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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-10-2012, 9:32 AM
ScottsBad's Avatar
ScottsBad ScottsBad is online now
Trigger Warning
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,291
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Antioch Crime Wave = Petition For CCW

Shouldn't our 2A rights extend to protecting ourselves outside our homes when the police are unable to?

Here is a report I saw on KTVU 2 at approx. 8:30am about the rise in crime in Antioch. Rise in violent crime up 44% arrests down 17%.

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/anti...arrests/vhDrM/

In case you are unable to see the video, here is a version from Yahoo news.

http://beta.local.yahoo.com/news-ant...an%20Francisco

Toward end of report they interview Jonathan Hernandez who just put up a petition to allow CCW in Antioch because of the violent crime which he was a victim of.

http://www.change.org/petitions/city...ccw-resolution

When I first found the petition it was open and there were only a handful of people who signed it.

An hour later it was closed. Why? Because it might embarrass the City? Garner too much pro-gun enthusiasm?

Both I guess. Obviously it had to be tamped down least the truth get out that citizens are afraid of violent crime and would like the option to protect themselves.

Of course, the petition site change.org is just a liberal sham so it was no surprise.

Maybe we should put Jonathan Hernandez's petition up on CalGuns...I'm just sick of the liberals.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act... --George Orwell

Last edited by ScottsBad; 11-10-2012 at 9:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-10-2012, 10:04 AM
joe_gman's Avatar
joe_gman joe_gman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 1,064
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The degradation of the city of Antioch was due to the city's own planning. I am forever thankful for leaving that cesspit after unwilling moving there in the late 2000s. Antioch could be a great small city, with its access on the Delta, rich history, and availability of recreational acreage. Unfortunately its denial of commercial growth if favor of low income housing in the 1990s, its rapid over development of residential properties in despite of low demand, and its horrible mistake of allowing out of district students to attend its new high school because its desire for state student funds, left it primed for a complete societal collapse. The glut of housing attracted investors looking to turn quick profits, only to end up renting to low income and section 8 inner city derelicts fleeing Oakland and Richmond in favor of a larger house than they could afford in the large cities. The BARTing in of problem students creating a massive crime wave beyond what the local PD could handle. I remember when traffic enforcement was halted in order to allow more officers to deal with rampant crime and violence. Our vehicles were broken into multiple times. Packages were regularly stolen from our porch. I've had to chase off miscreants on multiple occasions from our back yard. It got to the point where I had to answer my door with with my handgun behind my back because of forceful entries in my neighborhood.

I feel sorry for you ScottsBad. My best advise would be to leave Antioch if you can. It is no place to raise a family. As for CCWs, good luck. You are still in the anti-gun Bay Area. I don't blame liberals for the collapse of Antioch. I blame idiots in both local and county politics. With San Ramon, Alamo, and Walnut Creek pushing all the section 8 vouchers into Antioch, and the Antioch council accepting bribes from crooks like Seeno, there is no hope for Antioch to ever recover.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-10-2012, 10:21 AM
ScottsBad's Avatar
ScottsBad ScottsBad is online now
Trigger Warning
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,291
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I appreciate that, I don't live in Antioch, but my EX does, my son went to High School there in the late 90's, fooled by the lure of a brand new High School there. I had the means at the time to send him to DeLa Salle.

Within months he got the **** beat out of him by people he thought were his friends and he was no wimp.

Over the years I heard the stories of ever increasing crime and schools that were out of control. Over time the crime went from a lot of small thefts, to home invasion, and now gang related murder is moving in.

Then the housing boom crashed resulting in many foreclosures and cheap rentals as you described.

It may become the suburb version of Oakland.

I live in the San Ramon Valley, but I am fearful for all those families stuck in Antioch who are now in danger and have no way of protecting themselves outside of their homes.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act... --George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-20-2012, 1:40 PM
FisterD's Avatar
FisterD FisterD is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 106
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_gman View Post
The degradation of the city of Antioch was due to the city's own planning. I am forever thankful for leaving that cesspit after unwilling moving there in the late 2000s. Antioch could be a great small city, with its access on the Delta, rich history, and availability of recreational acreage. Unfortunately its denial of commercial growth if favor of low income housing in the 1990s, its rapid over development of residential properties in despite of low demand, and its horrible mistake of allowing out of district students to attend its new high school because its desire for state student funds, left it primed for a complete societal collapse. The glut of housing attracted investors looking to turn quick profits, only to end up renting to low income and section 8 inner city derelicts fleeing Oakland and Richmond in favor of a larger house than they could afford in the large cities. The BARTing in of problem students creating a massive crime wave beyond what the local PD could handle. I remember when traffic enforcement was halted in order to allow more officers to deal with rampant crime and violence. Our vehicles were broken into multiple times. Packages were regularly stolen from our porch. I've had to chase off miscreants on multiple occasions from our back yard. It got to the point where I had to answer my door with with my handgun behind my back because of forceful entries in my neighborhood.

I feel sorry for you ScottsBad. My best advise would be to leave Antioch if you can. It is no place to raise a family. As for CCWs, good luck. You are still in the anti-gun Bay Area. I don't blame liberals for the collapse of Antioch. I blame idiots in both local and county politics. With San Ramon, Alamo, and Walnut Creek pushing all the section 8 vouchers into Antioch, and the Antioch council accepting bribes from crooks like Seeno, there is no hope for Antioch to ever recover.
I grew up in Antioch and graduated high school there too. You pretty much nailed it on the head joe_gman. I have since moved out, but my parents and inlaws still live there. It's pretty sad really, Antioch could be a nice place
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-10-2012, 12:19 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,344
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottsBad View Post
Shouldn't our 2A rights extend to protecting ourselves outside our homes when the police are unable to?
fixed it for you
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-10-2012, 12:59 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,317
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Write a note to Sheriff Livingston -
David O. Livingston
651 Pine Street
7th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Don't hold your breath for any sympathy.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-10-2012, 8:49 PM
jrwhitt jrwhitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 311
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Write a note to Sheriff Livingston -
David O. Livingston
651 Pine Street
7th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Don't hold your breath for any sympathy.
Is Antioch PD contracted to the County or just declared G ? Shouldn't we write to the Chief and not the Sheriff ?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-11-2012, 6:10 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,317
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrwhitt View Post
Is Antioch PD contracted to the County or just declared G ? Shouldn't we write to the Chief and not the Sheriff ?
Antioch PD has exactly 1 civilian LTC out (2011). Sheriff has a vast 26 ... Could contact the city, if you like.

Point is, CoCoCo is a very difficult location for civilian LTC.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-11-2012, 6:19 PM
jrwhitt jrwhitt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 311
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Antioch PD has exactly 1 civilian LTC out (2011). Sheriff has a vast 26 ... Could contact the city, if you like.

Point is, CoCoCo is a very difficult location for civilian LTC.

Tell me about it !

However the existence of the 1 LTC says that Antioch hasn't declared G and as such it may be worth putting the pressure on the Chief and City Council. I suspect that the Sheriff won't change his stance, where given the fuss in Antioch, the Chief/Council might. Unfortunately it wont matter for me as I'm not an Antioch resident.

I'll keep hoping for a change in the Sheriff (but won't hold my breath).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-20-2012, 9:29 AM
ScottsBad's Avatar
ScottsBad ScottsBad is online now
Trigger Warning
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,291
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
fixed it for you
I'm not sure how you fixed this for me. Are you saying that we need to forget about the Police being a significant deterrence? Or are you saying that we should be able to defend ourselves regardless of whether or not there is a Police force.

In any case, the point of the News Cast was that the rise in crime was principally caused by the lack of an adequate Police deterrent. I do not subscribe to this notion. I simply posed the question as implied by the news.

I believe we should have CCW regardless of the perceived safety of the individual community or state.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act... --George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-10-2012, 1:36 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Librarian does it again!

I was just coming back into this thread to ask if anyone knew how, or why, the petition was closed. Still, we can do this the old-fashioned way.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-11-2012, 5:52 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: East of Sacramento
Posts: 1,007
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

It might help if someone can gather the statistics on crimes committed in total, arrests for the same time period, convictionsetc and then seperate out violent crimes and crimes where stolen guns and legal guns were used to embarrass the sheriff and police chiefs. My guess is that you are going to find a high number of crimes, low arrest rate, low conviction rate overall with an increasing rise in violent crimes percentage wise. Also a rise in stolen illegal guns being used in violent and minimal if any legally registered guns being used in crimes by their owners. But law enforcement already knows this don't they and that is why these stats are not going to be easy to come by?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-20-2012, 10:10 AM
sniper94509's Avatar
sniper94509 sniper94509 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East Bay Cali
Posts: 58
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Hello everybody. I have lived in Antioch for 35 years and have seen this city drop into ****holeizm. If I don't hear gunshots every night I'm really shocked!!!
I had someone try to get into my front window a while back but luckily I put a rod in the tracks so the couldn't open it. And if they did I had my best friend glock 23 waiting. If there is any ccw petition for Antioch/Contra Costa I would definitely help in any way.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-20-2012, 12:28 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,317
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

I see that most of the recent responders appear to be new members.

A short disquisition on CCW/LTC in California:

By law, Sheriffs and city Police Chiefs (in cities that issue) MAY issue a License To Carry (LTC); there are no statewide objective requirements for 'good cause', and an issuing agency may reject any applicant for any reason or no reason.

At Calguns, of course, we think this is a Bad Thing.

Principally it is Sheriffs who issue in California. Sheriffs are elected, and legally respond to nobody but their electors and to court orders. The Calguns Foundation is busy suing several Sheriffs in Federal Court; there has been one limited success, where Sacramento County and Yolo County were sued, and Sacramento agreed to change its policy - so it was dropped from the suit. Yolo is still being sued.

Please look through the wiki litigation page - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Li...st_and_Present

Short of a Federal Court applying a cluebat upside the head, some sheriffs and police chiefs will continue their restrictive issuance policy. The clue will be a Supreme Court opinion specifying that 'bear' is a Constitutional right.

Please do continue to apply, write your city chief or county sheriff, and talk to your county supervisors and city council members; it's important that they know there is a demand for the licenses, so they cannot say they have never heard of any requests.

See also http://calgunsfoundation.org/index.p...ccw-initiative
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-20-2012, 12:42 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,678
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Short of a Federal Court applying a cluebat upside the head, some sheriffs and police chiefs will continue their restrictive issuance policy. The clue will be a Supreme Court opinion specifying that 'bear' is a Constitutional right.
No, it will be a Supreme Court opinion upholding the right to carry in public in a lawsuit directly against them. Nothing less will be heeded by these sheriffs. They will continue as they have even in the face of a direct Supreme Court ruling as long as the ruling isn't directly against them. See Chicago.

Winning Richards is just the beginning of the process of securing the right to carry in public here in California. The entire process will take many, many years, and may not be possible at all if a change of the guard occurs at the Supreme Court before we can bring the direct case I speak of above to the Supreme Court. The time required is such that such a change of guard is very possible.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-20-2012, 2:20 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 32,317
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No, it will be a Supreme Court opinion upholding the right to carry in public in a lawsuit directly against them. Nothing less will be heeded by these sheriffs. They will continue as they have even in the face of a direct Supreme Court ruling as long as the ruling isn't directly against them. See Chicago.
I think that's a subset - but the subset would include Los Angeles, San Francisco and probably Santa Clara, so it would cover around 1/3 of the population of the state.

I do not dismiss the power of fighting reality with Other People's Money.

I do think some of the returns from winning one or more of the cases ought to be spent on battlespace preparation in those large counties, such as 'Your city/county is cutting cops and garbage collectors and libraries, but they want to spend millions in court to lose, just like [losing county]. Demand that your supervisors not waste money!'
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 11-20-2012 at 2:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-20-2012, 3:02 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
I do think some of the returns from winning one or more of the cases ought to be spent on battlespace preparation in those large counties, such as 'Your city/county is cutting cops and garbage collectors and libraries, but they want to spend millions in court to lose, just like [losing county]. Demand that your supervisors not waste money!'
Unfortunately, a waste of money in California given the politics. We're better off just suing them.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-20-2012, 3:01 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Yep, because you talk directly with soooooo may sheriffs and counties counsel...

I can understand some level of cynicism but in toto? Silly.

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No, it will be a Supreme Court opinion upholding the right to carry in public in a lawsuit directly against them. Nothing less will be heeded by these sheriffs. They will continue as they have even in the face of a direct Supreme Court ruling as long as the ruling isn't directly against them. See Chicago.

Winning Richards is just the beginning of the process of securing the right to carry in public here in California. The entire process will take many, many years, and may not be possible at all if a change of the guard occurs at the Supreme Court before we can bring the direct case I speak of above to the Supreme Court. The time required is such that such a change of guard is very possible.
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-20-2012, 3:43 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,735
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Yep, because you talk directly with soooooo may sheriffs and counties counsel...

I can understand some level of cynicism but in toto? Silly.
“Scratch any cynic and you will find a disappointed idealist.”

Expect to see the majority of us gun owners to remain cynics in toto for quite some time.

If we saw more sheriffs openly and unilaterally defying local politicians over gun policy (instead of tripping over themselves to help council members etc. push for more gun regulation, or providing media with ridiculously inaccurate firearm descriptions when being asked about a crime), you can bet we'd change our tune.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-20-2012, 8:13 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,678
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Yep, because you talk directly with soooooo may sheriffs and counties counsel...
Ahem. Santa Clara. Scocca v Smith. Los Angeles. Lu v Baca. I'm sure both Smith and Baca are quaking in their boots.

You did hint that there was some interesting action that was likely to happen on the former, and I await that eagerly. However, that does nothing to diminish my skepticism because I expect that case will have to go to the Supreme Court before we get any relief there. And I expect the same will prove true of Lu v Baca.

May I remind you that even the victory we won in Sacramento is, as of a number of months ago, a rather hollow one due to the sheer amount of time it takes for anyone to get an LTC from them? And you can't claim that it's not their own doing -- you know it is. I will, however, be the first one to admit that it is an improvement over what was there previously. It will take further work to straighten that out (and Sacramento could easily wind up being a perfect target for part of our strategy. ).


The victory we seek will take a very long time. But time is not on our side anymore, and that is why I am as deeply skeptical (while remaining hopeful at the same time) as I am.


Quote:
I can understand some level of cynicism but in toto? Silly.
My skepticism is limited primarily to the anti-gun strongholds. My statements were not meant to refer to more "pliable" counties such as Sacramento, though even those are still resisting.

There is a very large chance that we will lose the Supreme Court before we can position our pieces for a checkmate. This is chess, not checkers, but with one crucial difference: we're on a clock, and the timing of our moves is not under our full control.

What do you think will happen if Scocca v Smith winds up hitting the Supreme Court after, and not before, we lose the Heller majority? What do you think will happen, in the event of a loss of the Heller majority, with the followup lawsuits that we will inevitably have to file in order to combat the "creative" ways counties such as Santa Clara will come up with to deny us the right to carry in public? The loss of the Supreme Court will renew the vigor with which such counties will resist, because they will know that if we have to take them to court, we will lose at the top.


So if we lose the Heller majority before the right to carry in public is fully secured -- before counties such as Los Angeles and Santa Clara are out of ammunition -- then we lose, period. We are in grave danger. This is why we must fight that much harder and that much faster.


The biggest problem by far is that we could win everything outside of California, but that is meaningless for Californians unless we win everything in California as well. That's because laws, regulations, and enforcement all remain in place until either explicitly and successfully challenged in court or voluntarily withdrawn, and the latter will not happen in the anti-gun strongholds. Even that wouldn't be a problem were it not for the near certainty that the Supreme Court will continue to be, in effect, the court of first resort for cases brought in California even in the face of strong Supreme Court jurisprudence. The Supreme Court will continue to "have to say so more plainly", and it will not put the hammer down to stop that.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-20-2012 at 8:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-20-2012, 4:40 PM
sully007's Avatar
sully007 sully007 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,488
iTrader: 23 / 96%
Default

Recall the mayor and sheriff. Run someone who will issue CCW's.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-21-2012, 12:46 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,735
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

IMO there are only two counties that matter in CA

SF, LA
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-21-2012, 3:28 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,678
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Gene claims here that SCOTUS will take "personal jurisdiction" in the event the lower courts behave as I claim they will. I'm deeply skeptical of that. SCOTUS has never, to my knowledge, done that, even during the civil rights movement (there, the U.S. Marshals got involved at the request of the Attorney General, and not, it seems, the Supreme Court). At most, they ruled on the merits of the cases before them in the event the lower courts kept ignoring their GVRs, but I'm presuming here that they will rule on the merits and the lower courts will ignore the resulting precedent. Judicial rebellion of that scale has never happened before, but I believe it will happen here, precisely because of the nature of the right involved.

During the civil rights movement, the executive branch supported, rather than opposing, the Supreme Court's decisions. That is most assuredly not going to happen here until we get a non-Democrat President, which won't happen for a minimum of 4 years from now. The U.S. Marshals will do the bidding of the Supreme Court if the Court tells them to intervene, but we will not get any support from the President or the Attorney General or anyone they command. Aside from the Supreme Court and those they directly command, we're on our own.

This article discusses the issue of the lower courts ignoring the Supreme Court. It's lacking citations, but shows that lower courts can and do ignore the Supreme Court when they really want to, and that doing so yields no consequences to them whatsoever.
__________________
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. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

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

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 11-21-2012 at 3:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-21-2012, 4:22 PM
Darklyte27's Avatar
Darklyte27 Darklyte27 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: East Bay Area USI Range
Posts: 9,350
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

how bout a COCO county petition
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-21-2012, 4:29 PM
jonnyt16's Avatar
jonnyt16 jonnyt16 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: wine country
Posts: 977
iTrader: 28 / 97%
Default

Ya'll should just move to Napa county. Getting a CCW is simple as pie.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-21-2012, 4:58 PM
Dreaded Claymore Dreaded Claymore is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,240
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyt16 View Post
Ya'll should just move to Napa county. Getting a CCW is simple as pie.
Or Sacramento county. Not only can you get a carriage license, but when Yee proposes another silly bill, you can probably bust his chops in person.
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 4:35 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.