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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #641  
Old 02-25-2013, 10:07 PM
Tarn_Helm's Avatar
Tarn_Helm Tarn_Helm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Always watch your step . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
This was the exact political calculus that lead to DC v. Heller.

-Gene
(Emphasis above added by me.)

led


Get it right.

Like this:



Vopnum snum
skal-a maur velli
feti ganga framar,
v a vst er a vita,
nr verur vegum ti
geirs um rf guma.
__________________
"The Religion of Peace": Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
". . . all [historical] experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
[of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."
Decl. of Indep., July 4, 1776

NRA Benefactor/Life Member; Lifer: CRPA, GOA, SAF & JPFO


Reply With Quote
  #642  
Old 02-25-2013, 10:38 PM
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarn_Helm View Post
(Emphasis above added by me.)

led


Get it right.
Quite so and I stand corrected.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #643  
Old 02-26-2013, 12:11 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Quite so and I stand corrected.

-Gene
An understandable mistake, considering what we like to send downrange.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #644  
Old 02-26-2013, 7:20 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,594
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
I understand that she is considering running against Gov. Quinn, the issue comes down to this, is a loss at the US Supreme court hurtful to her career.

A win would obviously be better, but to go down fighting especially if the legislature and Gov Quinn don't get a "court acceptable" bill passed by June would mean that she alone could claim to be the defender of "sane gun laws".

What do you guys think, should we call her office and plead with her to go to the SCOTUS.

Perhaps some folks in Chicago can chirp in.

Nicki

Please, PLEASE don't throw me into that briar patch!


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #645  
Old 03-02-2013, 2:26 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 697
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris View Post
According to FRAP 41, the court must issue the mandate within 7 days of the notice of the denial of rehearing. The losing side may petition for a stay of mandate by certifying that they will file a petition for cert. This also must be done within 7 days of the denial.

What this means is that if Madigan does not petition the court for the stay of mandate, then it is indicative that she will not be appealing to the SCOTUS. We will know by Thursday of next week.
Does anybody have an update here, really curious if Madigan will file for cert and the Thursday reference was for February 28th.
Reply With Quote
  #646  
Old 03-03-2013, 12:05 PM
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,485
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baja Daze View Post
Does anybody have an update here, really curious if Madigan will file for cert and the Thursday reference was for February 28th.
Mrs. Madigan has 90 days to file for cert from the denial of en-banc.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn 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
Reply With Quote
  #647  
Old 03-16-2013, 11:12 PM
Ryan_D's Avatar
Ryan_D Ryan_D is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Atwater
Posts: 195
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Anyone see this? Governor Quinn has publicly said he wants her to file cert: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ntcmp=obinsite
__________________
Smith & Wesson M&P Shield .40 S&W -- Ruger LC9 -- Spikes Tactical ST-15 16" .223/5.56 NATO -- Ruger American 30-06 -- Taurus Raging Bull 6.5" .44 Magnum
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."-George Orwell
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think."-Milton Berle
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."-Mark Twain
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."-Lord Acton
Reply With Quote
  #648  
Old 03-17-2013, 4:37 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Mrs. Madigan has 90 days to file for cert from the denial of en-banc.

-Gene
As I understand it though, her opportunity for asking for a stay from the 7th pending certiorari has passed?
Reply With Quote
  #649  
Old 03-17-2013, 9:45 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,641
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_D View Post
Anyone see this? Governor Quinn has publicly said he wants her to file cert: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ntcmp=obinsite
My feeling is this is a political chess move. She wants to run for governor. If she doesn't file for cert, her opponents will attack her for not doing everything possible to stop "gun violence". If she does file she will be helping the NRA by making it more likely for SCOTUS to grant cert.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #650  
Old 03-31-2013, 9:27 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,334
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default CA7 Ruling To Be Ignored By Illinois Courts

And it looks like the Illinois legislature can let the deadline come and go and the the cities and state can get away with continuing to arrest, convict, and imprison anyone carrying a weapon in violation of the state's 'aggravated unlawful use of a weapon law' (a catch all gun law) and there is nothing that CA7 can do about it. A state court has declared under People v. Stansberry that Moore v. Madigan is non binding on Illinois courts and CA7 can pound sand until the SCOTUS rules on the subject of carry. There is a TFL thread discussing this starting at post 456 of this thread. It looks like Illinois no longer has any reason to appeal to SCOTUS.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...ct/1110793.pdf
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #651  
Old 03-31-2013, 10:34 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
And it looks like the Illinois legislature can let the deadline come and go and the the cities and state can get away with continuing to arrest, convict, and imprison anyone carrying a weapon in violation of the state's 'aggravated unlawful use of a weapon law' (a catch all gun law) and there is nothing that CA7 can do about it. A state court has declared under People v. Stansberry that Moore v. Madigan is non binding on Illinois courts and CA7 can pound sand until the SCOTUS rules on the subject of carry. There is a TFL thread discussing this starting at post 456 of this thread. It looks like Illinois no longer has any reason to appeal to SCOTUS.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...ct/1110793.pdf
Yep.

This means, of course, that circuit court rulings striking down state laws don't mean a damned thing. So I was essentially right, though not for reasons I thought: every single case we bring is going to have to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court before it has an effect. Only cases such as Richards, which (presumably) involve an injunction against government officials commanding them to perform their duties in a certain way, are a possible exception to that. But that presumes a specific form of relief. Obviously, simply declaring the law null and void under the United States Constitution isn't enough. In fact, based on this, it isn't anything at all.

I hope the Supreme Court realizes this, because if it doesn't, it may deny cert in the face of an appeal by the state, perhaps thinking that in doing so, the circuit court's ruling against the law will remain intact, when the reality is that such a ruling on the part of the circuit has no real teeth at all, and may as well not exist for all the good it does.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:07 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As I explained to a poster here.

There's no involvement of the state judiciary when the executive cannot charge or arrest. If it makes it to the state judiciary for some reason, a federal habeas petition can be filed to order the jailor to release the prisoner who was arrested in violation of federally protected civil rights.
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:12 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,334
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Yep.

This means, of course, that circuit court rulings striking down state laws don't mean a damned thing. So I was essentially right, though not for reasons I thought: every single case we bring is going to have to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court before it has an effect. Only cases such as Richards, which (presumably) involve an injunction against government officials commanding them to perform their duties in a certain way, are a possible exception to that. But that presumes a specific form of relief. Obviously, simply declaring the law null and void under the United States Constitution isn't enough. In fact, based on this, it isn't anything at all.

I hope the Supreme Court realizes this, because if it doesn't, it may deny cert in the face of an appeal by the state, perhaps thinking that in doing so, the circuit court's ruling against the law will remain intact, when the reality is that such a ruling on the part of the circuit has no real teeth at all, and may as well not exist for all the good it does.
I'm sure Gura will notify them of the ruling. (edited by me after reading Gray's post) I get the feeling that Gura has very little confidence that they're prepared to slap down the rebellion and without a strict scrutiny ruling in 2014 and with our commie legislature running wild that California will very soon become nearly unlivable for gun owners.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 03-31-2013 at 11:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:18 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,223
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Constitutional Crisis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Yep.

This means, of course, that circuit court rulings striking down state laws don't mean a damned thing. So I was essentially right, though not for reasons I thought: every single case we bring is going to have to be taken all the way to the Supreme Court before it has an effect. Only cases such as Richards, which (presumably) involve an injunction against government officials commanding them to perform their duties in a certain way, are a possible exception to that. But that presumes a specific form of relief. Obviously, simply declaring the law null and void under the United States Constitution isn't enough. In fact, based on this, it isn't anything at all.

I hope the Supreme Court realizes this, because if it doesn't, it may deny cert in the face of an appeal by the state, perhaps thinking that in doing so, the circuit court's ruling against the law will remain intact, when the reality is that such a ruling on the part of the circuit has no real teeth at all, and may as well not exist for all the good it does.
This action by IL. is something that jeopardizes all civil rights and is a direct challenge to the authority of the Federal Courts.

I must say they certainly are "arrogant", but I guess if we look in the past, certain states probably fought civil rights post 1964 also.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:19 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,334
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
As I explained to a poster here.

There's no involvement of the state judiciary when the executive cannot charge or arrest. If it makes it to the state judiciary for some reason, a federal habeas petition can be filed to order the jailor to release the prisoner who was arrested in violation of federally protected civil rights.
That's going to lead to a very busy federal court because Chicago will more than likely just keep making arrests and Illinois courts will keep convicting and citizens will keep paying attorneys fees to get out and unless state and local officials are sent to jail nothing is likely to change.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 03-31-2013, 11:43 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
That's going to lead to a very busy federal court because Chicago will more than likely just keep making arrests and Illinois courts will keep convicting and citizens will keep paying attorneys fees to get out and unless state and local officials are sent to jail nothing is likely to change.
Exactly. It would be a quick way to bankrupt SAF and perhaps even NRA.

What would actually happen, of course, is that people in Chicago would simply stop carrying even though they have the "right" to do so. And the end result will be as if the courts have not ruled on anything at all.

Government officials will have to be arrested, tried, and convicted, and in sufficient numbers to make it clear that the federal judiciary means business, before people will be able to carry in Chicago as a matter of right.
__________________
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; 03-31-2013 at 11:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 04-01-2013, 12:12 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,818
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Exactly. It would be a quick way to bankrupt SAF and perhaps even NRA.
Nah.
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 04-01-2013, 12:36 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,223
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default RICO

Corruption is nothing new for the trolls from "Chicago". If the 7th circuit ruling is upheld and no state CCW law is passed, I find it very difficult for law enforcement officers to claim ignorance of the law.

It may be necessary to perform acts of "civil disobedience".

Of course these acts would need to be held off until after the SCOTUS has affirmatively ruled in no uncertain terms that the right to bear arms in non sensitive areas is a constitutional right.

Sadly we may have to wait till Fed 2017, hopefully we will have a new AG who will enforce all civil rights laws.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 04-01-2013, 1:25 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
Corruption is nothing new for the trolls from "Chicago". If the 7th circuit ruling is upheld and no state CCW law is passed, I find it very difficult for law enforcement officers to claim ignorance of the law.

It may be necessary to perform acts of "civil disobedience".

Of course these acts would need to be held off until after the SCOTUS has affirmatively ruled in no uncertain terms that the right to bear arms in non sensitive areas is a constitutional right.

Sadly we may have to wait till Fed 2017, hopefully we will have a new AG who will enforce all civil rights laws.
No way will the wait be that short, if we have to wait like that. The Republicans will not field a worthwhile candidate in the 2016 election because the Republicans are going to continue to self-destruct. Doing anything else will require people in high positions in the party to willingly give up their power, something that will never happen, because the people who need to give up power are the type of people who fervently believe in their own rightness.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 04-01-2013, 10:39 AM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,232
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
It would have been sufficient for the court to have said "he's a fellon, therefor he has no 2A rights" no?
Reply With Quote
  #661  
Old 04-01-2013, 3:52 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
It would have been sufficient for the court to have said "he's a fellon, therefor he has no 2A rights" no?
The IL machine is compelled to pee in everyone's cheerios at every opportunity.
Reply With Quote
  #662  
Old 04-01-2013, 4:28 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The Republicans will not field a worthwhile candidate in the 2016 election because the Republicans are going to continue to self-destruct.
Wouldn't matter if they did have a worthwhile candidate. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the media chooses the Republican candidate. Destroy the strong candidates to get the weakest one winning the nomination, then get to the business of destroying him post-nomination. It's a wonder any Republican can win the Presidency (and you may recall that, for decades, they didn't).

It doesn't help that the MSM brands the Republicans the party of evil out of touch rich people, while the party of even-richer-than-that people is aok. Being rich isn't evil or out of touch, if you're a Democrat.

Incidents like Benghazi and Fast & Furious would destroy a Republican administration, but are completely ignored by the media because a Democrat administration is in power.
Reply With Quote
  #663  
Old 04-01-2013, 4:31 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,334
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
It would have been sufficient for the court to have said "he's a fellon, therefor he has no 2A rights" no?
It would have but this was the judge telling CA7 to pound sand. There is speculation that this is what the State's Attorney was referring to when he told the legislature that they could safely ignore CA7. That they will continue to arrest, prosecute, and convict anyone found exercising their carry rights in Illinois. IANAL but Gray says federal courts can spring the victims, but still may take weeks or months to get a hearing and obtain a writ with all the 2nd Amendment foot dragging going on at the district court.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #664  
Old 04-01-2013, 5:46 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
It would have but this was the judge telling CA7 to pound sand. There is speculation that this is what the State's Attorney was referring to when he told the legislature that they could safely ignore CA7. That they will continue to arrest, prosecute, and convict anyone found exercising their carry rights in Illinois. IANAL but Gray says federal courts can spring the victims, but still may take weeks or months to get a hearing and obtain a writ with all the 2nd Amendment foot dragging going on at the district court.
Exactly. And because it'll take weeks to months to obtain such a writ on a per individual basis, during which the life of said person is essentially destroyed (they lose their job, almost certainly their future prospects for a job, and probably their family as well), it'll be years before the 7th Circuit gets annoyed enough with the goings on that they start ordering the arrest of LEOs and prosecutors.

Well before then, people will simply decide to not carry in public in those areas where such arrests and prosecutions occur regardless of the support they'll eventually get from the upper courts. End result: evil, in the form of the anti-civil-rights people, wins once again, as it usually does in the real world.

This is all entirely predictable, and I see absolutely nothing in the strategy designed to address it, possibly because there exists nothing that can short of a violent revolution.

Mark my words: it'll take violent revolution to truly secure our liberties once more, and that is almost certain to fail as well.

We're headed for another thousand years of darkness. But at least we're not there yet, so we are fortunate in that regard. But I weep for our children and their successors, for they will never know liberty.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #665  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:09 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
It would have been sufficient for the court to have said "he's a fellon, therefor he has no 2A rights" no?
He was charged with a felon in possession count. The first count (AUUW) is the total carry ban. You can't be charged under an unconstitutional statute, period.
Reply With Quote
  #666  
Old 04-02-2013, 4:35 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
He was charged with a felon in possession count. The first count (AUUW) is the total carry ban. You can't be charged under an unconstitutional statute, period.
Oh yes you can. They're doing it now, and they'll keep doing it until the courts grow enough of a spine to shut that crap down hard.

The courts won't develop that kind of spine. As far as I know (so, examples to the contrary welcome as usual), they have never come down hard and consistently on law enforcement and prosecution for enforcing and prosecuting enjoined laws.

Now, maybe it'll be different this time, but people always say that "it's different this time". They said that about the economy during the dotcom bubble. They said that about the credit crisis.

But the players now are the same as before, if not even more corrupt and empty than before. If the courts didn't have that kind of spine before, they certainly won't now.

No, I have no reason to believe that the courts really believe in the Constitution enough to throw prosecutors and law enforcement in jail for violating it. The law is something that applies to citizens, not to government.

We are fast approaching the cliff beyond which lies the dark abyss of tyranny, and we passed the point at which the brakes could have been successfully applied to stop us from going over the edge some time back. Complete loss of liberty is now an inevitability. Cherish what little liberty you still have for as long as you can, because you're never getting it back, and your children will never experience it for themselves.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #667  
Old 04-02-2013, 5:12 AM
Wrangler John Wrangler John is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,761
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Oh yes you can. They're doing it now, and they'll keep doing it until the courts grow enough of a spine to shut that crap down hard.

The courts won't develop that kind of spine. As far as I know (so, examples to the contrary welcome as usual), they have never come down hard and consistently on law enforcement and prosecution for enforcing and prosecuting enjoined laws.

Now, maybe it'll be different this time, but people always say that "it's different this time". They said that about the economy during the dotcom bubble. They said that about the credit crisis.

But the players now are the same as before, if not even more corrupt and empty than before. If the courts didn't have that kind of spine before, they certainly won't now.

No, I have no reason to believe that the courts really believe in the Constitution enough to throw prosecutors and law enforcement in jail for violating it. The law is something that applies to citizens, not to government.

We are fast approaching the cliff beyond which lies the dark abyss of tyranny, and we passed the point at which the brakes could have been successfully applied to stop us from going over the edge some time back. Complete loss of liberty is now an inevitability. Cherish what little liberty you still have for as long as you can, because you're never getting it back, and your children will never experience it for themselves.
Thanks for the heads-up. My conclusion was that the Heller and McDonald decisions were just window dressing with no real substance given the lawless nature of our current government. So, I will begin to sell off my firearms to recoup some of the value, destroy the rest, and withhold any future donations to pro-gun organizations. Being that it's a lost cause and we can't win, what's the point of wasting time and wealth fighting the inevitable? In fact, might as well delete the bookmarks to calguns.net, NRA and all the rest. Really a shame when the courts are bogus, without power to remedy basic rights violations. Legal revenge would have been sweet, but why worry about it, I spent too much money on shooting and hunting anyway. Besides, the feds are taking our hunting access away acre by acre, so that won't be around more than a couple more years anyway. I still have the photos and memories though. If I resist and they take my pensions and Social Security away I'll die a lot sooner, I still have a few years before the Obamacare death panels take me out. Might as well enjoy what time I have left.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Due to the nature of the lost cause we face in protecting our Second Amendment Rights, which have already been abrogated by the states without any meaningful recourse to the courts, there is no reason to further support the Cal-Guns Foundation, CRPA Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, NRA, or any other group. Inasmuch as Cal-Guns Foundation is focused on legal remedies to Second Amendment, and whereas the courts declaring a law unconstitutional has no meaningful force, and whereas state legislatures, state and local prosecutors can ignore any and all court rulings, Cal-Guns Foundation should no longer be supported.

Last edited by Wrangler John; 04-02-2013 at 5:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #668  
Old 04-02-2013, 8:21 AM
Harry Schell Harry Schell is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 83
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

--Emiliano Zapata
Reply With Quote
  #669  
Old 04-02-2013, 1:01 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrangler John View Post
Being that it's a lost cause and we can't win, what's the point of wasting time and wealth fighting the inevitable?
Some fights must be fought even if there is no real chance of winning. This is one of them.

Do not confuse my belief that we will lose with a belief that we should not fight. They are not the same thing in the slightest.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #670  
Old 04-02-2013, 1:09 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
And it looks like the Illinois legislature can let the deadline come and go and the the cities and state can get away with continuing to arrest, convict, and imprison anyone carrying a weapon in violation of the state's 'aggravated unlawful use of a weapon law' (a catch all gun law) and there is nothing that CA7 can do about it. A state court has declared under People v. Stansberry that Moore v. Madigan is non binding on Illinois courts and CA7 can pound sand until the SCOTUS rules on the subject of carry. There is a TFL thread discussing this starting at post 456 of this thread. It looks like Illinois no longer has any reason to appeal to SCOTUS.

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...ct/1110793.pdf
While this looks "bad" on the surface, doesn't anyone realize that if a Federal Court(in this case CA7) and a state supreme court split that this will also increase chances in a cert. grant? This was just from Cook County but there's another case http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=620608 already argued last September just waiting for the IL supremes to rule. A "loss" there creates a split with Moore.
Reply With Quote
  #671  
Old 04-02-2013, 1:17 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
While this looks "bad" on the surface, doesn't anyone realize that if a Federal Court(in this case CA7) and a state supreme court split that this will also increase chances in a cert. grant? This was just from Cook County but there's another case http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=620608 already argued last September just waiting for the IL supremes to rule. A "loss" there creates a split with Moore.
There's already a circuit split at a fundamental level on this (in particular, between the 7th and everyone else), and most of the lower courts have been thumbing their noses at SCOTUS, limiting Heller to its facts. If that's not enough to get SCOTUS to take up Kachalsky or Woollard, nothing will be.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #672  
Old 04-02-2013, 1:45 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

I have argued this before more times than I can think of: I'm not concerned about Scalia as much - while he is pro 2nd I think he may become overly punctilious on the restrictions that an originalist would apply; I don't worry about Alito. Thomas ? Not one bit. I think his rulings point to what most African Americans should think of the 2nd as a civil right and his opinion on the 14th as well as P&I are hugely important. Kennedy has argued about a living constitution but in the light that more firearms rights would be granted to the individual rather than less.

I worry about a back stabbing decision by Roberta that could singlehandedly hand Obama a victory and enable things we can't begin to imagine.
__________________
Yup, big change. Taking a break from work and headed to the Police Academy...
Reply With Quote
  #673  
Old 04-02-2013, 3:34 PM
Kreature96 Kreature96 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 31
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It would seem that someone who IL arrested and prosecuted under a law declared unconstitutional by the CA7, would have a 1983 action for violation of constitutional rights by the IL authorities. Just thinking out loud.

Also I think Prop 8 back in the 80s stated CA must follow federal constitutional precedent so we may be ok if the 9th rules favorably.
Reply With Quote
  #674  
Old 04-02-2013, 5:04 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,334
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
There's already a circuit split at a fundamental level on this (in particular, between the 7th and everyone else), and most of the lower courts have been thumbing their noses at SCOTUS, limiting Heller to its facts. If that's not enough to get SCOTUS to take up Kachalsky or Woollard, nothing will be.
I'm pretty convinced that if the US Supreme Court doesn't grant cert in Kachalsky then they won't be taking any more 2nd Amendment cases for many years at least - decades at worst. If we can't get a majority of the current court to support our rights now when lower court after lower court have flipped them the bird then they've lost interest or have just been beaten into submission by Obama and the media. The fact that a rabidly anti 2nd Amendment Progressive extremist is sitting in the White House ready to appoint 1-3 more rabid antis as they retire over the next 4 years makes me think it's probably going to be more like decades.

We can't give up and have to keep fighting but it's getting close to time to start looking at opportunities in other states. Without the Supreme Court's help and Jerry Brown's moderation the socialists in Sacramento will lock down California gun owners so tightly that by 2016 Bloomberg's NYC will look gun friendly in comparison to California. Jerry is out 1/5/2015 and the next Governor - Gavin Newsom will sign any restrictions that reach his desk.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association

Last edited by sholling; 04-02-2013 at 5:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #675  
Old 04-02-2013, 5:27 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,296
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
The fact that a rabidly anti 2nd Amendment Progressive extremist is sitting in the White House ready to appoint 1-3 more rabid antis as they retire over the next 4 years makes me think it's probably going to be more like decades.
Not only that, but the anti-gun cases are going to rocket up the appeals chain at light speed once Obama has made a replacement to the Court.
Reply With Quote
  #676  
Old 04-02-2013, 5:51 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think you can be assured we'll see at least one more case on the SCOTUS. Both Scalia and Sotomayor have made the statement. If not, the 2A is pretty much done. I have a similar view of our nation and its future as KC does, so I wouldn't be surprised if their failure to take a case becomes a silent trumpet signaling the death of liberty.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #677  
Old 04-03-2013, 3:26 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,594
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
This action by IL. is something that jeopardizes all civil rights and is a direct challenge to the authority of the Federal Courts.

I must say they certainly are "arrogant", but I guess if we look in the past, certain states probably fought civil rights post 1964 also.

Nicki

Yes, they did. Right up until Bobby Kennedy sent in the 101st Airborne.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #678  
Old 04-03-2013, 3:50 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
Yes, they did. Right up until Bobby Kennedy sent in the 101st Airborne.
Exactly.

And that is something that won't happen for us. We'll get no support from the executive branch whatsoever. In fact, we'll get the opposite: resistance.

The Marshals under the judicial branch will support the courts, but nobody else in the executive branch will. If any sort of inter-agency cooperation is necessary for the Marshals to do their work, you can expect the government to suddenly become very bureaucratic and inefficient.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #679  
Old 04-03-2013, 7:56 AM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The "common wisdom" in the circles that I travel within, hold that if Kachalsky is not granted cert, we are in real trouble.

The real question that is being asked, and it is also the question that is being avoided, is whether or not we have a right to carry in some form or manner. So far, the majority of the courts (district and appeals) have joined with the defendants and frame the question as one of concealed carry which, as a right, we don't have.

Alan Gura was correct to frame this, in his reply brief at cert, as a challenge to the Supreme Court. Either we do or we don't. Say it explicitly.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #680  
Old 04-04-2013, 8:59 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

id like to see this one make it to SCOTUS also along with the challenge to NY
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Last edited by ddestruel; 04-04-2013 at 9:02 AM..
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 1:44 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.