|
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 |
#442
|
|||
|
|||
WOW... Just WOW !
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#443
|
||||
|
||||
so what happens now? case is dead and ruling stands or will it be appealed to SCOTUS? what are the chances of that?
__________________
Quote:
|
#444
|
||||
|
||||
And people accuse kcbrown of being overly pessimistic.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#445
|
|||
|
|||
Have to agree with Fabio here. A missed opportunity indeed.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
#446
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#448
|
|||
|
|||
Suppose the plaintiff had challenged both Denver city and Colorado state law together, as the Judges indicate he could have. Further suppose that the judges then ruled that his second amendment rights were violated.
Because the judges could then strike either the Denver law OR the Colorado state law down to provide relief to the plaintiff, on what basis would they make their decision on which to strike? If either alone is not a 2nd amendment violation, then striking both would not be appropriate. |
#449
|
|||
|
|||
I'm curious?
Did anyone really have high expectations of a victory at the Circus level? I thought this case was designed all along to go on up through the appeals process and be set up for a cert petition if that proved necessary. I'm not at all surprised or disheartened - maybe because I've absolutely no legal training?
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#450
|
||||
|
||||
What other options are there?
|
#451
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'm not sure what the failure of this case was procedurally, I thought this was a challenge on both the Denver ordinance and the CO CHL issuance(give us one or the other)? |
#452
|
||||
|
||||
they may be hinting that the 2A does protect carrying outside the home, but doesn't specifically protect concealed or open. if the state provides one option, the state can deny the other.
__________________
Quote:
|
#453
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Welcome to the briar patch, you fabiouso lawslinger!
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm |
#455
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Obviously, those who made that claim were quite badly mistaken. Quote:
__________________
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. |
#456
|
|||
|
|||
Made me laugh!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#457
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The way I see it is that at this time the weight of the jurisprudence is that the RKBA is limited to within the home. It doesn't matter that I disagree vehemently, that's the way in which most district and circus courts are going to view it simply because there are more opinions which go that way - and because they want it to go that way. So when we get a favorable opinion out of a lower court I am pleasantly surprised. But even then I figure the benefit is mostly to get a circuit split in hopes that this will increase the probability that SCOTUS will take a good case in the near future - and say the things I hope they will say.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#458
|
||||
|
||||
Briefly, CA7 just denied a challenge to Judge Posner's opinion against the Illinois "in the home" limitation. Doesn't the recent CA10 opinion create yet another split? If so, won't this help move Moore vs Madigan toward SCOTUS?
|
#459
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.thegunmag.com/7th-circuit...arry-says-saf/
Quote:
|
#460
|
||||
|
||||
Very much a compliment. I'm proud of you!
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. One wonders what SCOTUS would do if the lower courts unanimously denied the right's existence outside the home. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that, because the 7th Circuit has upheld the right outside the home. And so far, it's the only one that has. Look, people, can it be made any more plain than it has? The judiciary hates the right to keep and bear arms. Plan accordingly.
__________________
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; 02-22-2013 at 6:01 PM.. |
#461
|
||||
|
||||
Anyone who read appellant's briefs and listened to oral arguments foresaw this outcome. This case was bungled from the beginning, both by the ineptitude of counsel and the hubris of its patrons.
Failure was totally self-inflicted. |
#462
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The anti-gun side can get away with an infinite level of incompetence with zero repercussions.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#463
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But it is disturbing to see that we have several people who have a lot of legal knowledge suggesting the case was bungled. Rather disappointing as well, because if that is the case I'm betting that there is little value to the case in getting cert for either this case or for another. I'm hoping your evaluation is wrong, but I consider you to be a serious guy and I certainly can't say that you are wrong.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#464
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Look. All cases have flaws. All lawyers make mistakes. For any given case, there are million things that the peanut gallery can say "omg their dum! i coulda done better!" And rest assured every single one of those whiners will never help in any substantive fashion, because they will never be in court arguing those cases or anything even remotely like them. To make matters worse, the mistakes that were made are ONLY damaging in courts where you are arguing for 2A rights. All mistakes made by the other side (which the peanut gallery never seems to point out) are glossed over by the court in their eagerness to get yet another 2A case off of their docket in a way that does not endanger the status quo. The situation is completely unacceptable, no matter how you look at it.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#465
|
|||
|
|||
I guess we will just wait patiently for a land mark CGF supported case to have an impact on 2A rights. I believe in the chess not checkers mentality. As long as those playing chess know how to actually play chess. Perhaps Richards.
|
#466
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But will we see them litigating any time soon? To quote a notable member: "lol''™
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#467
|
||||
|
||||
Denver's ordinance that requires a license to openly or concealed carry was specifically challenged by getting denied by the Denver licensing official. See Count five and fact paragraph 15 of the amended complaint. http://www.archive.org/download/gov....117112.4.0.pdf
-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
|
#468
|
|||
|
|||
CGF is not a law firm. I back their efforts! I'm just saying that perhaps some of the chess players (lawyers). Might need to re think strategy.
|
#469
|
|||
|
|||
Gura brings some good cases and some horrible cases. This was a horrible case that shouldn't have been brought and sets the gun legal movement back a few paces.
Thanks to this case, we now have this cite in the permanent legal record: "With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause." This is going to hurt us for a long time. We got this very unfavorable ruling in a very pro-gun state. This language is really going to hurt the Illinois efforts, because they don't have to allow concealed carry now, and they really don't want open carry. I wish Gura had decided against bringing this one. In the Kachalsky New York case, I'll agree that he's getting some bad rulings, but he's saying the right things. In this case, I don't think anyone involved said the right things or was on the right side. Time to pick ourselves up and move on. I hope they don't try to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. We need to focus on beating bad state laws in NY, CA, IL and the new crazy ones being proposed in MD. SAF is doing a lot of good work, especially in Illinois. I just got an e-mail from them saying that the 7th Circuit won't exempt Illinois from being forced to enact some form of carry within 180 days. I hope this case doesn't pull some of that down. |
#470
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But in this particular case did you carefully read the arguments, the opinions, and the latest ruling? I am fairly sure FGG is not going to engage in litigation on behalf of the RKBA, but he has been pretty good (although not perfect, IIRC) at predicting what a court will do with a case. I would not bet, however, that NIR will not engage in litigation. I've not seen a definitive statement, but the impression I have is that given the right circumstances he would. Not sure that calling him an armchair quarterback/whiner is accurate. I may be going too far in my assessment of where NIR stands, but my impression is that he thinks there are some pretty fundamental flaws in the approach we currently favor. Until we get one of the CGF cases through SCOTUS we don't know that he is right - or wrong. But I think NIR is a serious lawyer who understands the relevant law pretty well and has spent some fairly serious time looking over some of these cases. I don't think it wise to quickly dismiss his opinion of the case. Again, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination (haven't even visited a law school), so I could be way off base. I sorta doubt NIR or FGG are going to find it worth publishing a detailed analysis of the case and how it could/should be done better. But I doubt we'll get that from Gray's lawyer any time soon either. I'll withhold my own opinion until I see more. And honestly, I'm not so sure we're going to see much more of this case. I know there were a lot of procedural issues (not sure that is the right term) and that may have made the case more complex than it should be for a cert petition. I think this opinion was a panel and what I do anticipate is a request for en banc.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). Last edited by OleCuss; 02-22-2013 at 7:33 PM.. |
#471
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#472
|
||||
|
||||
In related news, I agree with your inquiry here.
-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. |
#473
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The Denver ordinances require a license for any carry within Denver, be it concealed or open. Given that fact, how would you, or anyone here, have phrased the complaint differently? Keep in mind that challenging multiple laws simultaneously is a much more complicated thing to do than is challenging a single law, and doing so would probably have short-circuited the obviously limited minds that occupied the panel in this case. In any case, how many times do I have to say it? Courts will always issue the rulings they want to issue, no matter the jurisprudence they operate under, when they have strong preconceptions about the issue. That this one did precisely that should come as absolutely no surprise to you whatsoever, because the right to keep and bear arms is by far the one most dangerous to the government, and at the end of the day, the courts work for the government because they are part of it and get their funding from it. This case also illustrates something that I have suspected for some time: if the interaction of multiple laws can be made sufficiently complex, courts even in traditionally "pro-rights" areas will fail to uphold even the strongest Constitutional rights as a result of the intersection between the "presumption of Constitutionality" the courts engage in and the impossibility of clearly and unequivocally identifying the laws which deserve to be overturned and the proper government officials who should be sued. And you guys wonder why I think we're going to lose in the end (even though we will probably win in the intermediate term)...
__________________
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; 02-22-2013 at 9:10 PM.. |
#474
|
||||
|
||||
Losing rights is inevitable; it isn't just the 2A. Classic drunkards walk near a wall; statistically speaking, we can only lose freedom in the long term.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome Last edited by curtisfong; 02-22-2013 at 10:07 PM.. |
#475
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I will say that curtisfong generally has it correct: Some lower courts (exception, 7th Circuit, 4th Circuit District Courts) will assign & call out errors of the plaintiffs that don't actually exist but for their supposed lack of understanding the issue, and will ignore the numerous errors of government defendants, in order to reach an opinion they want. I question whether first challenging the Denver open carry ban in a direct fashion (rather than applying for a county issued state mandated license to carry so I can carry there) would have yielded a different result, or getting tossed for no "standing". Perhaps it would have resulted in a decision like the original Moore district court case in Illinois where they stated that the state could ban all carry if the state just repeats the incantation "public safety" enough times, rather than the Circuit Court doing everything to "avoid" my issue by handing a supposed win for OC. Cloud, meet silver lining. *shrugs* Quote:
Of course, by the time Sacramento settled the case, because of McDonald, opened up carry lawsuits for the entire country rather than just federal districts. As a result, Woollard (a win for us in district court), Bateman (a win in district court and the state didn't appeal), Kachalsky in NY, and then Illinois with Moore. As I made it clear on other forums and to the Denver Post: The case is destined for either an en banc rehearing request or a cert petition to SCOTUS, behind & likely with a GVR order in light of Kachalsky (which I fully expect to be granted cert). Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-22-2013 at 11:45 PM.. |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
I'm curious how exactly Kachalsky can help this case since the 10th is claiming the OC challenge was tossed? Could request for en banc/rehearing/cert only on the grounds that the court didn't get the details correct be the next step?
|
#477
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Kachalsky assists because New York prohibited open carry by pistol permit holders in 1963, and the state's entire defense is that it can prohibit individuals from carrying concealable weapons and require may-issue. The state of Colorado is also claiming that their "shall-issue" statute is actually a "may-issue" statute. In order to hand Mr. Kachalsky and his co-plaintiffs (along with Mr. Gura) the win, Robertson v. Baldwin, the case that the 10th Circuit directly used against me (and ignored the whole "in the clothing or in the pocket directly from Heller), must be confronted. Perhaps the two judges besides Lucero knew of the Kachalsky cert and timed the release of the decision. We'll never know because we can't exactly directly ask them. |
#478
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
When its apparent, even to non-lawyer (but pretty damn smart) people that the "strategy" is too cute by half, and when the arguing attorney refuses to address direct inquiries from the Court on matters of law and the desired outcome, you can bet you are going to have your *** handed to you. I made that bet (hoping I was wrong) after listening to the orals. I wasn't wrong. Who's the dummy now?
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#479
|
||||
|
||||
Until smarter people like FGG actually litigate, we'll never know, will we?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall "“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome |
#480
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Hoping for a Richards win however. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|