|
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 |
#681
|
||||
|
||||
Yeah, look right next to the rule that says the Supreme Court gets to declare laws unconstitutional.
|
#682
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Gray had two possible things he could have gone after:
Going after the first, which is what Gray did, allows for many possible arguments, most (if not all) of which were made. Furthermore, it leaves untouched the power of the government to regulate carry through the issuance of permits. Going after the second requires arguing that the government does not have the legitimate power to regulate carry through a permit system. Who here thinks that argument will prevail? 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. |
#683
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
None of this is rocket science. Its an ego issue and i can look at past posts and see how CGF was supportive but not "all in" with this case. Its an ego issue just like gay marriage. (which i am not opposed to) If you don't think this is the case and the plaintiff wasn't using their personal sexual preference to sway this case, your not looking into it very hard. |
#684
|
||||
|
||||
What, you're saying the rule in question is to be found in Marbury v Madison?
__________________
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. |
#686
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
If not issued a permit to carry, open or concealed, how is manner of carry important if you cannot legally carry?
__________________
I don't care what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner. Stupid Idiot will suffice, after all, it's only words. You must define something before you can understand it. |
#687
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
By dismissing for lack of ripeness, the court essentially said that a challenge to a law cannot be brought until the law is already in a position to bring harm. Which means that, essentially, one has to risk being harmed in order to challenge a law. Is it really your belief that the court was correct on 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. 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. |
#688
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#689
|
|||
|
|||
Are you serious or REALLY asking me?
|
#690
|
||||
|
||||
I am giving up after this. Again I have not read anything other than the decesion
You have a fundamental right to drink bud light and bud light only The State of Colombia bans the consumption of beer You ask in your lawsuit to be able to drink beer and plan on it The Court can rule yes you can drink bud light If you ask in your lawsuit to be able to drink Coors and plan on drinking Coors if you win the Court can not modify that to let you drink Bud light. If it does it has issued a advisory opinion and in Federal Courts and most state courts that is not allowed here the court says that he asked to drink Coors and since you don't have a right to drink Coors you are not saying the law is violating your rights. Last edited by wolfwood; 02-24-2013 at 7:16 PM.. |
#691
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But may I point out a few things? The NRA case is, I believe, still in litigation and that means there is still a chance of a loss in the case. I think the loss is unlikely, but it is actually a good thing to have the OOIDA case in position to be re-activated if the NRA case should eventually lose. It may turn out that the money on the OOIDA case was wasted, but until there is a final victory in the NRA case such a judgment is somewhat premature. This goes to my earlier comments in which I suggested that I am somewhat uncomfortable with having a single litigation strategy developed or coordinated by just one or two individuals. Having separate but complementary (rather than conflicting) efforts has the advantage of multiple different opportunities for a win. One would hope for enough cooperation to prevent sabotaging each others' cases, however. It worked in this case. CGF took one approach and the NRA took another. If the NRA had (or does) fail in its legal approach there is another likely avenue for success. And if the CGF effort hadn't been mooted they would have appealed the disposition of their case and may have gotten the PI before the imposition of the law. Edit: I should point out that I am actually minimizing the political advantage of having OOIDA ready for re-activation should the NRA case eventually lose. You have to remember JB's veto message in the AB962 replacement law to realize what I mean. As long as AB962 is being litigated JB is not going to sign an AB962-like law. So if the NRA case loses and OOIDA advances the Ammo Ban law is still dead on the political side.
__________________
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; 02-24-2013 at 7:16 PM.. |
#692
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
I don't care what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner. Stupid Idiot will suffice, after all, it's only words. You must define something before you can understand it. |
#693
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And yes, I believe the court was correct. It doesn't really matter whether you or I believe if the court was correct - the point I was making is that there are some repetitive issues that keep occurring...
__________________
Quote:
|
#695
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I know that if I were the plaintiff, I would be doing my litigation in the way that would maximize the overall outcome in the context of the other cases being brought, even if doing so meant taking a loss at the circuit level. I would, of course, have to be willing to take it to SCOTUS if need be. That's because my focus would not be solely on this case, but on maximizing the protection of the right. All of that assumes, of course, that this case was not litigated in such a way as to maximize the chance of an immediate win. Frankly, given the situation and the facts, I'm not convinced of that the way you are. I'm willing to be swayed in that direction, but that requires information that Tincon appears to be reluctant to divulge. 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. |
#696
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#697
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#698
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I can remember one time when CGF folk were being chastised for a standing issue and being told that a different kind of plaintiff would have been far preferable. The thing is, when you thought about it a little it was clear that the preferred litigant would clearly not have had standing in such a case. Having legal credentials and opposing CGF's approach to standing does not necessarily mean that you are even as good at standing issues as is CGF. My observation has been that in RKBA civil rights litigation you have to be absolutely meticulous about standing as it is one of the courts' favorite ways of killing your case - and they will be creative in finding ways to do this. Alan Gura learned this the hard way (which is why the case is Heller). I suspect the lesson on standing is still being learned.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#699
|
||||
|
||||
Guys, read the 10th Circuit's opinion. Including the dissent, it's less than 15,000 words and mostly written in plain English [emphasis added and footnotes removed]:
Quote:
|
#700
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It may be that your assessment of things here is correct. In my interactions with the people in question, I've not seen what you've seen. Or, at least, I certainly can't come to the same conclusions you have based on what I've seen. Am I being hoodwinked? Perhaps. But you know how skeptical I generally tend to be. What I have seen forms a consistent picture that is different from the one you paint, and if there's anything I'm good at, spotting inconsistencies is one of them.
__________________
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. |
#701
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
To put it best, left turns and rights turns do matter when finding the right address. Some of the "right people" don't know how to read a google map but certainly know how to do online payment processing |
#702
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
BTW, that makes no sense. So I will have suspend belief in logic and rational thought to understand the court's decision. Thank you!
__________________
I don't care what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner. Stupid Idiot will suffice, after all, it's only words. You must define something before you can understand it. Last edited by bussda; 02-24-2013 at 7:54 PM.. Reason: spelling |
#703
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Now, let's suppose that is exactly what was argued (as it seems to be impossible to avoid) and that the 10th Circuit hands us the win. Everyone's happy now, right? Not so fast. Denver appeals. Now SCOTUS has to weigh in on the Constitutionality of permit systems governing carry. Do you really think Kennedy will get on board with a decision that says that such systems are Unconstitutional? And just like that, we lose AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL. Is that what you guys really want?
__________________
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; 02-24-2013 at 8:20 PM.. |
#704
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'd note that I'm actually not arguing that Peterson's case was properly prepared or presented. I have repeatedly acknowledged that I haven't the legal acumen to make such a judgment. I lean toward the idea that Peterson's lawyer is competent and that the case was properly prepared just because they know the case intimately - but I will readily admit that the FGG and NIR critique may be exactly correct.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#705
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Especially when all things gets convoluted and your significant other knows more about payment processing than an entire company does and actually created the path for online and cloud payment processing. |
#706
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
We need to move away from accepting that exercising this right is always tied to state permission. Quote:
Read NIR's excerpt. The Court is utterly telegraphing where Peterson went wrong and where the next case has a huge hole on the right side of the defensive line that any halfback could walk right through. Quote:
I've really, really been thinking about this case the last couple of days, and I have to wonder if this case was about Denver or Colorado, at all. It's been occurring to me that the purpose of this case might have been to get an easy federal court win on the recognition of out-of-state permits that with subsequent litigation in California or the 9th Circuit would force California and all the cities in it to accept permits from other states. Since permits are hard to obtain in California but easy to obtain in Utah, such a legal strategy, if successful, would have made life easier on California gun owners. Too bad it lost. Also too bad this negative ruling is in the permanent record. Trust me, and I mean trust me, from now until he croaks, Josh Sugarmann and his kind will be using this quote from the case: "The Second Amendment does not confer a right to carry concealed weapons." That single line will be so hurtful to gun owners across the country for decades, perhaps centuries. Last edited by highbrass; 02-24-2013 at 8:13 PM.. |
#708
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"In a Colorado case in which lawyers for the NRA and Alan Gura for the Second Amendment Foundation faced off against the Brady Center’s legal director and the Colorado Attorney General’s office, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit unanimously held that the Second Amendment does not provide a right to carry concealed weapons in public, and upheld Colorado’s carry law." http://bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1568/ |
#709
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#710
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#711
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But how are you going to convince the Supreme Court of that? From Heller: Quote:
Not only are you going to have to deal with the above, you're going to be arguing against the jurisprudence in every state that has an enumerated right to keep and bear arms provision and claims to satisfy the right through a shall-issue permit scheme. Quote:
Quote:
No way. If we go there with the Supreme Court as it's currently composed, we will lose.
__________________
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; 02-24-2013 at 8:53 PM.. |
#712
|
|||
|
|||
I wouldn't get this dramatic just yet. The states still have to give you the right to functional fireams whether openly carried or concealed. If the circuit court says that concealed is not a right then OPEN CARRY will be the alternative.
|
#713
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
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 |
#714
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Currently the 2A and attendant case law do not confer the right to carry concealed or to carry openly. My interpretation of the 2A and relevant case law (and I'm not a lawyer) is that eventually the states will have to allow either concealed or open carry. I also think it unlikely that the courts will blatantly force a state into one or the other - seems more likely that when the courts say it is an "either-or" situation that they will tell the state that by a date certain they must develop the law and regulation to allow either open or concealed carry (or both should the state so choose).
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Don't consider anything I post as advice or as anything more than opinion (if even that). |
#715
|
|||
|
|||
Fine by me. Although don't discount FGG's assertion that what we may end up with is UOC if we stay on the course we're on. I'm not sure if he was joking or not, but his predictions shouldn't be taken lightly at this point.
__________________
Quote:
|
#716
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#717
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#718
|
||||
|
||||
What course do you believe can be taken that does not pose that as a danger?
__________________
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. |
#719
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Anyway, worry about the case in front of you, not what the United States Supreme Court will do with your case once you win at the appellate level. It's hard enough to win any appellate case, much less set up a case to lose at the appellate level because you know you have the Supreme Court win in the bag. Do you know how rare it is for the Supreme Court to accept any case? Quote:
You guys need to chill out with these cases and your predictions. |
#720
|
||||
|
||||
And what would the prayer for relief for that look like?
__________________
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|