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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism > Temp Post-Duncan Mag Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-26-2019, 10:47 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
It makes absolutely no sense for you to ramble on about how unlikely or difficult a prosecution may be, when you were asked to assume that a LEA is enforcing and has the evidence. Should that be the case, your lawyers will get an opportunity to argue your theory as to why persons are permitted immunity from prosecution, should they have participated in Freedom Week. Let them try to convince a judge of the California Superior Court that the order of a United States District Court Judge meant as you say, when it is clear upon reading the entire order that was not Benitez's intent.
Why on God's green earth would I give any credence to your paranoid fantasies?
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
  #42  
Old 04-26-2019, 10:50 AM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Pretty clear from reading the entire order, staying in part, that there were two groups of persons, for one the judgment is stayed, for the other it's not.

I think you may be reading "stayed in part" as partially stayed in full.

Think of it like a corral of 40 million cats. The judge opened the gate and 400,000 got out. The judge then closed the gate leaving 39,600,000 cats still in the corral, pending appeal, most of whose didn't want to be free anyway. The free cats are still free, but are likely to be shot, by the AG, if they free any other cats from the corral.
  #43  
Old 04-26-2019, 11:03 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Pretty clear from reading the entire order, staying in part, that there were two groups of persons, for one the judgment is stayed, for the other it's not.

I think you may be reading "stayed in part" as partially stayed in full.

Think of it like a corral of 40 million cats. The judge opened the gate and 400,000 got out. The judge then closed the gate leaving 39,600,000 cats still in the corral, pending appeal, most of whose didn't want to be free anyway. The free cats are still free, but are likely to be shot, by the AG, if they free any other cats from the corral.
And to those who say that this makes no sense, I disagree entirely. If you purchased or otherwise obtained 30 magazines, it doesn't matter if you have 10 more, even if you accept the State's argument that LCMs increase the effectiveness of mass shooters AND that this provides a basis for banning them. Whether a person has 30 or 40 LCMs won't make a difference in preventing mass shootings. I believe CRPA made a similar argument, albeit unsuccessfully, against the 10 day waiting period in Silvester v. Harris.

I don't know what Judge Benitez's reasoning was, and whether this was it, but I do know that the plain meaning of his ruling is clear.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
  #44  
Old 04-26-2019, 11:30 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How many recall what Kestryll did when members started to suggest that the order of April 4 barred enforcement of 32310 (a) and (b) after 5 pm if April 5 as to persons that manufactured, imported, sold, bought or received a LCM during freedom week? Did you read his posts regarding what the lawyers for CRPA had to say and to delete posts? This thread got closed within a minute after CalAlumnus posted that anyone who made a purchase during Freedom Week should afterwards be able to make additional purchases.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
  #45  
Old 04-26-2019, 11:42 AM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 420
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
"Both parties indicate inbriefing that persons and business entities in California may have manufactured, imported, sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds since the entry of this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and in reliance on the injunction. Indeed, it is the reason that the Attorney General seeks urgent relief in the form of a stay pending appeal. Both parties suggest that it is appropriate to fashion protection for these law-abiding persons."

"Without question, entering a stay pending appeal will harm the Plaintiffs, and all others like the Plaintiffs (who are many), who would choose to acquire and possess a firearm magazine holding more than 10 rounds for self-defense. “It is well established that the deprivation of constitutional rights ‘unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”

Seems pretty well thought out to me, its simple, free or not free, and doesn't reimpose an unconstitutional blanket ban on those who chose to exercise their freedom.

I do think it should only be used as a shield though, since a lot of actions involving 32310 are between two individuals, a buyer and seller, etc... and there would be laws broken if one of the two was not exempt, and I think there would be a way to prosecute one directly, and the other indirectly, (aiding and abetting a felon in his felonious act).
How does your view of the stay account for this language?

Quote:
In layman's terms, the State of California and the law enforcement agencies therein will be free to restart the enforcement of Calif. Penal Code Sec 32310 (a) and (b) which currently prohibits, among other things, any person in the state from manufacturing, importing into the state, offering for sale, giving, lending, buying, or receiving a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds (as defined by Calif. Penal Code Sec 16740). This will continue until the appeal proceedings conclude or the stay is modified or lifted.
(I didn't add any emphasis; but were I to do so for purposes of this argument, I'd emphasize "any person")

I don't think there is much colorable confusion about the impact of the Judge's stay -- by which I mean to say I don't think the argument that there are now two classes of people and one class can purchase LCMs today without violating Sec 32310 -- will pass a laugh test in court.

But I recognize that others think differently. Readers of these threads should of course proceed at their own risk and/or consult an attorney for advice.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
  #46  
Old 04-26-2019, 11:42 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
I don't know what Judge Benitez's reasoning was, and whether this was it, but I do know that the plain meaning of his ruling is clear.
Please explain to all the rules for construing a court order. Include the rules for determining how an order is to be construed if enforcement per its language would lead to an absurdity and/or a result contrary to the manifest intention of its maker.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.

Last edited by Chewy65; 04-26-2019 at 11:45 AM..
  #47  
Old 04-26-2019, 11:45 AM
igs igs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
How many recall what Kestryll did when members started to suggest that the order of April 4 barred enforcement of 32310 (a) and (b) after 5 pm if April 5 as to persons that manufactured, imported, sold, bought or received a LCM during freedom week? Did you read his posts regarding what the lawyers for CRPA had to say and to delete posts? This thread got closed within a minute after CalAlumnus posted that anyone who made a purchase during Freedom Week should afterwards be able to make additional purchases.
And they were WRONG just as they were WRONG about the initial 3/29 ruling only applying to grandfathered mags.
__________________
If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun.
  #48  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:11 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
How many recall what Kestryll did when members started to suggest that the order of April 4 barred enforcement of 32310 (a) and (b) after 5 pm if April 5 as to persons that manufactured, imported, sold, bought or received a LCM during freedom week? Did you read his posts regarding what the lawyers for CRPA had to say and to delete posts? This thread got closed within a minute after CalAlumnus posted that anyone who made a purchase during Freedom Week should afterwards be able to make additional purchases.
Neither Kestryll nor Michel & Assoc. are infallible, and I haven't seen anything from CRPA explaining why my theory is incorrect. If Kestryll wants to prohibit one line of reasoning from being advanced, it's his website and he's free to do that, and I'll honor that. But it won't make him or CRPA (to the extent they are saying this) correct.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
  #49  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:11 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by igs View Post
And they were WRONG just as they were WRONG about the initial 3/29 ruling only applying to grandfathered mags.
So you know better than the lawyers at Michelle & Associates!
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
  #50  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:13 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Please explain to all the rules for construing a court order. Include the rules for determining how an order is to be construed if enforcement per its language would lead to an absurdity and/or a result contrary to the manifest intention of its maker.
Sure. Neither applies. It would neither be absurd (I've put forth at least one colorable argument for why it would make sense for Benitez to write it precisely the way he did) nor contrary to the intention of its maker.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
  #51  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:26 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Sure. Neither applies. It would neither be absurd (I've put forth at least one colorable argument for why it would make sense for Benitez to write it precisely the way he did) nor contrary to the intention of its maker.
Again you dodge the question, which was "how an order is to be construed if enforcement per its language would lead to an absurdity and/or a result contrary to the manifest intention of its maker." Instead you claim that it will neither lead to an absurdity nor a result contrary to the intention of its maker. Please try to answer the question as it was asked.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
  #52  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:27 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Let's recall that Chewy is the same guy who posted this absurd thread: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1524487

Then tried to walk it back by saying "oh, I wrote it in the middle of the night" when he was deservedly clowned-upon.


--
The reason I am so adamant about this is that spreaders of FUD do the gun controllers' work for them. Gun rights is advanced as much by gun owners establishing facts on the ground as it is by legal developments (court decisions, legislation, etc.) This is the case with all sorts of activism. Marijuana wouldn't have been decriminalized by states all across the country if stoners adopted the defensive crouch position FUD-spreaders would like gun owners to adopt.

Again, I'm not advocating breaking the law and everybody has to assess the risk for themselves of whatever actions they take, in consultation with their lawyer if they can afford one. But if you have a federal judge saying, "If you bought magazines during freedom week, the prohibition on acquisition cannot lawfully be enforced against you" and the practicalities of enforcement are extremely difficult anyway, maybe you shouldn't roll up in the corner and hide.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
  #53  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:31 PM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Sf bay area
Posts: 2,189
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Again you dodge the question, which was "how an order is to be construed if enforcement per its language would lead to an absurdity and/or a result contrary to the manifest intention of its maker." Instead you claim that it will neither lead to an absurdity nor a result contrary to the intention of its maker. Please try to answer the question as it was asked.
Who the hell do you think you are? I don't answer to you unless you want to pay my rates. And even if you were a client, I'd fire you.

I certainly don't answer stupid rhetorical questions to which you very well know the answers. Your "questions" are based on false premises. What happens if a result would be absurd or contrary to the manifest intention is irrelevant if neither would be the case.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun hiding in a corner.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
  #54  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:33 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It seem that Califpatriot is desperate to wriggle out of addressing the questions put to him here.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
  #55  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:35 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Who the hell do you think you are? I don't answer to you unless you want to pay my rates. And even if you were a client, I'd fire you.

I certainly don't answer stupid rhetorical questions to which you very well know the answers. Your "questions" are based on false premises. What happens if a result would be absurd or contrary to the manifest intention is irrelevant if neither would be the case.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun hiding in a corner.
It is interesting that you admit that I know the answers, but you are unable to come up with them. As for your rates, whatever they are you are overpaid and you would never have to fire me as a client. I would never hire you in the first place.

I thought you would run when pinned down. But I agree that at this point, where your inability to address simple legal questions, we are
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.

Last edited by Chewy65; 04-26-2019 at 12:40 PM..
  #56  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:49 PM
BPK BPK is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
It does not say that "possession is legal"!
Do you know definition of "injunction" as it applies to law?

...ergo, possession is legal for those who lawfully acquired magazines...


Quote:
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment is stayed in part
pending final resolution of the appeal from the Judgment. The permanent
injunction enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) is hereby stayed, effective 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the preliminary injunction issued
on June 29, 2017, enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (c) and (d) shall remain in effect.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunction
enjoining enforcement of California Penal Code § 32310 (a) and (b) shall remain in
effect for those persons and business entities who have manufactured, imported,
sold, or bought magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds between the entry of
this Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 5, 2019.
Dated: April 4, 2019
  #57  
Old 04-26-2019, 12:59 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post
How does your view of the stay account for this language?



(I didn't add any emphasis; but were I to do so for purposes of this argument, I'd emphasize "any person")

I don't think there is much colorable confusion about the impact of the Judge's stay -- by which I mean to say I don't think the argument that there are now two classes of people and one class can purchase LCMs today without violating Sec 32310 -- will pass a laugh test in court.

But I recognize that others think differently. Readers of these threads should of course proceed at their own risk and/or consult an attorney for advice.
Try this as an example of how laws are written in a "Newtons method of successive approximations" manner.

ARTICLE 2. Possession of Live Ammunition [29650 - 29655] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

29650.
A minor shall not possess live ammunition.

... but if you look at the next one. You find:-

29655.
Section 29650 shall not apply if one of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The minor has the written consent of a parent or legal guardian to possess live ammunition.
(b) The minor is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.
(c) The minor is actively engaged in, or is going to or from, a lawful, recreational sport, including, but not limited to, competitive shooting, or agricultural, ranching, or hunting activity, the nature of which involves the use of a firearm.

The "any person" language is in reference to the first order of the stay in part.
__________________
  #58  
Old 04-26-2019, 1:01 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BPK View Post
Do you know definition of "injunction" as it applies to law?

...ergo, possession is legal for those who lawfully acquired magazines...
Obviously you don't know it. Have someone with the time to waste explain the difference between legality and being protected from enforcement of laws criminalizing acts pending a determination of legality.
__________________
This is neither legal advice nor a legal opinion.
Being on “inactive status” with the State Bar of California I cannot practice law. Were I "active", you would not be entitled to rely on my posts because you are not my client.
Were I practicing, an attorney client relationship could only be created in a writing by both the client and myself. Not by a post, private message, or email.
I never practiced criminal nor firearms law.Do not rely on my post, but consult your own attorney.
  #59  
Old 04-26-2019, 1:34 PM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dumbfookistan
Posts: 3,567
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
I totally expect the fearless hardcore gun owner of California Kamala Harris to turn in her hi-caps on the same day. Well, probably that would be it till the end of the century
She will when she figures how to remove her hi-caps from her revolver.
__________________
  #60  
Old 04-26-2019, 1:36 PM
Citation650's Avatar
Citation650 Citation650 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Monterey
Posts: 528
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

^^^^^^
  #61  
Old 04-26-2019, 1:37 PM
igs igs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
It's a wonder chewy was a lawyer, given his complete inability to read.
A failed lawyer.
__________________
If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver not a handgun or long gun.
  #62  
Old 04-26-2019, 1:48 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 420
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Try this as an example of how laws are written in a "Newtons method of successive approximations" manner.

ARTICLE 2. Possession of Live Ammunition [29650 - 29655] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

29650.
A minor shall not possess live ammunition.

... but if you look at the next one. You find:-

29655.
Section 29650 shall not apply if one of the following circumstances exists:
(a) The minor has the written consent of a parent or legal guardian to possess live ammunition.
(b) The minor is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.
(c) The minor is actively engaged in, or is going to or from, a lawful, recreational sport, including, but not limited to, competitive shooting, or agricultural, ranching, or hunting activity, the nature of which involves the use of a firearm.
The subject here is not a statute or a series of related statutes. It is an opinion and orders re the stay he issued.

Quote:
The "any person" language is in reference to the first order of the stay in part.
It's a creative argument; but one I don't buy, and one I feel pretty strongly that a court wouldn't buy - but hey, I've been wrong plenty of times in my life!

I believe it is erroneous to read the stay, including the paragraph I quoted, and the following 2 paragraphs immediately preceding the orders, together with the orders, and draw the conclusion you and some others appear to have reached that the stay creates a class of people in CA that are free (even today) of the restrictions from 32310 (a) and (b).

But as noted previously, we're all free to believe what we like about the stay - we just owe it to ourselves to dig a bit to form a view that informs our risk tolerance.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. I am commenting on an internet forum. Should you need or want legal advice, please consult an attorney.
  #63  
Old 04-26-2019, 2:04 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,056
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
In fact, I have never seen a court excise a statute from the code books.
Same. The system is a joke. The law grows ever longer and it is literally impossible for the average person to know what is illegal and what isn't, let alone what laws are enforced and which are not.
__________________
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." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
  #64  
Old 04-26-2019, 2:06 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,056
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
This thread got closed within a minute after CalAlumnus posted that anyone who made a purchase during Freedom Week should afterwards be able to make additional purchases.
That sort of heavy handed ridiculousness only stokes the fires. It as astounding that people have trouble understanding human nature.
__________________
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." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
  #65  
Old 04-26-2019, 2:20 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 39,060
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

My goodness, we're having some fun here!

But, since neither side is going to sway the other, let us pursue our fun someplace else.

I'll just repeat what has already been suggested a few times - if you want to do anything with magazines that you think might be 'iffy', you should hire your own lawyer, and decide whether you care to take that worthy's advice.
__________________
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.


Closed Thread

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 7:36 AM.




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.