|
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 |
#281
|
||||
|
||||
On a side note - we did ask for them to give us an open carry permit.
The standard is greater than a concealed permit. I would have to justify an exceptional case (for a permit), and then demonstrate an urgency and need for them to give a open carry exemption.
__________________
Lawyer, but not your lawyer. Posts aren't legal advice. |
#282
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Of course there are going to be some people who just don't care. But such people are not a concern for businesses as regards this issue. Quote:
This is why the timing is the most critical part of the issue. If the signs go up quickly enough, as one should expect with the state and local governments "helping" that process along, then the burden falls upon those who are put off by "no guns" signs to somehow convince the businesses in question that their decision really is bad for their business. But that is something the businesses in question can discover for themselves easily enough, because they know how well they were doing prior to carry becoming a right, so they have a baseline to work from. There are lessons to be learned from the civil rights movement experience that bear on this. It took anti-discrimination legislation to force businesses to allow colored people to shop there before those businesses relented. Prior to that, market forces alone were insufficient to deal with the issue, precisely because it was a matter of comfort for both the business owners and their clientele. Why should we expect the situation with public carry to be any different? Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, transforming those people into "don't care" types isn't really sufficient to upset the balance -- they'll give business to the "no guns" locations regardless. They have to be converted into pro-rights people, i.e. people who will actively refuse to enter "no guns" locations. The mechanism you describe here isn't enough to achieve that. You raise an interesting possibility here, but I have trouble seeing how it will prove to be a major determining factor in the outcome.
__________________
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; 01-02-2014 at 9:03 PM.. |
#283
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...xt%7CFRONTPAGE
__________________
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 |
#284
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Having looked at the arguments of kcbrown & OleCuss, all I have to add is that even here in the PRK, we still had Starbucks. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#285
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But in any case, like I said, you should not ignore the very real effects of malevolent meddling on the part of state and local government. What could they do to destroy the right in the face of a declaration by the courts that open carry in public is a right? Many things. For instance, they could pass a law making it a crime to step onto someone else's private property with a gun unless the property owner had a sign allowing guns onto their property (or some other express permission on the part of said owner), thus turning OleCuss's political statement argument on its ear. They might even create a stratified law with one penalty for violating the above and a harsher penalty for violating a "no guns" sign. Even if the former such law were eventually ruled Unconstitutional by the courts, that will take so much time that the damage will be long done by the time the final ruling is handed down. There is essentially no chance that a "no guns" sign law will be struck down by the courts, most especially by the time the case challenging the law gets to the Supreme Court. By that time, at least one of the Heller 5 will be long retired, replaced by a rabid anti-liberty justice. These are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. I have no doubt that the enemy is capable of thinking of many more (in addition to the above), because I do not presume stupidity on the part of the enemy. And each one will have to be contested in the courts. It will be decades by the time it's all over with, and it only takes one victory on their part to destroy the right in its tracks. We have to win everything in order to win at all. My reasons for being pessimistic (but not overly so, hence you should not mistake my pessimism for lack of realism) are very real and very valid. The long term probabilities are very much against us, particularly with the demographic trends that are now in place.
__________________
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; 01-04-2014 at 1:45 PM.. |
#286
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I don't dispute the danger. I do dispute that all is lost. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 |
#287
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I contend that the probability of victory is very low at this point, but that does not relieve us of our obligation to fight until the bitter end.
__________________
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. |
#288
|
||||
|
||||
|
#289
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#291
|
|||
|
|||
|
#292
|
||||
|
||||
Congratulations, but you know it's really not over yet. Keep prevailing.
__________________
I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong... NRA Certified: Chief Range Safety Officer Instructor: Basic Pistol Shooting Instructor: Personal Protection Inside the Home |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Congratulations! When are “the right people” going to offer their congratulations?
__________________
|
#295
|
||||
|
||||
Where’s the op?
One serving of crow, and it’s getting cold. Would you call him “qualified” now, Clarence Darrow? What are YOUR qualifications to bloviate from the sidelines? Sound off like you got a pair.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#296
|
|||
|
|||
Nichols is unqualified (as am I, I'm not an attorney). Young got a "dream panel" and won, and Nichols was backed up behind Young. Nichols case is far from over, in fact Young is also not over. There are opportunities for a clown like Nichols to find a way to foreclose our right to bear arms here forever and I'm sure he's looking for such a way. He tells himself he's not but the goal of such people is to lose heroically and get attention, not to win.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#297
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Do you have anything to back this up?
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Yes basically. I don't consider his rambling briefs to be "work". And he just happened to be behind Young and Young just happened to get the dream panel of the 9th.
Yes. If he wanted to actually win he would have an attorney write his briefs. Think about it. If I had cancer, and I wanted to be cured, I would go to a top oncologist. If I wanted to get attention and sympathy by dying from cancer, I would go to some clown without a medical license. Yes read his insane briefs. They are incoherent, rambling, devoting pages (including photos!) to the Black Panthers in the 60s.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. Last edited by CCWFacts; 07-25-2018 at 10:42 AM.. |
#299
|
||||
|
||||
Definitely a Congrats is in order!
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion. NRA Patron Member CRPA 5 yr Member "...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The OP, in this case was abosolutely biased and did not have the intellect or reasoned ability to make the above claim. It’s actually sad how those wanting 2A equality seem to eat their own for profit, fame and personal gain. |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The big orgs are no different. They feel they know best are blinded by their hubris when in fact their failings have stacked higher than their egos. Wolfwood did an excellent job and was derided every step of the way by both the big orgs and the whiney little b####es here simply because you/they thought knew better and didn't like the fact that open carry is the right. One could even start to wonder if the big orgs even want to really win because then they would be obsolete. So many here need to eat their helping of crow with side of a bag of d##ks. Like him or not... Nichols is right. Period! And no matter how much the little armchair Perry Masons on here try to intellect joust otherwise, They Are Wrong. And as a side note...i survived cancer 22 years now because of a rogue. Great Job Wolfwood!. I pray Your work and house is blessed immensely. Spooky |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#303
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member 1A-2A = -1A |
#304
|
||||
|
||||
who knows, he hasn't logged in since 2017.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#305
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Rest in Peace - Andrew Breitbart. A true student of Alinsky. 90% of winning is simply showing up. "Let's not lose sight of how much we reduced our carbon footprint by telecommuting this protest." 383green NRA Benefactor Member |
#306
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
OUT-FRAKKING-STANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Soon, we will all be eating lamb in Paradise. The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom" WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85 Last edited by Mulay El Raisuli; 08-12-2018 at 4:15 PM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|