View Single Post
Old 11-20-2012, 9:54 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%

Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
A subset and a predictable one. You're forgetting that there are 58 sheriffs and 58 counties counsel with 58 boards of supervisors.
Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in the state live under a very small subset of those, and that subset happens to be the subset that is the wealthiest and the most resistive.

Scocca will not see past CA9.
Oh, good. A testable prediction. I predict it will have to go past CA9, either because the 9th gives us a direct loss or because the "win" they give us contains a huge poison pill. Remember Nordyke III.

And your lack of subject matter knowledge is failing you here.
What about it is lacking in this instance? The county court ruled against us. On what basis do you believe the California supreme court won't uphold the county court's decision? My prediction is based on the observation that when it comes to how courts treat it, guns are different from most issues. They are more polarizing, and courts are more likely to rule on the basis of emotion than logic (and to arrive at a conclusion first and then go fishing for justification after the fact). This is Civil Rights Part 2, but with a right that the judiciary views as being far more dangerous than any other right we have. The courts hate this right far more than they hated blacks back during the civil rights movement.

While I'm as frustrated as anyone over the backlog, that is a good problem to have and an easier one to fix than one rooted in outright hostility.
Oh, most certainly. And yet, the problem is there nonetheless. Additionally, is it really just a backlog issue? Or is the backlog continuously growing?

Whose doing - the County? Yes. The Sheriff's Office? Perhaps in part, but perhaps not entirely.
If the Sheriff wanted to process applications faster, he'd allocate the appropriate resources or otherwise streamline the process. It's not like there aren't many issuing authorities throughout the country that have done precisely that. If it's not the Sheriff's doing, then it's only because he's been given orders to delay (and thus, effectively, deny) the right by whomever he answers to in the county.

Our fight will never be over, but the core issues will be decided within the next ~10 years.
I agree. But the Heller majority will not be able to hold out for another 10 years.

I'm not happy about the election, either, but we do have a pretty full pipeline of cases that will hit the Heller 5 unless something happens to one of them.
The problem is that, as I said elsewhere, it's not enough to merely win at the Supreme Court -- we have to keep them from reversing themselves later on. See my definition of "checkmate" below for why this is a necessity. The only way that can possibly happen is for the Heller majority to remain on the court until a non-Democrat is elected President. That means a minimum of 4 years. With a (roughly) 75% chance of one of them retiring or passing away before 2015 (based on historical age data on Supreme Court retirements), the chance that all of them will remain on the bench for another 10 years is nearly zero.

Thank you for finally acknowledging that most CA counties will not require the U.S. Supreme Court to order them before taking some action.
You're welcome.

There is no checkmate, ever. It's a game that never really ends, but the moves get smaller.
You misunderstand what I mean. What I mean by "checkmate" is that we secure the right such that the fights that ensue subsequently are ones that a typical lawyer can handle and win at the district court level. For that to be the case, the Supreme Court must take decisive and unmistakable action to make it clear that they are not the effective "court of first resort" for this issue, that there are real consequences to the lower courts if they attempt to pull a "the Supreme Court must say so more plainly" on them, and the Supreme Court must maintain that stance long enough to make it stick.

Who said Santa Clara was creative? They most definitely are not. In fact, it's pretty shockingly milquetoast on their side.
For now, yes. Why should they be creative when they don't have to be? They don't have to be creative right now. A win in Richards changes all that.

Seriously, you appear to be making the potential mistake of underestimating the opposition here. That is a very bad thing to do, no?

Please name all of the counties. I want you to make actual predictions rather than just stand on the streetcorner screaming about the end of the world and the urgency of our salvation. Name the day and the hour or please admit your posts are really about being pessimistic for the sake of being pessimistic.
I predict we will lose at least one of the Heller majority within 3 years of this very day, and I have $500 for CGF riding on it (for if I'm right, then CGF is going to need it! ).

As for the counties, those are:
  • Santa Clara
  • Los Angeles
  • San Francisco
  • Orange

I actually think there's a reasonable chance that San Mateo will just roll over upon a win in Richards. I could see that county going either way. But the 4 counties I listed above will resist to their dying breath.

Furthermore, I fully expect those counties to get significant help in their efforts from the California legislature, which is now a Democrat supermajority. I will not state the means by which the legislature can help on an open channel, but those ways are considerable.

Well, if that's true then you may as well stop donating and volunteering. Because if you are right, your donations and volunteerism is really an irrational exercise.
Irrational or not, this is a fight that must be fought to the bitter end. How many times have I said that before? I meant it then, and I mean it now. This is a fight for the very essence of liberty. We lose this, and we lose everything.

Do not confuse my skepticism with my belief in the necessity of the fight, even in the darkest of circumstances. They are entirely different things altogether.
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-24-2012 at 11:48 AM..
Reply With Quote