|
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 |
#121
|
||||
|
||||
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
|
#122
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-18-2011 at 10:50 PM.. |
#123
|
||||
|
||||
Gray: What would the time frame be?
If you win the 10th Circuit, how likely is that to affect the 9th? Would we be waiting for a split or would they cave?
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG. Buy or sell a home. Property management including vacation rentals. We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG. Serving the greater San Diego area. Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640 CA Broker |
#124
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I know you're addressing Gray here, just throwing in my two cents, which of course is worth what you paid for it.
__________________
Quote:
|
#125
|
||||
|
||||
If the panel reschedules oral argument on a "regular calendar", it would be the week of March 19th. That would be the latest I believe they would schedule it. They might, however, call for a Special Term sooner. Funnily enough, this is the same week Nordyke is scheduled to be reheard en banc.
Next time around, I believe the court will be much better prepared and be able to properly understand the case in a way it wasn't before. It does speak to their good sense of fairness that they rescheduled when they basically took up my counsel's time solely asking questions about jurisdictional issues rather than the underlying case of second amendment, right to travel/p&i issues, and equal protection. It speaks to their willingness to get to the facts of the matter. Quote:
I do not believe, however, that it would be appropriate for me to read tea-leaves in carry cases any further. Everyone reads these forums, even Supreme Court justices and circuit judges. Though some on this forum may continually whine about the 9th Circuit in general, say that they "cannot get the ruling right", and already throwing in the towel of defeat for Richards, I cannot say the same. In fact, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to do so from here on out. |
#126
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#127
|
||||
|
||||
Certainly not, and I could very well be wrong. If a similar case is necessary outside of the 10th I'll be very interested to see who the defendant would be. I think that would be a more likely indicator of how things would progress than just knowing its bound for the 9th.
__________________
Quote:
|
#128
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#129
|
||||
|
||||
My point exactly, I imagine different counties would have different levels of interest in pursuing the matter.
__________________
Quote:
|
#130
|
||||
|
||||
I cannot comment here on potential future litigation angles. :sly:
|
#131
|
||||
|
||||
Filing against California sheriff.
You could go two ways:
1. Find a sheriff that won't put up a "real fight" for numerous reasons. 2. Find a sheriff who will fight tooth and nail even though their own policies and issuance of CCWs is questionable. Maybe we can find a sheriff who the press has already outed with questionable policies. Could you imagine if we found a no issue sheriff that was issuing to crony friends no matter where they really are and if those cronies were "high profile" people. Maybe we do a combo of 1 and 2 in different districts in the 9th, we could call this our "Smith and Jones" cases. Nicki |
#132
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#133
|
||||
|
||||
The ideal state to hit for nonresident carry is New York b/c of Bach v Pataki, the nonresident carry case our side was declared the loser ONLY and EXPLICITLY because SCOTUS hadn't then yet declared an individual 2A right.
|
#134
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It is currently in CA2 now. Mr. Osterweil did it pro-se in district, but NRA-ILA kicked in money and hired a lawyer out of New Jersey named Daniel Schmutter, who is also doing the one gun a month litigation in Jersey for the ARPCNJ (the state org for the NRA there) to represent him. With the recent news of Richards and Peruta being stayed by Nordyke en banc, and the fact that CA2 tends to be VERY slow with appeals (12-18 months is my understanding), it appears that Peterson will be the first carry case considered on the merits.... |
#135
|
||||
|
||||
Go get 'em Gray.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG. Buy or sell a home. Property management including vacation rentals. We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG. Serving the greater San Diego area. Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640 CA Broker |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
There was also an element of Bach that appeared in Gray's loss at the district court. It was because the state was claiming it couldn't adequately "monitor" any disqualifying actions by the permit holder when in another state, so it was OK to deny to OOS residents.
|
#137
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Erik. Last edited by Window_Seat; 11-14-2013 at 10:25 PM.. |
#138
|
||||
|
||||
Well, if Peruta & Richards are calendared in March also it should be a very interesting month...
__________________
|
#139
|
||||
|
||||
Amicus arguing is extremely rare. We're seeking clarification & will update once we find out which amicus they are talking about.
|
#140
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Who does John Monroe represent?
__________________
|
#141
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
And Amici is a different counsel from a different organization, unless it's Amici of the organization that is funding the case? Could that even be possible? Erik. Last edited by Window_Seat; 12-29-2011 at 7:08 PM.. Reason: Linky no workie so I fixie. |
#142
|
||||
|
||||
Georgia carry.org was not an amicus party to the case. CO recognizes GA licenses so there was no conflict for GCO to get in the middle of. This was by design.
|
#144
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
No, I do not believe this to be the case. If I commented as to why, I would be giving away argument strategy. You'll just have to trust me on this one. |
#148
|
||||
|
||||
Correct, he probably meant Nordyke, which is scheduled the same week...
Hoo boy, I might be burning some vacation days for you guys. |
#150
|
||||
|
||||
Very much looking forward to seeing how this develops.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
|
#151
|
||||
|
||||
Absent more data, Amicus counsel will mean 1 from Brady, 1 from SAF/CGF, and 1 from NRA-CDF.
I expect SAF/CGF counsel to be Alan Gura, but it's early and everyone is gently confused by the court's order. What we can say is that this is unusual and means the court is taking the case very seriously which makes me cautiously optimistic. I will be amused if this case, which CGF is covering the costs of and helped pull together, ends up being the first one up as it isn't directly in California but is part of the California permit strategy. -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
|
#152
|
||||
|
||||
Arguments from all 3 amici would make this a very interesting day in court. Time to start shopping for airline tickets.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
|
#153
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#155
|
|||
|
|||
There is an elite club inside the elite club. ;-)
Kind of like Merry Pranksters. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#156
|
||||
|
||||
First rule of Merry Pranksters is, you don't talk about Merry Pranksters.
|
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It is scented with patchouli. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#158
|
||||
|
||||
That's well within the scope of possibilities. However, if Peterson wins in the 10th circuit I would not be surprised if CO chose not to petition SCOTUS.
|
#159
|
||||
|
||||
Colorado isn't the only party to the case. The other party may have given up their right to argue in front of the panel, they haven't lost their ability to file motions and petitions...
Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-30-2011 at 7:27 AM.. |
#160
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Erik. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|