Additional reactions culled from the case thread in Litigation

[LVSox]

From my understanding, those cities are also affected by the ruling, since the ruling is for the entire state. However, they can be stubborn enough to enforce their own laws and go against the state & the judicial system. And if they prosecute you, they'll have to file it with the local DA and then the local court. What are their chances that the local DA and the local court will go against their big bosses (Becerra) and the higher court?

I don't know of their chances, but if they prosecute you, then I'd think your opportunity to win them in court is very high. You may make some money out of it, too.

You are absolutely wrong. It baffles me why some non-lawyers are so anxious to dispense legal opinions and analysis.

[readysetgo]

You are absolutely wrong. It baffles me why some non-lawyers are so anxious to dispense legal opinions and analysis.

Because you lawyer-lawyers charge too much?

[DanMedeiros]

And at least half of them are *******s

[SlimBlundt]

You are absolutely wrong. It baffles me why some non-lawyers are so anxious to dispense legal opinions and analysis.

In every court case, 50% of lawyers are wrong. Are laypersons substantially less accurate?

[DanMedeiros]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIQbd3SF17k

[CurlyDave]

In every court case, 50% of lawyers are wrong. Are laypersons substantially less accurate?

Not quite true. Every person is entitled to representation, even if their attorney feels they have a loosing case.

[CCWFacts]

I have to say, I'm grateful for the attorneys who post here. They don't all agree all the time but I do learn from them, I learn from reading briefs and opinions, and I learn from the commentary on the briefs and opinions.

[Red-Osier]

Per Chuck's post of 2 minutes ago on FB:

Thank's for the update.

[Guninator]

You are absolutely wrong. It baffles me why some non-lawyers are so anxious to dispense legal opinions and analysis.

The Internet really is amazing that way. You'd think people would be happy to hear expert opinions instead of arguing with them. Of course, none of us attorneys can predict with 100% accuracy how judges or juries are going to rule on the merits of a case (I'm guessing in my post about SCOTUS above).

But some of the laymen in here want to opine on what they "feel" the law should be, or even argue with lawyers about basic legal process topics (or demand we submit points and authorities as if we were on retainer). It's like going into a medical thread and arguing with doctors who chime in about basic medical protocols. You just want to throw up your hands and walk away. But I figure this thread will have news on Becerra's appeal before Michel can tweet about it.

Edit: And just like that we have a Michel update!

[CCWFacts]

You are absolutely wrong. It baffles me why some non-lawyers are so anxious to dispense legal opinions and analysis.

Dude.....

[dwinters14]

I have to say, I'm grateful for the attorneys who post here. They don't all agree all the time but I do learn from them, I learn from reading briefs and opinions, and I learn from the commentary on the briefs and opinions.

Same.

[readysetgo]

And at least half of them are *******s

...and uppity, apparently.

[LVSox]

Dude.....

that way.

[Non Political Californian]

And at least half of them are *******s

That's because most of them are gun-hating ***s

[champu]

If the order is stayed, that might make possession illegal. Depends on the order/stay.