|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Question about Qualified Immunity, since it is in the Motion to Dismiss. Small, but it is there.
Is this where the Sheriff cannot be sued in the performance of his duties unless something like negligence or fraud can be proven? |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sorry allow me to correct myself, the term is presented in heller reads, "such as self-defense within the home". However, the following statement did present itself in Mcdonald Section IV Page 33, in the Opinon of Justice Alito, J. "Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and beararms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." This is where I got that from. I have been reading quite a few cases as I prepare *crosses fingers* for a legal suit in hawaii. Sorry for the misquote. Thank you for the welcome OleCuss. I have been lurking for a little bit to review whats going on in CA; everything here directly affects Hawaii. Last edited by Funtimes; 10-05-2010 at 4:07 PM.. |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'd recommend you have a nice chat with Jason Davis of http://www.Calgunlawyers.com for numerous reasons
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Carry was not before the court as you said, but the 2A right was. The vehicle was a prohibition on handguns. The 2A right is to keep and carry. Not just keep. The Supremes are wordsmiths and they knew this when they authored the opinion in Heller and McDonald. Carry is part of the fundamental 2A right and as far as the 2A movement is concerned, the only places we can't carry are sensitive places such as inside schools and in government buildings. A fundamental right is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions usually set by the legislature. In California we have neither. We can't LOC, or conceal carry without permit. And permits are very hard to get in heavily populated urban cities. UOC is not really a form of self defense. The supreme court very well may hear a right-to-carry case in the near future depending on the outcomes of the following cases:
__________________
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You should read the California government code ยง 821. It goes through all the ways that California government entities are immune, even if they do things that are wrong and malicious: Quote:
Quote:
Someone else can probably explain this better than I can.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
Maybe immune under state law, but fortunately there is
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. IF you can find a jury to convict, that is. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
1. Peruta and Sykes seek injunctive relief from future behavior - as such qualified immunity doesn't matter - neither case seeks money damages from the counties.
2. One case forgotten above is Batemen v. Perdue which is SAF/Gura suing NC over it's emergency powers regulations. The section entitled "III. THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES A RIGHT TO CARRY ARMS IN PUBLIC." starts on page 10/17 of the reply to the motion to dismiss and unintentionally refutes the Brady Amicus quite well. -Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights on Twitter. Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization. I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly! "The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
It's amazing how the Brady Center lawyers contort every sentence they can pull out of case law and present it totally out of context to promote an gun phobic agenda. Nowhere does the 2nd amendment state any qualification or boundaries on the right to 'bear'. The only reason Heller and MacDonald were responded as they did to bearing a gun "in the home" was because of the limited scope of the legal question presented to the court, which they addressed in like kind. These decisions were not explicit or even implicit in characterizating of bearing a gun in the home as a limitation on the fundamental right. They said public carry could be subject to reasonable regulation, e.g., sensitive locations, persons not allowed to own guns in the first place, etc. The Brady bunch then twist that into meaning the home is the only place the right to bear applies.
It's truly amazing what facts, logic, and precedence can be totally ignored or prejudiced by people with irrational agendas. Last edited by dawgcasa; 10-05-2010 at 8:14 PM.. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I usually LUCC, UOC, and LOC (where legal) while camping and traveling in CA since I've yet to acquire a CCW. I envy the residents of the Constitutional Carry States like Arizona. I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this forum, CGN, CGF, CRPA, NRA, CRPF, etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in. Sorry, starting to sound corny now. People don't talk like that any more Carry on... ..
__________________
Quote:
|
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And right there sums up everything rotten to the core about our education system. A professor of law no less. Shouldn't they be called a professor of opinions ?? Who the bloody hell does he think he is to brainwash law students. Its disgusting that a learned man could be so bloody stupid. |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
I concur. When carrying, I am actually a MUCH nicer, calmer person altogether.
__________________
| I don't pretend to be an "authority." I'm just a guy who trains a lot, shoots a lot and has a perspective. Check the ZombieTactics Channel on YouTube for all sorts of gun-related goodness CLICK HERE |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And not just because you are scared of retaliation.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner. All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
I'm with Grizzly Guy. While it's rather maddening to read the amicus brief, their push is relentless even while ignoring the facts, and twisting them around. Heller in fact goes into a pretty detailed discussion of what "bear" means, and concludes that it means to carry upon one's person. The court did not rule on CC in public in Heller, because it was not at issue. (they like narrow decisions). It's clear that your rights do not end at your doorstep, so the whole Brady argument, while seemingly reasonable on its face, is a farce when viewed in this light.
They are definitely pushing for the lowest level of scrutiny. My personal opinion is that any learned judge would quickly dispense with the "reasonableness" doctrine. Lets see... a regulation is constitutional if it's reasonable....That just does not fly when you're talking fundamental incorporated rights. I seriously doubt that the strict scrutiny standard will be applied either. Possession of deadly force in public, while IMHO is your right, it deserves some kind of special treatment. I guess we'll stay tuned to see what the courts divine... |
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is NOT corny. You speak truly from the heart and you need not apologize. This is a precise and correct description of where we are today and you, nor anyone else should feel abashed about proclaiming it. CalGuns and many other gatherings of citizens who care, with the same sentiments are growing all over the country, gathering legal, financial and political power to rain down from the mountain tops. The Anti 2nd Amendment forces are dismayed and faltering. We live in interesting times. Let your flag fly Chuck! |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Flying High it is (see sig below). Thanks for the affirmation
__________________
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|