Librarian - a request

[ronlglock]

What are your thoughts on breaking 2A cases into two sets of threads:
1. Actual case movement
2. Background discussion

Cases keep devolving into “he said, she said” and “you didn’t read xxx properly so do it again.”

[FISHNFRANK]

Something ought to be done because finding actual updates on this board is near impossible. I’ve lately just been waiting for armed scholar videos on you-tube…even those have misleading titles half the time. There are a lot of days I just want the news and the facts. Maybe after an actual update on a case development just lock the thread…

[9Cal_OC]

May I suggest we close those threads until there’s actual updates.

If people want to discuss the rulings or decisions, they can create a new thread for discussion.

[aileron]

Well there is this thread:

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1803112

One stop shopping... maybe Library can agree to sticky it if the author agrees he has the time to keep it up to date.

[popeye4]

Originally Posted by ronlglock

What are your thoughts on breaking 2A cases into two sets of threads:
1. Actual case movement
2. Background discussion

Cases keep devolving into “he said, she said” and “you didn’t read xxx properly so do it again.”

I think you'll have to set up curated threads that are locked and maintained by one or a couple of specific individuals. It looks like the open ones devolve into bored guys running off on all sorts of tangents.

And I hate having to wade through a dozen or more pages of BS before getting to one or two messages that have useful information....

[fudd]

popeye is right, mrrabbit please shut up

[Dirtlaw]

Originally Posted by ronlglock

What are your thoughts on breaking 2A cases into two sets of threads:
1. Actual case movement
2. Background discussion

Cases keep devolving into “he said, she said” and “you didn’t read xxx properly so do it again.”

A sensible request. My vote is yes.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Dirtlaw

A sensible request. My vote is yes.

Calguns is not a democracy. Your vote means nothing.

[Dirtlaw]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Calguns is not a democracy. Your vote means nothing.

You are right. That's a democratic response! The masses rule.

[rkr]

[QUOTE=9Cal_OC;27078615]May I suggest we close those threads until there’s actual updates.

Something along these lines would certainly work for me.
Like a bright yellow/orange banner on the right side of the thread title line of certain threads (Miller v. Bonta, Duncan v. Bonta, Et al.) stating something akin to: "Thread frozen until updates/new developments occur". Maybe switching to green when unlocked?
"1. Actual case movement
2. Background discussion" works too.
Certain threads tend to accumulate a lot of the usual banter that bbs's will, between the salient bits specifically related to the thread that make it somewhat cumbersome to sift through, at least for myself.
Information that's easier to get to is always a bonus.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by mrrabbit

2. People who hop in just to turn a thread into a vanity thread...
=8-|

Hay now, don't you go trying to throw no shade my way. I got enough dead grass in my yard as it is.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Calguns is not a democracy. Your vote means nothing.

Well then where do we riot and what places do we need to take over to seize the means of forum production so we can make it a democracy?

Originally Posted by rplaw

Hay now, don't you go trying to throw no shade my way. I got enough dead grass in my yard as it is.

If that's in your curtilage you should be carrying a shotgun outside a purse.

[MissiontoMars]

Originally Posted by ronlglock

What are your thoughts on breaking 2A cases into two sets of threads:
1. Actual case movement
2. Background discussion

Cases keep devolving into “he said, she said” and “you didn’t read xxx properly so do it again.”

Agreed, ronlglock. When i come to the legal section, i’m looking for actual legal updates, actual information, not opinion posts, not editorials.

I think certain folks in these threads think we care who is right/wrong, think most calgunners care about unsolicited opinion, wall-of-text posts. It’s akin to being forced to listen to two drunks at a bar argue about a ballgame loud enough that you can’t actually hear the game that everyone came to watch.

[curtisfong]

Originally Posted by MissiontoMars

wall-of-text posts

The law is complex. There is no shortcut. 30 second sound bites are for the mass media and social media. They cater to the stupid, easily manipulated, and intellectually lazy.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

The law is complex. There is no shortcut. 30 second sound bites are for the mass media and social media. They cater to the stupid, easily manipulated, and intellectually lazy.

Most people complaining here don’t understand what’s being discussed here and never will. What they’re saying is “I want answers now” because they’re too lazy to understand the conversations or why people come up with differing theories of law.

[MissiontoMars]

Originally Posted by curtisfong

The law is complex. There is no shortcut. 30 second sound bites are for the mass media and social media. They cater to the stupid, easily manipulated, and intellectually lazy.

LOL.

[MissiontoMars]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Most people complaining here don’t understand what’s being discussed here and never will. What they’re saying is “I want answers now” because they’re too lazy to understand the conversations or why people come up with differing theories of law.

Methinks thou hast missed the point, kind sir.

[NATO762]

And those “theories of law” are great discussions that deserve their own threads. We can easily police ourselves via the flag mechanism. If we can keep it.

See: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...9&postcount=57

Originally Posted by NATO762

06-15-2021 We should all flag the posts that contain zero legal or litigation related content. The little red triangle with an exclamation point next to the post number. If we all do this, and indicate we would like the post removed as off-topic, and we do not respond in any other way, these folks would stop posting here.

I personally find the back and forth legal wrangling somewhat interesting, but the threads that relate to specific legal cases should have updates to the cases as they occur and discussion specifically related to the case at hand. Moaning about the makeup of the supreme court, or the 9th circuit should be done in a thread specifically created for such discussion in the Politics and Activism sections of this same forum.

Let's keep these litigation threads as on-point as possible, flag the posts that aren't, and don't respond to them in any other way. The Mods can easily delete a flagged post and if enough people flag it, they will.

[MissiontoMars]

Originally Posted by NATO762

And those “theories of law” are great discussions that deserve their own threads. We can easily police ourselves via the flag mechanism. If we can keep it.

See: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...9&postcount=57

Great idea.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by MissiontoMars

Methinks thou hast missed the point, kind sir.

Not at all.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by lowimpactuser

If that's in your curtilage you should be carrying a shotgun outside a purse.

The purse don't match me shoes.

On the other hand, my tie is often very very spiffy. Natty old fashioned tie tack and all.

[rplaw]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Most people complaining here don’t understand what’s being discussed here and never will. What they’re saying is “I want answers now” because they’re too lazy to understand the conversations or why people come up with differing theories of law.

The "wall of text" that some complain of are discussions about the legalities. Those who want the cliff notes aren't interested in educating themselves and instead just want to be spoon fed the final outcome. Which sometimes gets them into trouble because the cliff notes version rarely includes the limitations that go along with the actual legal decision.


The burden is on every gun owner to know, and understand, the law as it applies to them. There is no shortcut and no one will care if you get busted and start whining about how you didn't know.

[lowimpactuser]

Originally Posted by rplaw

The purse don't match me shoes.

On the other hand, my tie is often very very spiffy. Natty old fashioned tie tack and all.

https://twitter.com/CRTC_Nichols/sta...sRlsJW5pwI2Iiw

A man after his own heart.