CALGUNS FOUNDATION SUES LOS ANGELES COUNTY, SHERIFF LEE BACA (3/9/12)

[wildhawker]

Paul,

I would be happy to boil the arguments down for you if you'd like to understand the alternate view. I also acknowledge that lawyers can (and do) have different opinions all the time. Certainly SB 610, as a practical matter, served to mitigate some of the textual nuances found in the old PC.

-Brandon

Can you tell me where the law before SB 610:

1) Definitively required issuing authorities to publish their specific policyat the outsetstatutory basisin writing how specifically

[H Paul Payne]

Paul,

I would be happy to boil the arguments down for you if you'd like to understand the alternate view. I also acknowledge that lawyers can (and do) have different opinions all the time. Certainly SB 610, as a practical matter, served to mitigate some of the textual nuances found in the old PC.

-Brandon

There are no "arguments" to "boil down." Nor is there an "alternate view." SB610 does what it does, and that is what we (the NRA) intended it to do when we passed the law.

Also, as a "practical matter," SB610 significantly changed the way LTC/CCW permit applications are to be processed and the responses (to the applicants) from the issuing authorities.

Brandon, I don't get involved or usually make comments when people attempt to inflame inter-group rivalry. And today is not the day that is going to change. No rolling around in the mud for me!

But facts are facts, and SB610 was a good law and we made progress when Governor Brown signed it into law. I see it as another step in the right direction.

Paul

[hoffmang]

Now, remember, all of this has happened before carry in public has been declared a fundamental right. If such is declared, then that changes the legal landscape, and the San Mateo case can be re-litigated under a much stronger standard. My expectation is that we'll never get carry in public declared a right, but if that's so, then what have we really lost by San Mateo? And if we do get carry in public declared a right, then again, what have we really lost in light of the fact that the case can be re-litigated at that point?

And we have saved a potential dodge of a Federal court certifying a question of preemption to the California Supreme Court instead of simply litigating the underlying constitutional question.

The San Mateo preeemption case was a free bite at the apple. If the California courts had a bought of unusual honesty on this issue, then we could accelerate carry in California. If they didn't we fully preserve our constitutional challenge fully.

Now we have to wait a bit for carry to work itself finally out in the Circuits and SCOTUS.

-Gene

[taperxz]

And we have saved a potential dodge of a Federal court certifying a question of preemption to the California Supreme Court instead of simply litigating the underlying constitutional question.

The San Mateo preeemption case was a free bite at the apple. If the California courts had a bought of unusual honesty on this issue, then we could accelerate carry in California. If they didn't we fully preserve our constitutional challenge fully.

Now we have to wait a bit for carry to work itself finally out in the Circuits and SCOTUS.

-Gene

If this does not come to fruition, then all you did is make it illegal to carry on any municipal grounds that they deem unsafe. Which will end up being everywhere in the state where municipalities don't want carry.

You should have waited until carry was a legal right first with the SCOTUS.

You put the cart before the horse and screwed carriers with bad (published) law due to poor planning, ego and bad litigation.

Under a SCOTUS carry as a right, you would have won hands down. In fact i thought there was no way you could lose. However, you still managed to. CGF is now gambling with my 2A rights. I am less free today than i was yesterday.

[kcbrown]

If this does not come to fruition, then all you did is make it illegal to carry on any municipal grounds that they deem unsafe. Which will end up being everywhere in the state where municipalities don't want carry.

No, they would have done that on their own regardless. Only the amount of time it would take to get there might be different, but the end result would be identical.

A threat of litigation is worthless unless you can make good on it.


Do you seriously believe that other municipalities and counties would not have, sooner or later, copied San Mateo in the course of time?

[Tincon]

Do you seriously believe that other municipalities and counties would not have, sooner or later, copied San Mateo in the course of time?

They certainly would not have, if CGF had not lost this case for us.

The idea that we are somehow better off now having this terrible precedent is ludicrous. Back to the old CGF motto, "losing is winning." It's not only nonsense, it's vaguely Orwellian.

[kcbrown]

They certainly would not have, if CGF had not lost this case for us.

Well, sure, but now we're getting into the question of if it is possible to win the case. Even FGG, by the way he has responded, hints that he believes the case was unwinnable.

The real question is whether the case was lost due to poor lawyering on CGF's part, or due to other factors. ETA: If the case really was essentially unwinnable, then that renders CGF's lawyering essentially irrelevant. The loss would have occurred no matter who brought the case.

The idea that we are somehow better off now having this terrible precedent is ludicrous. Back to the old CGF motto, "losing is winning." It's not only nonsense, it's vaguely Orwellian.

Who said we're better off? Not I.

No, I'm saying we're not worse off except (possibly) from a time perspective.

[Python2]

Damn, I hate this when people on the same side of the fence are nipping at each other. The other side must be rolling on the ground laughing at us.

[CG of MP]

+1 ^^

[wpage]

Very Good News...

[Tincon]

Damn, I hate this when people on the same side of the fence are nipping at each other. The other side must be rolling on the ground laughing at us.

I do too. But I hate it even more when people on our side also lie to us and spread misinformation, while harming our position with substandard legal work. And if you accept at least the possibility that such things are happening, I hope you can also understand why ignoring it and refusing to speak out about it isn't an option.

Further, attempting to address this "behind the scenes," so to speak, has been met with nothing but arrogance and contempt.

[Tincon]

And we have saved a potential dodge of a Federal court certifying a question of preemption to the California Supreme Court instead of simply litigating the underlying constitutional question.

Nonsense. Please explain why exactly a federal court can't still certify a question on the preemption issue to the CA supreme court? On a question the CA supreme court has not answered?

The San Mateo preeemption case was a free bite at the apple. If the California courts had a bought of unusual honesty on this issue, then we could accelerate carry in California. If they didn't we fully preserve our constitutional challenge fully.

More BS. We already had great precedent on preemption from Fiscal, all San Mateo did was muddy the waters and screw things up.

[kcbrown]

Nonsense. Please explain why exactly a federal court can't still certify a question on the preemption issue to the CA supreme court? On a question the CA supreme court has not answered?

LOL. Yep.

More BS. We already had great precedent on preemption from Fiscal, all San Mateo did was muddy the waters and screw things up.

Was San Mateo reasonably winnable or not?

[Tincon]

Was San Mateo reasonably winnable or not?

I don't think it would be fair to say it was entirely unwinnable. What I can say for sure is that a 2A challenge could have been brought without risking such a damaging opinion to CA’s preemption doctrine, which we already had great caselaw on thanks to the NRA.

In my opinion it wasn't the next preemption case that should have been brought, or even the next to next. We would have been better off filing a stronger preemption case first to further bolster California's preemption doctrine incrementally, instead of jumping the gun and filing this case (and then failing to see the writing on the wall when it didn't even survive MTD and appealing it all the way up).

[kcbrown]

I don't think it would be fair to say it was entirely unwinnable.

Let me be more specific. Was San Mateo reasonably winnable on state preemption grounds?