|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#761
|
||||
|
||||
this is a different argument. The one you saw was at the Ninth Circuit. This is for the trial court which is having hearings at the same time.
|
#762
|
||||
|
||||
Oh, thank you, that explains why a lot of it seemed unfamiliar
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#764
|
|||
|
|||
It is a great read. The only thing the state has is intermediate scrutiny, then everything flows from that. Not a Good fit, so what. All of our studies are just conclusions without data, so what don't need it. Logical holes larger than a 50rd drum mag, don't care, doesn't apply.
The best part is where the judge goes and says can I not only toss the grandfathering under the bus but how about the new acquisition ban as well. Of course our side says yes. If this does go our way I'm sure none of itwill survive the ninth. But if the gun grabbers see that incrementalism doesn't work as each new law can get old ones tossed then they might think twice. |
#765
|
|||
|
|||
One thing they danced around was why does Law Enforcement need large capacity magazines when the citizenry does not? Why do LEO's end up having absurdly high round counts in LE involved shootings?
Was the average number of rounds used in LE shooting included as part of the record? That's one area that the Plaintiff and the Judge missed out on and the state's answer would be interesting when contrasted with the citizens' need for self defense in the home setting. What's the practical difference? The majority of LE involved shootings involve a single subject. |
#767
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"Absurdly high round counts" I am a proponent of allowing standard capacity magazines to law abiding citizens. Go execute a warrant in South Central LA with a 10 round magazine, or conduct a high-risk traffic stop with one. These situations do not correlate with the general public's "defense", as these are enforcement measures. There is a need for the good gear in the LE line of work. Basic principles of your argument apply to "if bad guys don't wear body armor, then neither should we". Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk |
#768
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I see no reason why a retired LEO need any more defense than anyone else. The judge pokes a huge hole through the training argument, which it self is off point. Ability isn't need. |
#769
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If that gang banger from South Central comes to my house with the intent to do harm; the state implies that a 10 round magazine in my Glock 17 is sufficient whereas the responding officer to my distress call is carrying 17 in the same pistol. Is his need for self defense more acute than mine? That is the position the state is taking. Police officers carry firearms purely for defense of their person, fellow officers, and the public at large. Their defensive needs are no more acute than a citizens' when confronted by the same violent criminal. |
#770
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
In your capacity as a citizen; you won't work as a Undercover Officer for that Drug Buy, work a remote stretch of the border with little to no assistance, execute that warrant on a house full of occupants, or attempt to stop a high speed pursuit on the 405. There is a need to have equipment. The use of a firearm for defense is the same for oneself, officer and citizen alike. I draw the distinction for a greater need when an officer has to act to stop a crime, or actively work to encounter a specific threat; when a citizen can walk away and not act without repurcussion. I hope one day you can have a magazine you deem appropriate in capacity. But your argument of LE should only have access to the same equipment your average California citizen has; because the people they face are similarly equipped is flawed. Perhaps we should similarly equip our military to fight on a level playing field with advesaries. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk |
#771
|
|||
|
|||
Nobody in the world can tell me whether I will face worse odds than a LEO from violent criminals if attacked. Nobody can tell me I will never be attacked, or that I will.
The LEO distinction is a dodge by politicians to keep dissent down and political contributions from unions coming. Any idea that it relates to their safety or mine is night soil. NYPD has a hit ratio of about 17%. I seem to recall a group of LEO's recently falling all over each other to shoot a guy, firing a total of 65 rounds for zero hits. Certainly there are some very competent officers out there (the TX traffic cop who took on two would-be jihadis with "assault weapons" and body armor with his .45 ACP Glock and won comes to mind) but they are not the norm. If anything, I have a bigger incentive than a LEO to be careful about placing my rounds, since they have no liability at law except under the most unusual circumstances. I am not so situated, by the will of the same politicians. The LEO exclusions can be rolled up into a tight little ball and inserted firmly, deeply, into the nether regions of Mr. Becerra et al. I am happy the judge is doing his duty here. It's nice to see.
__________________
NRA Life Member |
#772
|
|||
|
|||
I think you're missing the point
Quote:
Kinda like, how if smart guns are such a great idea, why aren't LEAs and the military clamoring for them? Why should the general public have less than the State has? |
#774
|
||||
|
||||
Are you actually defending the state's bastardization of equal protection? I don't know why some of you people have such a hard-on for LEOs and place them on a saintly pure-2A pedestal above the unwashed masses who can't be trusted. The 2A was written precisely to ensure we were all on equal footing, and you celebrate the tilting of the board.
|
#775
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
But the argument put forth "I can't have it, so no one should either", I have a problem with. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk |
#776
|
|||
|
|||
Out of curiosity, where do you come down on large capacity magazines (e.g. magazines with capacity > 10 rounds)? By one definition (what qualifies to get on the list of CA-acceptable pistols) SCMs are those with a capacity of 10 rounds or less.
|
#777
|
|||
|
|||
Standard capacity magazines. The same magazines you can get in the great state of Texas.
10,15,30,45 capacity to make you feel warm and fuzzy. Belt-fed is another matter. Let's not go there. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk |
#778
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks so much for posting that wolfwood, it was 123 pages of pure joy.
__________________
|
#779
|
|||
|
|||
I'm watching the video now. The panel is NR Smith (Bush), Wallace (Nixon!), and Batts (Clinton). It should be a 2-1 outcome. I'm assuming the same panel that's dealing with the PI appeal would be hearing the case after the district court? If so we will win this and the other side will look at the game theory and not want to take the risk of asking for cert.
Curious, why is Batts, from New York, on this panel? I don't know how these things work.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. Last edited by CCWFacts; 07-01-2018 at 7:12 AM.. |
#780
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Large capacity would be MORE than what the gun was designed for.. so my Glock with 17 rounds would be STANDARD.. if I had a 25 rnd extended mag it would be large. My AR would be standard with 30.. large with a 50 round drum.. 50 rounds would be STANDARD in my PS90.. See where I'm going.. Don't fall into their nomenclature trap.. it's bad enough that many here call semi-auto AR-patterned rifles "assault weapons".. that was just more brainwashing.
__________________
“People believed that the opposite of war is peace. The truth is that the opposite of war is more often slavery” - Battlestar Galactica Member: Patron member NRA, lifetime member SAF, CRPA |
#781
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#782
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In a legal context, California recognizes just 2 classes of magazines: "large-capacity", those with a capacity of more than 10 rounds, is the only one named. In ordinary conversation, use what you like; in a discussion of California law, refusal to use 'large-capacity' appropriately is the equivalent of refusing to use the word 'speed' in a vehicle code discussion.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#783
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, you are brainwashed by common sense which is not allowed in California by the ruling party, and it's media elites.
__________________
** 3 Rules of Skeet: Head on the gun, eye on the target, and proper lead M1a - If you can see it, you can hit it Friends don't let friends vote demorat |
#784
|
|||
|
|||
Boy, sure wish this line of questioning occurred before any laws were passed. Judges actually seems impartial, not outright adversarial to the 2nd.
What worries me most is the state legal guy so nonchalant about incremental legislation.and his thought on going from the previous law to this. Like the legislation duped law people into the first law and then get to go back and "fix" it.
__________________
On the firing line- depending on the day, determines which side of the line I'm supposed to stand on! |
#785
|
||||
|
||||
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKa1Gz81sfk
Good arguments from counselors on both sides, but I give the nod to plaintiff. It seems like the taking clause issue has merit, regardless of the constitutional issue. Wallace seems to have some reservations about that, Smith seems onboard, Batts unknown. |
#786
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#787
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
My Magic 8-Ball says the panel sits on the case until there is a ruling at DC, then issues a per curium ruling dismissing the appeal on the basis the matter before the court (the appeal of the PI) is moot. |
#788
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#790
|
|||
|
|||
Yes, that's what it seemed like. The panel was like, "This is a PI appeal. Why are you wasting our time? We're just going to go over the whole argument again after DC." And the state was trying to say, "These things are really dangerous and it's not a taking, it's a police power!" And the the 9th was saying, "Ok, yeah, but like we just said... aren't those questions we're going to have to resolve after the DC?" "But... it's not a taking, it's a police power!" Etc.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#791
|
||||
|
||||
Can someone please give me a succinct current standing on this case please? Clarify the following?
1-the injuction still stands correct? 2- if the injunction stands then the 7-1-18 mag ban can't be implemented ,correct,since an injunction by definition means to stop or cease whatever action is to be taken(?). 3-if this case gets won,then whoever moved grandfathered mags out of state would be able to bring them back in,correct? Since the law was bogus anything affected,ownership, storage location,etc due to it is moot ,correct? Or would the state say uhuh,you moved them and are now trying to re- import them.....but if they remained in state because of the litigation and were ok to use again, could some turd ada,da,le say well you are still being charged with...because you kept them after the deadline.. Thanks just trying for a plain english cliff notes status.
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.' 'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood' "They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem" [SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC] |
#792
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#793
|
||||
|
||||
Ok,thank you for clarifying and confirming what i had thought was the current status. When reading the legal mumbo jumbo, having some stupid law usurped by a more stupid law,overlapping stuff,etc,can start to boggle the mind...
Now if there can be something done about the roster bs,aw-hate that media invented label-, and others......
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.' 'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood' "They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem" [SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC] |
#794
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Thank you so much for providing the transcript. I read the entire thing last night and was thoroughly entertained and inspired. For the Calgunners that don't have time to read the entire thing, I implore you to read the final thoughts from the court (pp. 119 line 24 - 124 line 14) copied below in full. For me, this succinctly and deftly summarizes my frustration with the California legislature and the knee-jerk reaction it has to tragedies that result in the violation of a Constitutionally protected right. It's brilliantly stated, and seeing a judge (and one in the 9th Circuit to boot!) so carefully consider the impact of gun control laws upon law-abiding citizens, gives me hope that we'll see our rights restored even in this state. Quote:
|
#796
|
||||
|
||||
Now we wait for another 30 and then ten days for a final, final, final decision?
__________________
Active Army 1976-1986, Army Reserve 2005-2015, Afghanistan 2010-2011 http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01...t-for-gun.html https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ “This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.” - Hon. Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge, March 29, 2019 |
#797
|
|||
|
|||
So if I understand correctly, we still have not had a trial on the merits, everything so far has been about preliminary injunctions and motions for summary judgement, correct?
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights. The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes. |
#798
|
|||
|
|||
"NOW WE UNDERSTAND, REALLY, WE UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE, THAT IN THE REAL WORLD, YOU CAN'T HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS, AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A FOURTH AMENDMENT WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS. BUT JUST THINK ABOUT HOW MANY LIVES COULD BE SAVED IF WE SIMPLY SAID: FOURTH AMENDMENT, THAT'S A NICE THOUGHT, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO. THERE'S A GREATER PUBLIC INTEREST IN ALLOWING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BARGE INTO PEOPLE'S HOUSE AND SEARCH THEIR HOUSES WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. FIFTH AMENDMENT. THINK OF HOW MANY MORE CRIMES COULD BE SOLVED, HOW MANY PEOPLE COULD BE SAVED IF WE COULD COERCE CONFESSIONS FROM PEOPLE. YEAH, FIFTH AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GREAT IDEA, BUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST OUTWEIGHS PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT TO NOT INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES.
SO I THINK THIS IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE WHO WANTS TO SEE CHILDREN BEING SHOT AND KILLED OR OTHER PEOPLE BEING SHOT OR LAW ENFORCEMENT BEING SHOT. BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE STATE GETS TO HAVE ITS WAY HOWEVER IT WANTS, WHENEVER IT WANTS, UNDER SOME RUBRIC THAT, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S A REASONABLE FIT. BECAUSE, AS I ASKED MR. ECHEVERRIA OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, WHEN IS IT NOT A REASONABLE FIT? HOW DO WE MAKE THAT DECISION? AND MY QUESTION IS: ARE WE NOT THERE? LOOK AT ALL OF THE LAWS, ALL OF THE REGULATIONS. I'VE LOOKED AT ALL THIS EVIDENCE, AND FRANKLY, WITH ALL OF THE GUN LAWS THAT WE HAVE, AND WE HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY, HAVE WE REALLY DONE ANYTHING AT ALL TO SOLVE THE GUN VIOLENCE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES? AND THE ANSWER IS NO. NO. WE JUST KEEP WHITTLING AWAY AT THE SECOND AMENDMENT, KEEP WHITTLING AWAY, WHITTLING AWAY UNTIL EVENTUALLY WE'LL GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'LL BE WHERE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO OWN ONE GUN WITH ONE ROUND OF AMMUNITION BECAUSE ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND THAT WILL BE A REASONABLE FIT." This is word for word I have been telling many gun control advocates for many years. You can save more lives by suspending fourth and fifth. Saving few lives is not a good enough reason. How some people, or politicians, or judges can argue against that with a straight face is beyond me. |
#799
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If i have read your post wrong,you need to word your posts better...
__________________
'There is no theory of evolution, just a list of creatures Chuck Norris allows to live.' 'I have so many good karma points I am approaching Saint Hood' "They tell you of a laundry detergent that takes out bloodstains- I'm thinking that if you have clothes covered in bloodstains-maybe laundry isn't your biggest problem" [SIGPIC]http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic27069_2.gif[/SIGPIC] |
#800
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|