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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #761  
Old 05-22-2018, 2:54 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,887
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

That is spectacular! For some reason I don't remember hearing any that when I watched the arguments live, it's good to read the transcript for a refresher. It's full of good stuff!
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 05-22-2018, 3:13 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 951
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
That entire transcript was amazing. I cannot wait for a recording.

THE COURT: THEY USUALLY COME IN WITH MANY WEAPONS.
AND SO NOW THE ARGUMENT IS GOING TO COME AND THE STATE IS GOING
TO COME IN AND THE STATE IS GOING TO SAY, LOOK, JUDGE, WE NEED
TO PASS A LAW, AND THE LAW IS YOU CAN'T OWN MORE THAN -- PICK A
NUMBER -- 10 GUNS BECAUSE IF YOU GOT MORE THAN 10 GUNS, THE
CHANCES ARE YOU'RE GOING TO KILL AND INJURE MORE PEOPLE,
ASSAULT MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND SO ON. WE'RE GOING
TO GET DOWN, DOING THE SAME PROGRESSION, UNTIL WE'RE AT THE
POINT WHERE YOU HAVE MAYBE ONE GUN WITH ONE ROUND, AND YOU
BETTER HOPE TO HECK THAT WHOEVER IS BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE TO
RAPE YOUR WIFE OR RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER THAT YOU CAN HIT HIM OR
HER WITH THAT ONE ROUND AND HIT HIM CENTER MASS.
there is no recordings for trial court which is why 112 dollars was spent for the transcript
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 05-22-2018, 3:14 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 951
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
That is spectacular! For some reason I don't remember hearing any that when I watched the arguments live, it's good to read the transcript for a refresher. It's full of good stuff!
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.
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 05-22-2018, 3:19 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,887
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
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.
Oh, thank you, that explains why a lot of it seemed unfamiliar
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 05-22-2018, 5:48 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wondered when we'd get a Judge who would link Caetano, Heller, Miller, and McDonald together...

That transcript is quite the entertaining read.
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 05-22-2018, 5:53 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 233
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 05-22-2018, 6:19 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 05-22-2018, 6:27 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I also have some questions:

1) If this Judge issued the initial PI why was he back on the case?
2) Did CA provide the proper answer to the proper scrutiny especially with Fyoc?
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 05-23-2018, 6:11 AM
Bunyfofu69 Bunyfofu69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 135
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
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.
I'd like to know what statistics your referring to. Or does it come from your experience watching the news and conversations with others?

"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
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 05-23-2018, 8:36 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 233
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
I'd like to know what statistics your referring to. Or does it come from your experience watching the news and conversations with others?

"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
Which are all reasons to have larger magazines while on duty but I have yet to see a reason why off duty or even retired officers need more defense than other civilians.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 05-23-2018, 9:00 AM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
I'd like to know what statistics your referring to. Or does it come from your experience watching the news and conversations with others?

"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
Poor word choice on my part perhaps. I'm not finding it at the moment, but there was an FBI study that touched on round counts anecdotally.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 05-23-2018, 9:21 AM
Bunyfofu69 Bunyfofu69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 135
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
Poor word choice on my part perhaps. I'm not finding it at the moment, but there was an FBI study that touched on round counts anecdotally.

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.
Again, using your argument under 1 specific scenario. There are other functions, units and authorities that are beyond the scope of your patrol officer responding to a service call.

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
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 05-23-2018, 11:59 AM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:06 PM
twidget1995 twidget1995 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: San Diego
Posts: 168
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default I think you're missing the point

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
Again, using your argument under 1 specific scenario. There are other functions, units and authorities that are beyond the scope of your patrol officer responding to a service call.

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.
The point isn't that the police should have lower capacity magazines it's that the public should have the same capacity magazines as police.

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?
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:09 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 174
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Bunyfofu69... nicky c agreeing with you. You are reading his posts incorrectly.
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:15 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 275
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:20 PM
Bunyfofu69 Bunyfofu69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 135
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
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.
Perhaps you should read my post again, and the one before. I am all for law abiding citizens possessing SCMs.

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
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:24 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 595
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunyfofu69 View Post
Perhaps you should read my post again, and the one before. I am all for law abiding citizens possessing SCMs.

But the argument put forth "I can't have it, so no one should either", I have a problem with.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 05-23-2018, 12:31 PM
Bunyfofu69 Bunyfofu69 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 135
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 05-23-2018, 5:37 PM
malfunction's Avatar
malfunction malfunction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: low crawling towards the state line...
Posts: 356
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
there is no recordings for trial court which is why 112 dollars was spent for the transcript
Thanks so much for posting that wolfwood, it was 123 pages of pure joy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
What we have in practice is a legal system, not a justice system.
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 10:08 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.