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
  #41  
Old 07-12-2019, 2:25 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,068
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Pay attention.

CA9 took that avenue, SCOTUS denied cert.

The pdf speaks for itself...I do not need to make an argument. CA9 said what they said in Peruta, SCOTUS said what they said in the binding Heller case, not I.

You can continue to do the "Monkey No See" OR read it and take it up with SCOTUS. Your choice...

But to continue requiring people to prove what SOMEONE else said, would be no different that requiring people to prove what the 1st Amendment says in the Constitution . . . while ignoring the very copy in front of your very own nose.

That's just plain lazy.

=8-(

THE MONKEY NO SEE
Is the one with the reading disability that drops pellets where ever he goes.

You accused me of dishonesty for correctly stating that "SCOTUS" never made a unanimous finding striking CCW as a right. A claim incorrectly made by another. Before you starting dropping 157 page pdf pellets. Just like you usually do. Then throw the 9th circus into the mix. On a case that was denied cert.

I asked no one to prove what anyone else said. I simply corrected an incorrect statement made by another member. Which with your reading and challenged comprehension facilities took as another irrelevant pellet dropping opportunity.

9th Circus findings are not relevant, to a "Unanimous SCOTUS" claim.

"LAZY" is defined by a fuzzy tailed pellet dropper. Who consistently makes obsfucatory and deflective irrelevant references unrelated to a topic. Then drops a giant pile of pellets disguised as a pdf to hide his premise behind.

from "wiki"
Quote:
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
5 to 4 is far from UNANIMOUS. And Heller did NOT find that CCW, is not protected by 2A.


So take your migratory goalposts and hop them somewhere else.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-12-2019, 4:53 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,117
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post

THE MONKEY NO SEE
Is the one with the reading disability that drops pellets where ever he goes.

You accused me of dishonesty for correctly stating that "SCOTUS" never made a unanimous finding striking CCW as a right. A claim incorrectly made by another. Before you starting dropping 157 page pdf pellets. Just like you usually do. Then throw the 9th circus into the mix. On a case that was denied cert.

I asked no one to prove what anyone else said. I simply corrected an incorrect statement made by another member. Which with your reading and challenged comprehension facilities took as another irrelevant pellet dropping opportunity.

9th Circus findings are not relevant, to a "Unanimous SCOTUS" claim.

"LAZY" is defined by a fuzzy tailed pellet dropper. Who consistently makes obsfucatory and deflective irrelevant references unrelated to a topic. Then drops a giant pile of pellets disguised as a pdf to hide his premise behind.

from "wiki"


5 to 4 is far from UNANIMOUS. And Heller did NOT find that CCW, is not protected by 2A.


So take your migratory goalposts and hop them somewhere else.
*sigh*

=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
  #43  
Old 07-13-2019, 2:36 PM
Highlander3751 Highlander3751 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
"Unanimous" was Highlanders word. Which was incorrect.

And "Peruta" was denied cert. So again, SCOTUS did not rule against Peruta. Certainly not "unanimously". They refused to even hear it.

So mrrabbit, go drop your plethora of pellets elsewhere. Nobody is going to re-read 157 pages of a pdf. Because you aren't capable of otherwise supporting a premise.
My apologies; SCOTUS was not unanimous in its ruling; it was unanimous in Heller in that all of the concurring judges, and all of the dissenting judges, agreed on one point: concealed carry is NOT the right protected by the Second Amendment.

"One of the judges on the three judge panel joined in a decision back in 2007 which said, several times, that concealed carry is not a right – Parker v. District of Columba. That decision was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 2008 when it published its landmark decision – District of Columbia v. Heller. A decision which also said, several times, that there is no right to concealed carry." - Newsblaze

“[A] right to carry arms openly: ‘This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.'” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited … For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

Like most, or even all of you, I am imperfect, and use an incorrect word not and again, but how about we discuss the merits of the topic at hand without assigning ulterior motives to each other? My goal, as I am sure is also the goal of at least some of you, is to be able to carry a firearm for lawful purposes, including the defense of myself and my family, without needing a government permission slip to exercise my God-given rights. I would prefer that to be for both concealed and open carry, so that I may choose one, the other, or both and I plan my needs for the day.

However, given SCOTUS's ruling in Heller that concealed carry is not a right, plus their reluctance to hear another concealed carry as evidenced by their denial of cert in so many concealed carry cases, I think that we should focus on open carry for now, and finally get it recognized that, and least in *some* manner, we can exercise our Second Amendment rights without asking for permission to use what is already ours.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-13-2019, 6:21 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,068
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
My apologies; SCOTUS was not unanimous in its ruling; it was unanimous in Heller in that all of the concurring judges, and all of the dissenting judges, agreed on one point: concealed carry is NOT the right protected by the Second Amendment.
Nowhere did SCOTUS find the bolded to be correct. CCW was outside the narrow scope of the Heller case.

Nor did they "Rule" that OC was a protected right. Otherwise all the OC bans, like the Mulford Act would have been stricken in 2008, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

They mentioned in dicta, that restrictions on CCW, along with restrictions for felons-crazies, and possession in "sensitive places".

Were "presumptively legal".

Which is not the same as "ruling them to be", "not the protected right". And also "leaves the door open" to further CCW restrictions challenges. Wherein SCOTUS may/can rule on CCW as a protected right.

Rather like Crapofornia's Roster of SAFE handguns. Doesn't make the claim that off roster guns are "unsafe".
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-13-2019, 6:34 PM
malfunction's Avatar
malfunction malfunction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: low crawling towards the state line...
Posts: 381
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highlander3751 View Post
However, given SCOTUS's ruling in Heller that concealed carry is not a right
There you go again, they said no such thing as you would see if you read the opinion carefully. The part you quote is from an 1850 decision in the Louisiana Supreme Court, but only of incidental interest as Heller wasn't about public carry at all.

But really, imo, you'd do better to focus on the Jefferson project as, improbable as it may be, that is the only way you'll get what you seek. Sitting there saying you'd prefer to have the choice but open carry would be OK to start with is just dreaming. Whatever the Constitution says you will never achieve more or less unrestricted open carry in California. Not ever.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
What we have in practice is a legal system, not a justice system.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-13-2019, 6:58 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,117
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

*sigh*

=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
  #47  
Old 07-14-2019, 1:54 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 213
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Again, the CCW/OC debate rages:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason....nalyzed/%3famp

“All 11 judges agreed that since the 1840s, American courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing laws against the concealed carrying of arms. Heller itself said so, with approval. The majority opinion marshaled much precedent and scholarship in support of this point.”
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-14-2019, 8:06 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,217
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Again, the CCW/OC debate rages:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason....nalyzed/%3famp

“All 11 judges agreed that since the 1840s, American courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing laws against the concealed carrying of arms. Heller itself said so, with approval. The majority opinion marshaled much precedent and scholarship in support of this point.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:33 PM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 485
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Jeez, thanks a lot, just sprayed Corona through my nose...
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/JeffersonStateLaser/

Make it personal.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-14-2019, 2:56 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,068
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
...[1]...Again, the CCW/OC debate rages:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason....nalyzed/%3famp

...[2]...“All 11 judges agreed that since the 1840s, American courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as allowing laws against the concealed carrying of arms....[3]... Heller itself said so, with approval. The majority opinion marshaled much precedent and scholarship in support of this point.”
[1]...An will continue to debate the subject until it is actually ruled upon by SCOTUS. And maybe even after a SCOTUS Ruling. Many SCOTUS rulings finding issues Constitutional. Were later appealed and reversed by SCOTUS.

[2]...Those 11 Judges were in the 9th Circus, not SCOTUS.

[3]...As previously stated and ignored by the OC advocates. SCOTUS judges 'mentioning' prior cases during discussions as to their individual opinions. Is not "RULING FOR OR AGAINST" the constitutionality of the subject case.

EXAMPLES.

Ginsburg discussing that her opinion that "And Bear Arms". Includes doing so on ones person for defense including when they are concealed by clothing. Is no more Constitutionally binding than. The "six" items in this quote. From this link.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.

Anyone claiming that SCOTUS has already determined that OC is RULED a protected RIGHT. And CCW was not ruled a protected right.

PLEASE EXPLAIN, why all OC bans in every state that has them. Isn't already stricken.

YOU CAN"T! because NEITHER ever happened.

Quote:
Dicta. The plural form of dictum. A statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative because of the dignity of the person making it.
Quote:
ruling
The official decision a court makes is a ruling.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-14-2019, 5:28 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,117
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
[1]...An will continue to debate the subject until it is actually ruled upon by SCOTUS. And maybe even after a SCOTUS Ruling. Many SCOTUS rulings finding issues Constitutional. Were later appealed and reversed by SCOTUS.

[2]...Those 11 Judges were in the 9th Circus, not SCOTUS.

[3]...As previously stated and ignored by the OC advocates. SCOTUS judges 'mentioning' prior cases during discussions as to their individual opinions. Is not "RULING FOR OR AGAINST" the constitutionality of the subject case.

EXAMPLES.

Ginsburg discussing that her opinion that "And Bear Arms". Includes doing so on ones person for defense including when they are concealed by clothing. Is no more Constitutionally binding than. The "six" items in this quote. From this link.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.

Anyone claiming that SCOTUS has already determined that OC is RULED a protected RIGHT. And CCW was not ruled a protected right.

PLEASE EXPLAIN, why all OC bans in every state that has them. Isn't already stricken.

YOU CAN"T! because NEITHER ever happened.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

...and Ginsburg was providing a definition of bear/carry, not an argument for concealed carry.

*sigh*

=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
  #52  
Old 07-14-2019, 11:10 PM
pacrat pacrat is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,068
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
...and Ginsburg was providing a definition of bear/carry, not an argument for concealed carry.
Correct
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-22-2019, 6:17 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

First hearing on Sept 6, courtroom 3, at 10am. Please arrive between 8:30 and nine. We are asking for your support. please attend the hearing if it is possible to do so. The more people the better. Courtroom three is a smaller room and many will not get inside but hopefully the crowd will fill the building and spill out into the street. The address for the Court is 501 I Street, Sacramento CA. Afterward, depending upon crowd size, we may march to the Capital Building to let the liars and criminals who think they rule over us that our Liberty is not theirs for the taking. We can take our state back from the felons in Sacramento in the blink of an eye if we would only stand and be counted. It matters that you stand! it matters how you stand! Busses are being organized from the Jefferson Counties. Call your Jefferson Committee chair to help set up car pools or what ever you can. soj51.org has the list of committee chairs if you don’t know yours. If you are a truck owner, and you can, drive around the courthouse with a flag out the window for an hour or so. I was in Salem for the demonstration that stopped cap and trade in a democrat controlled state. Thousands of people, over seven hundred trucks circling the capital building........The legislators abandoned the building. They won because the people stood for something. We can do the same. For over a century there was nothing illegal about carrying a weapon for defense in California. We did it every day and no one said a word. Will we be the generation who squandered the gifts given us by God? Will we be the generation who squandered the gifts our fathers and fore fathers purchased for us with their blood? I will be wearing my pistol holster with a pocket Constitution inside. Whether you personally agree with the allegations of this particular case or not, it is an avenue to restore Liberty. Gun owners and freedom loving people all over California could use a victory over tyranny. It matters how you stand!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-22-2019, 7:04 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,667
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good luck guys! Please include Solano county in the SOJ... At least the east half.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6

Last edited by sfpcservice; 07-22-2019 at 7:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-22-2019, 2:24 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,217
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbair View Post
First hearing on Sept 6, courtroom 3, at 10am. Please arrive between 8:30 and nine. We are asking for your support. please attend the hearing if it is possible to do so. The more people the better. Courtroom three is a smaller room and many will not get inside but hopefully the crowd will fill the building and spill out into the street. The address for the Court is 501 I Street, Sacramento CA. Afterward, depending upon crowd size, we may march to the Capital Building to let the liars and criminals who think they rule over us that our Liberty is not theirs for the taking. We can take our state back from the felons in Sacramento in the blink of an eye if we would only stand and be counted. It matters that you stand! it matters how you stand! Busses are being organized from the Jefferson Counties. Call your Jefferson Committee chair to help set up car pools or what ever you can. soj51.org has the list of committee chairs if you don’t know yours. If you are a truck owner, and you can, drive around the courthouse with a flag out the window for an hour or so. I was in Salem for the demonstration that stopped cap and trade in a democrat controlled state. Thousands of people, over seven hundred trucks circling the capital building........The legislators abandoned the building. They won because the people stood for something. We can do the same. For over a century there was nothing illegal about carrying a weapon for defense in California. We did it every day and no one said a word. Will we be the generation who squandered the gifts given us by God? Will we be the generation who squandered the gifts our fathers and fore fathers purchased for us with their blood? I will be wearing my pistol holster with a pocket Constitution inside. Whether you personally agree with the allegations of this particular case or not, it is an avenue to restore Liberty. Gun owners and freedom loving people all over California could use a victory over tyranny. It matters how you stand!

Good luck Mark!!!
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-30-2019, 1:03 PM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Opposition to State’s Motion to dismiss filed

Our Opposition to the State’s Motion to dismiss was filed last night. Hearing still on for Friday September 6th at 10 am. 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA. Courtroom 3. States opposition to our P.I. Due in three days. Judge Muller is a democratic operative. Former Sac city councilwoman, a buddy of Daryl Steinberg. All we can do is pray there is intellectual honesty present in this court, but if not we will not quit. This is the avenue open to us and we will see where it leads.
Please attend if you can. It matters that we stand!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-30-2019, 8:29 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,217
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

opposition filed

https://www.scribd.com/document/4203...osition-to-MTD
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-31-2019, 1:01 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,097
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
Not being a lawyer I'll happily admit that I didn't fully understand everything in that and I certainly did not look up all those cited rulings.

But it appears to be well-written and was surprisingly enjoyable to read through that.

Thank you for the great work!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-31-2019, 3:41 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,217
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Not being a lawyer I'll happily admit that I didn't fully understand everything in that and I certainly did not look up all those cited rulings.

But it appears to be well-written and was surprisingly enjoyable to read through that.

Thank you for the great work!
Sorry if I was unclear. This case is being litigated by Amy Bellantoni website here
https://bellantoni-law.com/

I just am posting her work for everyone to see.

Please note that Amy lives in New York and just travel costs alone are expensive. Both Amy and Mark are real patriots that are taking a lot of time out of their lives to fight for our rights. We all need to chip in. Here is a link to their donation page.

https://tokeepandbear.com/index.php/...he-law-suit-2/
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-01-2019, 8:08 AM
Wrangler John Wrangler John is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Open Carry

While I am reluctant to post on such issues, the outcome of which will resemble divination through the casting of runes as much as judicial prudence, my concern regards what would happen if the suit were to be successful.

Back before 1968 I carried openly, but had a concealed weapons permit, which at the time allowed open carrying. There was little clamor or confusion as I went about my business, and I was never challenged by law enforcement. Indeed, when I was enrolled in an evening pre-apprentice machinist class at the local high school, I brought a surplus barreled rifle action as a project. Try that today. While the counties mentioned may be more insensitive to open carry, much of the state where a person is openly packing a firearm will likely cause law enforcement agencies to descend on that individual with every SWAT resource available. Open carry today, in my opinion, in most locations, will be problematic and outright hazardous to the carrier. In my time, I carried openly when night surf fishing, camping, varmint hunting, or traveling long distances alone, which didn't set off alarm bells, the rest of the time I carried concealed. It is my opinion that Michel & Associates has the correct track on the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-02-2019, 12:42 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,217
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The State of California filed its opposition to Mark's preliminary injunction



https://www.scribd.com/document/4205...ction-by-State

https://www.scribd.com/document/4205...-Donahue-Study

https://www.scribd.com/document/4205...ec-Chief-Raney
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-02-2019, 1:48 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,841
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Discussion of NRA and Michel & Associates results moved to a new thread - off topic in a thread about a specific case.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1549876

ANNOUNCEMENT
This thread is about the specific case.

We are not going to re-litigate Heller here, or in any other thread, until and unless the Supreme Court of the United States revisits it.

Knock it off.
__________________
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.



Last edited by Librarian; 08-02-2019 at 1:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-02-2019, 2:15 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,217
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Discussion of NRA and Michel & Associates results moved to a new thread - off topic in a thread about a specific case.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1549876

ANNOUNCEMENT
This thread is about the specific case.

We are not going to re-litigate Heller here, or in any other thread, until and unless the Supreme Court of the United States revisits it.

Knock it off.
thank you I spend a good deal of time keeping all these threads updated. Its annoying when they get derailed
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-08-2019, 5:22 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,217
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default




http://tokeepandbear.com/index.php/2...XIy9Rgy-y1FXp8

The 2nd Amendment lawsuit filed against California was filed in Federal Court. Mark Baird et al v Becerra alleges deprivation of rights and statutory bans on the open carry of loaded weapon. The complaint states the the Second Amendment gives the citizens nothing except freedom from government interference. The 2nd simply codifies the per-constitutional, Natural Right of every lawful person to defend ones self, family, community and state and nation.

There are only 2 ways to carry…..Open or concealed. If Concealed is not a right , then as the Complaint alleges….open carry must be the core the Right protected by the 2nd Amendment, and the statues which ban the open carry of a loaded weapon or unloaded handgun are Unconstitutional.

We the people have the Right to bear arms and Right shall not be infringed. The US Constitution tells us so in unequivocally plain language.The Right extend to bearing arms in public. We know this because a well regulated militia could not possibly be an effective from behind bedroom curtains, and for the State to oppose this theory flies in the face of history.Self Defense may be required when and wherever the individual happens to be. All the news is good for our case. Our cause is just. The complaint is a straight Constitutional challenge. the generous support of the Jefferson Counties make the case financially possible. We can afford, with your continued support, to take this as far as we need to go.

WHere do you stand? What do you stand for? Do you have a line in the sand? If so, what is it? It matters that you stand for something. As Patrick Henry said, ” I know not what course other may take, but for me, give me Liberty or give me death!.”
Mark Baird.
__________________
“We are twice armed if we fight with faith.”

― Plato
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-17-2019, 9:21 AM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The state cherry picks a regulation here and there from here and there showing that other states or cities have violated the Constitution by prohibiting open carry. They have a big problem though. When Spain owned Alta California.....no prohibitions on weapons carry. Thirty years of Mexican rule pre California......no prohibitions on weapons carry. 1849-1967 in California.....no prohibition on the open carry of a loaded weapon. Anyone could openly carry a loaded weapon and go anywhere you wanted including into the State Capital. Why were ALL Californians stripped of their Second Amendment guarantees? Answer, to teach 20 +/- Black Panthers a lesson. For well over a century, there was no prohibition to the open carry of weapons in our state. California has painted themselves into a corner. Sept, 6, 10 am Sacramento Federal Courthouse. Wear your empty pistol holster with a pocket Constitution inside.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-17-2019, 4:26 PM
big red's Avatar
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,004
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

You might want to highlight that September date and the information attached to it. A lot of people could miss it.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-18-2019, 6:35 AM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 485
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default



// Indeed.
//
// Not needed here.
//
// Librarian
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/JeffersonStateLaser/

Make it personal.

Last edited by Librarian; 08-18-2019 at 10:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-18-2019, 10:15 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 567
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It seems the latest angle from briefs in New York case is that left wants to twist “corpus” linguistics to show that at the time 2A was written keep indeed meant own, but bear actually meant not carry daily, but only in the context of military service (bear arms against). If Dems take control again and pack court, watch Heller get rewritten in that way.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-18-2019, 8:15 PM
mcbair mcbair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

September, 6th....501 I Street, Sacramento CA. Please arrive in plenty of time. Court begins at 10am. If you are going to take part in the rally, we are asking you to wear an empty pistol holster with a pocket Constitution placed in it. Not all will get into the Court room. Courtroom 3 is a smaller room. California claims the Second Amendment has never protected the Rights of lawful individuals to openly carry a weapon. Their claim flies in the face of the history of this nation, and the history of the human race. The Second Amendment guarantees the God given, individual, pre-governmental Right to defense of self, family, community, state, and nation. The Second gives us nothing except the freedom from government interference. Stand with us. Stand for something. “Liberty must, at all hazard, be supported. You have a right to it derived from your maker. But if we had not, our fathers had earned and bought it for us at the expense of their ease, their estates, their blood, and their treasure.” John Adams
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 2:50 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.