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

[Tincon]

What, the bit about arguing San Mateo under a 2nd Amendment context as opposed to a state preemption context? Yeah, as if that is going to work absent a recognized right to carry in public. That would just give you more fodder to use to laugh at CGF.

What gives you that idea? In any case they made a really terrible preemption argument, the flaws of which have been thoroughly stated in another thread (and also in part by the appellate court).

And yet, you don't even know what case that might be, or even if it exists!

So you haven't even done the research to back your claim here? That makes your criticism of CGF even weaker, and makes your claim of future applicability of state preemption to San Mateo's ordinance a wholly unsupported one.

Are you able to understand the difference between knowing that a case asks for something far beyond what a court would be reasonably likely to grant (particularly when it could not even survive a MTD) and being able to give every detail of a better case?

Subjective or not, it's a basis for your complaint against CGF, so it's relevant to the extent that your criticism of CGF's action depends on it.

Hardly. Maybe go back and read what I wrote again.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

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.

You wouldn't happen to have a cite to a case where a federal court certified a question to the California Supreme Court on an issue that wasn't raised by one of the parties, would you? (My hypothesis is you don't...I could be wrong because I'm only halfway through my own research, but shockingly I have not yet found such a case lol.)

[kcbrown]

What gives you that idea?

Which, the idea that the 2A argument would fall flat on its face, or the idea that you'd use the end result as more fodder for your criticism of CGF?

For the former, oh, I dunno, maybe the fact that, save for in the 7th Circuit, every single attempt to secure the right to carry in public has thus far failed utterly, including in this very state, and including NRA/CRPA's efforts?

For the latter, are you kidding? When have you shown restraint as regards criticizing CGF's litigation efforts? Thus far that I've seen, every single failure of CGF to secure a win in court has resulted in criticism on your part. You're even critical of their wins! So you'll have to excuse me if I'm skeptical that you'd show restraint in criticizing CGF's litigation efforts due to losing San Mateo on the basis of a 2A argument.

In any case they made a really terrible preemption argument, the flaws of which have been thoroughly stated in another thread (and also in part by the appellate court).

That's nice, but your opinion is that this case was unwinnable on state preemption grounds. Hence, the quality (or lack thereof) of the preemption argument is rendered irrelevant.

Are you able to understand the difference between knowing that a case asks for something far beyond what a court would be reasonably likely to grant (particularly when it could not even survive a MTD) and being able to give every detail of a better case?

But that's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you strictly about an entirely different case, i.e. the one that you claim would make it possible to win San Mateo on state preemption grounds.

If you don't even know what such a case would look like or who it would be directed against, then how can you possibly know, or even reasonably believe, that such a case and such a target even exists? The answer is that you can't. And that makes this part of your objection to CGF's action here one that is dependent entirely on conjecture.


ETA: Moreover, presuming that such a case exists, where is it? Fiscal has been settled since 2008. It'd been over 3 years from that point before San Mateo was filed. If NRA/CRPA were truly interested in strengthening state preemption, then where's this followup case that you claim is possible?

Hardly. Maybe go back and read what I wrote again.

I'm now wondering if we're talking about different things here as regards what is subjective. What, specifically, are you calling out as subjective? The only subjective part I see is your opinion as to whether or not San Mateo was reasonably winnable on state preemption grounds.

That subjective opinion of yours renders your criticisms of CGF's state preemption arguments irrelevant, because you cannot simultaneously argue that the quality (or lack thereof) of CGF's arguments mattered to the outcome and that they didn't.

[kcbrown]

You wouldn't happen to have a cite to a case where a federal court certified a question to the California Supreme Court on an issue that wasn't raised by one of the parties, would you? (My hypothesis is you don't...I could be wrong because I'm only halfway through my own research, but shockingly I have not yet found such a case lol.)

To the California Supreme Court? I've got nothing.

But Osterweil v Bartlett may be a case in which such a thing did, indeed, happen. As I recall, in that case, the 2nd Circuit certified a question to the New York Supreme Court about whether or not issuance of the permit under the law being challenged was applicable solely to one's primary residence. I haven't looked at the various briefs and arguments supplied by the parties, but I would be surprised if that question were one that was raised by either side.

[Tincon]

The case as filed when filed as argued was unlikely to win. A more narrow case that had a better chance of winning (and was better argued) which bolstered Fiscal could have won. A 2A challenge would have done less damage. Particularly filled now. But quite frankly everything CGF does is so inept and sloppy that we are talking about the lesser of multiple evils here.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

To the California Supreme Court? I've got nothing.

But Osterweil v Bartlett may be a case in which such a thing did, indeed, happen.

I wasn't asking you. But feel free to go ahead and point me to exactly where in Osterweil the court on its own spotted some issue that was not raised or argued by one of the parties and requested certification on that issue.

[kcbrown]

The case as filed when filed as argued was unlikely to win.

Which of those elements dominates the equation as regards making the case unlikely to win?

A more narrow case that had a better chance of winning (and was better argued) which bolstered Fiscal could have won.

A more narrow case against San Mateo's ordinance, or a more narrow case against some other target? If the former, how could such a case be constructed, and in what way was San Mateo overbroad?

A 2A challenge would have done less damage.

Yeah, right. Because, you know, it's not as much damage to have parks called out as "sensitive places" and supported by the judiciary as such, thus eliminating them as being covered by the 2nd Amendment, compared to having state preemption's applicability to parks eliminated, right? And that's but one way a 2A claim could have failed.

Particularly filled now.

But San Mateo was filed in 2011. What has changed between then and now that would make filing the case now any better?

[kcbrown]

I wasn't asking you. But feel free to go ahead and point me to exactly where in Osterweil the court on its own spotted some issue that was not raised or argued by one of the parties and requested certification on that issue.

So much for my memory of these things.

On appeal to this Court, Osterweil maintains that a domicile requirement for handgun ownership is unconstitutional. The State's primary response, however, is that there is no domicile requirement under New York law. It argues that New York's highest court has never held that the law requires domicile, that the text speaks only of residence, that the New York Court of Appeals would likely apply only a residence requirement as a matter of constitutional avoidance, and that if the statute is construed as requiring only residence, "this litigation would thereby be resolved." Appellee's Br. 23.

In my defense, I did say that it might be applicable, not that it was.

[Tincon]

Which of those elements dominates the equation as regards making the case unlikely to win?

Scope.

A more narrow case against San Mateo's ordinance, or a more narrow case against some other target? If the former, how could such a case be constructed, and in what way was San Mateo overbroad?

Other, and read the opinion.

Yeah, right. Because, you know, it's not as much damage to have parks called out as "sensitive places" and supported by the judiciary as such, thus eliminating them as being covered by the 2nd Amendment, compared to having state preemption's applicability to parks eliminated, right? And that's but one way a 2A claim could have failed.

Well that's the problem with CGF filing cases at all

But San Mateo was filed in 2011. What has changed between then and now that would make filing the case now any better?

We are closer to a SCOTUS ruling on 2A scope. Less potential for interference. I'd still rather have NRA, NSSF, even SAF file the case over CGF though.

Anyhow, we are way off topic on San Mateo, if you want to re-hash that case further, post in that thread.

[kcbrown]

We are closer to a SCOTUS ruling on 2A scope. Less potential for interference. I'd still rather have NRA, NSSF, even SAF file the case over CGF though.

That presumes SCOTUS actually bothers to take a 2A carry case. But even presuming for the moment that they do, what makes you think the resulting decision will explicitly extend 2A protection to parks?

Anyhow, we are way off topic on San Mateo, if you want to re-hash that case further, post in that thread.

Good idea. I'll continue our discussion of San Mateo there.

[FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!]

You wouldn't happen to have a cite to a case where a federal court certified a question to the California Supreme Court on an issue that wasn't raised by one of the parties, would you? (My hypothesis is you don't...I could be wrong because I'm only halfway through my own research, but shockingly I have not yet found such a case lol.)

Well big surprise I couldn't seem to find any cases that fit this description lol.

It really is astonishing how much b.s. is the claim that by losing Calguns v. San Mateo and making bad law, CGF was really "saving 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." I'd really love to hear the nuts and bolts explanation of how that would come to pass in a 2A challenge to a county property gun ban.

[Paladin]

How long does LA Co have to decide re. whether they'll appeal this or not?

Do we have to wait until the appeal deadline passes before hitting, let's say, San Mateo and Merced counties?

If LA So. appeals, will we have to wait until an appeals court decision in the appeal before doing the same?

How many of the 58 sheriffs currently do what LASO was doing?

Am I correct in assuming the appeals deadline has passed (6 weeks later now)?

Has LA appealed?

[CG of MP]

I hope so, Merced co. has gone back to this BS policy, NOW if the 9th would get off their er..ah.. seats and give us a fair rulling on Richards...

As of tonight the Merced County website STILL requires applicants to go through their local PD first. By any chance can CGF put some pressure on them to do the right thing and follow the law as written?

http://www.co.merced.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=1918

Notice for Carrying Concealed Weapons (CCW) Applicants* *Prior to applying for a CCW permit with the Merced County Sheriff's Office, you must first apply for the CCW permit with the police department of your city. If that police department denies your application, you must obtain the reason for the denial in writing (per California Penal Code 26202) and submit that denial statement with any subsequent application to the Merced County Sheriff's Office.

[Paladin]

[1] Am I correct in assuming the appeals deadline has passed (6 weeks later now)?

[2] Has LA appealed?

As of tonight the Merced County website STILL requires applicants to go through their local PD first. [3] By any chance can CGF put some pressure on them to do the right thing and follow the law as written?

http://www.co.merced.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=1918

Bump for answers to the 3 questions above and one below.

Plus, IIRC, San Mateo SO also requires going thru your local PD first (or they get first bite at the application before it gets forwarded to sheriff). [4] Will SMSO get a little CGF attention now like LASO did?

After all, acc to the stats Librarian got from CA9's FAQs page and put in post #14 of his locked Peruta 2nd A Litigation sticky, Peruta and/or Richards may be stuck in CA9 limbo for 2 more years! (and then after that, SCOTUS...) Why not attack on another front while we're waiting?

[Gray Peterson]

Bump for answers to the 3 questions above and one below.

Plus, IIRC, San Mateo SO also requires going thru your local PD first (or they get first bite at the application before it gets forwarded to sheriff). [4] Will SMSO get a little CGF attention now like LASO did?

After all, acc to the stats Librarian got from CA9's FAQs page and put in post #14 of his locked Peruta 2nd A Litigation sticky, Peruta and/or Richards may be stuck in CA9 limbo for 2 more years! (and then after that, SCOTUS...) Why not attack on another front while we're waiting?

San Mateo requests it but as far as I've been told, they do not require it as of a month ago.

If that's changed and you have an example, let me know.