yes, why are you trying to put the latter into "National"?

3) A RKBA case granted cert by SCOTUS will have the same effect on CA whether it began in CA or VT (not in the 9th Circuit). Do you understand that? If yes, why are you trying to put the latter into "National"?

The newspaper analogy would be The Oakland Tribune would be a DISTRICT court in the 9th Circuit. An newspaper called The Western States Chronicle (if there were such a one), would be CA9. The NYT would be a DISTRICT court back east and The North East States Chronicle (again, if there were one) would be a sister federal CA (court of appeals). USA Today would be SCOTUS.

ALL RKBA stories in The Eastern States Chronicle and in USA Today affect Californian's RKBA as much as, actually MORE than, a RKBA story in The Oakland Tribune.

Now, if you want to divide up some cases that will affect CA into National and other cases that affect CA into Litigation, it will not make sense, but ... never mind.

Do it your way and you need to move Baker to National even though it is equivalent in its effects on Californians as Peruta which will stay here.

You'll also be putting in the same forum a MT state RKBA case that will never affect CA with a federal case before CA9 that started in a federal district court in MT that will affect CA.

Whatever....

[Librarian]

This is a CA based forum; CA gets special attention.

Your way wants to collapse the CA and National back into one forum. Not going to happen.

[ddestruel]

For the record it still says


2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion on my cell phone and my mac desktop

and right above it there is a title that says

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism

right below it there is one that says

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion


just say-in the subtitles i know are there don’t show up on my screens i could do a snap shot but i don’t think its gonna help...... you could save yourself a bunch of people arguing with the mods and a bunch of people posting in the wrong forum with one little word added in there kinda like how that CA politics and legal discussion is clearly separated. or national political and legal discussion. hard part is the national and the Ca forums that denote sound specific to those subjects and specific to those arena’s then there is that middle one that the mods want to be CA specific but when you look at those three titles sounds like the catch all for all litigation since its not legal advice and its not political action.....

it says litigation its the only one that says litigation and so it reads and sounds like the forum to post litigation. being CA specific is true of the bulletin board but those three titles seem to separate into CA, National and then the Catch all litigation forum. Unless your on an advanced setting only shows up as saying 2nd amendment litigation the later description even the difference of legal discussion vs activism gets lost on most readers eyes and sounds more like the places for legal debate and KCbrown. Im all for keep it simple stupid but the above suggestion of adding the word CA to the main title litigation i suspect will save you many of your frustrations, it sure feels like you’re working your butt off to keep the forum inline but need some help from the powers that be with naming.


I ll leave now because this is getting comical to watch just wanted to lob that grenade into there

[strongpoint]

Librarian, amend the subforum titles the way I suggested upthread. I'll bet you a box of ammo (your choice!) that the problem will be virtually nonexistent within a month.

Better yet, simplify further:

* California 2A politics and activism
* California 2A litigation
* National 2A politics and litigation
* California laws and how they affect me

If you want people to understand quickly, simplify.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by strongpoint

Librarian, amend the subforum titles the way I suggested upthread. I'll bet you a box of ammo (your choice!) that the problem will be virtually nonexistent within a month.

Better yet, simplify further:

* California 2A politics and activism
* California 2A litigation
* National 2A politics and litigation
* California laws and how they affect me

If you want people to understand quickly, simplify.

I quite agree, although the "California laws and how they affect me" needs to be "California/Federal laws and how they affect me" because things like gun free school zones and interstate transfers also require obeying Federal laws.

But I do not have the software access to rename forums (nor do I want that access!).

[strongpoint]

Originally Posted by Librarian

I quite agree, although the "California laws and how they affect me" needs to be "California/Federal laws and how they affect me" because things like gun free school zones and interstate transfers also require obeying Federal laws.

Solid copy, though I point out that the subforum title doesn't include "federal" right now.

Originally Posted by Librarian

But I do not have the software access to rename forums (nor do I want that access!).

So how do we loop Kes (or another mod with similar permissions) into this discussion?