|
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 |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
OK good. The more argument time, the better. I'd like to see how CO's scheme is defended. IMO, it's easier to defend "good cause" than it is to defend a system that doesn't allow carry in Denver because they happen to live in a non-reciprocal state.
I was curious about something on this case. CO/Denver says a visitor can possess/carry a firearm in someone else's home or hotel room. The CO statute is somewhat vague on this. Is this just the AG's opinion, or is there actual CO caselaw on this? |
#202
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think it is BS that Brady gets 50% of the time, three Amici, split the time in thirds. Also, why would they give them more time, and let them go last? |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
I'm pretty much guessing that if there were not an agreement on the time split that the judge would mandate that the time be split 50/50 between both sides anyway.
|
#204
|
||||
|
||||
They get half time because half of the time goes to amici supporting the appellant and half goes to the amici supporting appelee.
Joint procedural motions are common as, in most cases, the parties try to cooperate on logistical and procedural issues. It's kind of bad form to do otherwise. |
#205
|
||||
|
||||
Does anyone have a link to the Brady Campaign Amicus for this case? I found an article on their site about it, but no actual pdf.
Excerpt from the article from a while back: Quote:
Of course its disingenuous at best to say that's what is being claimed in the case. The only requirement not met is residency. Is that really going to be the crux of their argument?
__________________
Quote:
|
#206
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
“This lawsuit is the gun lobby’s latest effort to weaken the ability of the people, their elected representatives, and law enforcement to keep guns from their streets. But the courts have wisely rejected the gun lobby argument that the Second Amendment mandates their agenda of any gun, for anybody, anywhere,” said Dennis Henigan, Acting President of the Brady Center. "The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that common sense gun laws, such as reasonable restrictions on carrying loaded, hidden firearms in public, are allowed by the Second Amendment." Funny how that A) I'm the sole plaintiff, SAF, CGF, and NRA are not co-plaintiffs and B) they make hay out of "hidden guns" when I'm asking for the general right to carry. Considering I'm consenting to being background checked, fingerprinted, and being required training by Colorado law, not sure what they mean by "any gun, for anybody, anywhere". Can't be a felon, DV misdemeanant, found incompetent by a judge, be less than 18, etc.... Simply flat out, they lie. You're surprised by this? |
#207
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#208
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I suppose it was a bit silly of me to think that there might be another aspect to their argument. Even Denver couldn't come up with one.
__________________
Quote:
|
#209
|
||||
|
||||
I've added the Brady Amicus to my archive - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pet...2011-07-18.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
|
#210
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks Gene!
Of course, the usual. "Keep and Bear" means in the home. Vocabulary never has been their strong suit.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Connor P Price; 01-29-2012 at 2:06 PM.. |
#211
|
||||
|
||||
"There is no constitutional requirement that the public, when walking to school, driving to work, or going about daily life, subject itself to the risks of unregulated gun carrying. And there never has been."
Unregulated, eh? |
#212
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#213
|
||||
|
||||
I love reading their briefs. It's fun to go through and pick apart.
__________________
Quote:
|
#214
|
||||
|
||||
They're going to sail that 'in the home' chant 'round and 'round as the ship sinks.
__________________
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. |
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Honestly, I don't think we should impugn their intelligence. I mean, how would you argue their position?
When you have a legal position which is ultimately not constitutionally viable and you are hired to advocate for that position, you are going to have to make arguments which do not appear to be tenable in the long run. And then again, at this time they still win in the lower courts, so maybe the arguments aren't as bad as I typically find them to be. |
#216
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
When it comes to the Brady Bunch I feel no need to hold back my opinion of them as fools. They submit their amicus briefs not because they have any obligation to defend the laws but because they want to. They make themselves look dumb all on their own, they didn't get stuck there by the government. Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Connor P Price; 01-29-2012 at 4:42 PM.. |
#217
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Their client (Brady’s) wants a brief submitted so they do their best to earn their fee….
__________________
|
#218
|
|||
|
|||
It continues to amaze me how the Brady bunch continue to twist the language of the SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald to their own world view. In their world "most notable in the home" means "only in the home". And they refuse to recognize that the court answered a narrow question in Heller regarding gun permits in the home because that was the topic and scope of the specific regulation being argued, not that SCOTUS specifically stated that was the true limit of the scope of the 2nd amendment right. But surprised? No. They aren't dumb, just disingenuous and willing to use any subtrafuge because they know what the court actually ruled (favorable to the 2nd ammendment as a fundamental enumerated right with all that entails) and they're hoping to yet prevail despite that 'setback' through misdirection and obfuscation in the lower courts with the hope they are able to build sufficient case 'precedent' thru sympathetic circuit judges before the question of what bare outside the home represents will be ultimately reviewed by SCOTUS.
|
#220
|
||||
|
||||
They never did in Heller/McDonald either. Hunting doesn't tend to happen in the home.
|
#221
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And I'd not have much disagreement with what Connor P Price said as well. But I think that many of the Brady/LCAV type truly believe that they are doing a great service to mankind. The fact that my opinions are pretty close to diametrically opposed to theirs doesn't necessarily mean that I think them stupid. One of the brightest people I know believes in the "Living Constitution". Now I know that there are variations of that which might be livable, but that's not what he believes in. He is still brilliant, just wrong. But then, I had great respect for Osama Bin Ladin as well. Smart and capable with scruples. But if you'd given me a shot at him I'd have taken it. You don't have to hate or belittle your opponent. You have to defeat them in the manner which also yields a recognizable victory for yourself. |
#222
|
||||
|
||||
"But then, I had great respect for Osama Bin Ladin as well. Smart and capable with scruples. [REALLY????] But if you'd given me a shot at him I'd have taken it."
"You don't have to hate or belittle your opponent. You have to defeat them in the manner which also yields a recognizable victory for yourself." Maybe, but given the dire state of events at this point in time, I feel better about the "Conan the Barbarian" definition: To defeat our opponents, to drive them before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Okay, Okay - maybe not quite to that level. But usually you gotta land at least one really good punch on the person getting their arse kicked so that they will realize it and give up. Then, because these people do lack basic scruples, you have to remain eternally vigilant. I bet a lot of Californians thought they had set the proper tone after they defeated Prop 15 (CA handgun ban) back in the day. The other side got smart and decided to take small (and sometimes big, like the AWB), insidious bites at the gun control apple - hoping the frog in the pot wouldn't realize the water was becoming toxic to life/freedom. |
#223
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Punch. Punch. Punch. Though I don't disagree with your overall point, the best strategy is to figure out what the smartest on the other side would be doing and search for those actors. Amusingly, those are hard to find and the "smartest on the other side" are increasingly sounding like us as they abandon the zealots who wish to undermine the bill of rights... -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
|
#224
|
|||
|
|||
I see the Bradys are citing cases like State v. Fife which were upholding carry bans on pistols at a time when cheaper, smaller, concealable pistols were considered gangster/choice of minority weapons. These cases were probably also cited to defend the DC/Chicago handgun bans. So again, they're strategy is to try and re-argue Heller all over again.
There's also that 1876 WY carry law, which to my knowledge never even was challenged in court and was obviously overturned by the legislature at some point. It seems to be of little value since you could pass any law and it'll stand if no one challenges it. And, like the folks above mentioned, it's all about concealed carry, which it's not. The Bradys don't seem to grasp the concept that if Gray were simply a FL resident, he could carry evil, hidden guns in public! |
#225
|
||||
|
||||
Just booked my flight hotel and rental car. See you guys there.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
|
#227
|
||||
|
||||
CA10 Panel approves request to enlarge argument time.
[9940638] Order filed by the Clerk at the direction of the Court - Granting Amicus motion to enlarge time for argument. Amici will have ten minutes Per Side to argue; (20 minutes total) at argumens set for March 19, 2012 in Denver, Colorado. Served on 02/07/2012. |
#228
|
||||
|
||||
Excellent news.
-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
|
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#233
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-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
|
#234
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The court will have made up its mind long before oral argument comes around. Use oral argument as a means to remind the court of the implications of its decision, rather than thinking it's an opportunity for you to win the case on its merits. Keep the questions at issue narrow, though it seems a bit late in the day for that. When a judge opens his mouth with some attack disguised as a question, ask the judge, simply and bluntly: "Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" And shut up. This is the case. To hell with all that other stuff you pleaded. Every new question from the bench should be met with some slight variation of: "Well, your Honor, this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" When pressed further, ask the judge: "Does a resident of Washington have the right to carry his Bible with him when he visits Colorado?" Don't do things your way. Do things my way, and you'll awaken that court to just what is at stake. If you want a win, you'll need to understand what oral argument really is, and you'll need to stiffen your backbone. Every attempt by the bench to divert the oral argument to some collateral point should be met with a restatement of the issue. "Yes, your Honor, I can see the implications of that case/issue/doctrine, but this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" If you want to win, you'll need to up the ante. Loudly picket the courthouse steps. You'll need at least 100 protesters with pickets. These are easy and relatively cheap to make. The same guys who make campaign signs can whip these up for you and give you the wooden stakes. Mine the Colorado gun forums for volunteers. Here's the slogan: All Citizens All Rights All States If you're good or just aggressive, slyly incorporate the protesters into your oral argument. "Well, your Honor, it's like what those demonstrators in front of the courthouse are chanting: "All Citizens, All Rights, All States." Do we still believe that in America, or not?" Then, immediately say: "Remember, your Honor, this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" This is how you win, Gene. P.S. I'd be very tempted to embarrass the court. I'd find one of their rulings on an issue not mentioned in the Constitution but for which they nevertheless found a full constitutional right. I'd be tempted to hit them with this argument: "Your Honor, remember, this very court has an expansive view of rights. In Mussolini v. Hitler, this court found that Mussolini had a full constitutional right to do x, though x is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, or the writings of either Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Paine. If the court can find a full right to do something nowhere contemplated by the drafters of the Constitution, certainly, a fuller respect must be extended to an issue which was near and dear to their hearts and upon which they regularly spoke and wrote so earnestly, clearly and reverently." Last edited by goldrush; 02-10-2012 at 5:45 AM.. |
#235
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Also, can you give situations where this exact method works? Have you yourself argued cases in front of a court, where this exact method succeeded for you? You speak with such authority on the matter and you supposedly know how this works. Before we should consider go down your path, the question should be asked: How do you know this works, and what is your professional credentials as a litigator which speaks to your assertion of authority on matters such as these, that this method works? If you're not willing to back it up with names, case cites, and actual situations which can be verified, how do I know that you don't have some form of ulterior motive? |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As for probabilities, back at ya. All other gun cases are being tried your way, and they're all losing. If you know one thing, thus far, you know what doesn't work. |
#237
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Alas, your directing your comment to Gene, who isn't counsel in any case. What makes you think Gene can put your "plan" into motion? Quote:
Gura has won two SCOTUS decisions, after both lost in district. You're just "goldrush". Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-10-2012 at 6:53 AM.. |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
I'm really confused as to where you are going with things at this time:
1. Gene is certainly not going to be arguing any part of the case. That would seem to be clear in so many ways. 2. It's Gray's case. If anyone is going to be giving direction to the attorney in the case, it would be Gray. 3. If it is directed at the amici oral arguers? I'm pretty sure one is Gura - and I think he has a pretty good handle on things. I'm not sure who the other pro-RKBA amici oral attorney is, but I'm pretty sure neither Gene nor Gray are going to be able to tell them how to handle it - and I'm guessing that they are also qualified before SCOTUS so they probably understand how to handle an appellate court? Perhaps you could clue me in a bit further on where you are going with this one? It probably makes sense, but I can't make sense of it. One other thing. I'm pretty sure that arranging for picketers outside the court and then trying to use them to buttress an argument would be considered something of an insult to the court. I happily proclaim I'm not an attorney, but I'm having trouble seeing how that would be looked upon favorably by the court in such a case. Last edited by OleCuss; 02-10-2012 at 6:56 AM.. |
#239
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-10-2012 at 7:01 AM.. |
#240
|
||||
|
||||
If anything, GoldRush, the self-diagnosed genius, is always entertaining.
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|