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
  #121  
Old 12-18-2011, 6:02 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I'm curious about something. If Gray wins, what are the possibilities CO/Denver appeals to SCOTUS? From oral arguments, I got the gist that neither is too interested in putting forth much of an effort and will just let this be binding in the circuit only.
Denver has basically stopped defending this. As such it might not go up. However, Circuit Court of Appeals precedent is VERY useful.

-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
  #122  
Old 12-18-2011, 10:33 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
MSJ's are not issued by appellate courts. They are a court of reversal of legal and factual errors, essentially. What would happen is an order of reversal, essentially directing the lower court to issue an MSJ after coming to their legal conclusions of the proceedings.

As for "10 months to a hearing". Try "4 to 6 months" (oral argument will occur either in September 12th week or November 14th week).

Thinking about the scenarios here, the potential of a Williams v. State of Maryland cert grant might hold things up at some point. We will, however, proceed as normal and assume an upward trajectory. I am not actually hopeful for a Tenth Circuit win because not one lower court in the federal system has gotten the carry issue correct. I think really think that either as a first civil SCOTUS case for carry, or the map up for non-residency, both issues will be a "5 of 9" situation.
The above underlined is no longer my current belief. Also, now that Williams and Masciandaro have been denied certiorari, there is nothing holding up my case except for the 10th Circuit's rehearing. I also think that because they'll have to specially convene the panel, a decision will actually come quite quickly after rehearing.

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 12-18-2011 at 10:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-18-2011, 11:20 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 921
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-19-2011, 12:10 AM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
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?
The 9th has been reversed so many times they don't know East from West anymore. I don't think the court is concerned with whether they got shot down for splitting with the 10th on this issue. It certainly wouldn't be decided in our favor below that, so I'd say this issue is bound for scotus regardless of a win in the 10th. It'll just take longer to make it to scotus that way. Unless its mooted by legislation first of course.

I know you're addressing Gray here, just throwing in my two cents, which of course is worth what you paid for it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-19-2011, 12:40 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
Gray: What would the time frame be?
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:
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?
As always, it depends on A) What the circuit panel decision actually says in the "win", B) How willing the particular panel for Richards is willing to listen to said "win" when it's reported to them via a FRAP 28(j) motion. Richards post-AB144 is now much closer to the situation that's occurring in Denver than before....

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.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-19-2011, 12:49 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post
The 9th has been reversed so many times they don't know East from West anymore. I don't think the court is concerned with whether they got shot down for splitting with the 10th on this issue. It certainly wouldn't be decided in our favor below that, so I'd say this issue is bound for scotus regardless of a win in the 10th. It'll just take longer to make it to scotus that way. Unless its mooted by legislation first of course.

I know you're addressing Gray here, just throwing in my two cents, which of course is worth what you paid for it.
The 9th circuit is not a monolithic entity.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-19-2011, 9:18 AM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
The 9th circuit is not a monolithic entity.
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:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-19-2011, 10:38 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post
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.
A similar case would be filed against a sheriff in California. Which sheriff it would be? Well..there's 58 of them.....
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-19-2011, 10:43 AM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
A similar case would be filed against a sheriff in California. Which sheriff it would be? Well..there's 58 of them.....
My point exactly, I imagine different counties would have different levels of interest in pursuing the matter.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-19-2011, 12:03 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post
My point exactly, I imagine different counties would have different levels of interest in pursuing the matter.
I cannot comment here on potential future litigation angles. :sly:
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 12-19-2011, 1:36 PM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-19-2011, 3:26 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
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
That's where legal strategy gets fun. I can see benefits to both sides. Thank goodness we've got people smarter than me to figure out these subtleties.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-20-2011, 5:21 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-20-2011, 6:00 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
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.
Already being done in Osterweil v. Bartlett, though it's not a carry case, it's a "possession of a firearm in a secondary residence" case. The district court basically said "It is not a Heller home".

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....
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-20-2011, 9:46 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 921
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-21-2011, 1:35 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,782
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-29-2011, 5:10 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

Quote:
Order filed by the Clerk at the direction of the Court - To set oral argument for Monday, March 19, 2012
at 2:00 P.M. at Denver, CO. Amici curiae is granted ten minutes of argument time. Served on 12/28/2011.
Hmmmm... Interesting, I guess we'll find out which Amicus Council later? How often does this sort of thing happen?

Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 11-14-2013 at 10:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-29-2011, 6:05 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,864
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Hmmmm... Interesting, I guess we'll find out which Amicus Council later? How often does this sort of thing happen?

Erik.
Well, if Peruta & Richards are calendared in March also it should be a very interesting month...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 12-29-2011, 6:07 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Hmmmm... Interesting, I guess we'll find out which Amicus Council later? How often does this sort of thing happen?

Erik.
Amicus arguing is extremely rare. We're seeking clarification & will update once we find out which amicus they are talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 12-29-2011, 6:09 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,864
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Hmmmm... Interesting, I guess we'll find out which Amicus Council later? How often does this sort of thing happen?

Erik.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Amicus arguing is extremely rare. We're seeking clarification & will update once we find out which amicus they are talking about.
The order specifically listed the NRA...

Who does John Monroe represent?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 12-29-2011, 6:15 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
The order specifically listed the NRA...

Who does John Monroe represent?
Calguns Wiki (on Peterson):
Quote:
The attorney for this case is John Monroe, who is the Vice President of GeorgiaCarry.org
(Edit)

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.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 12-29-2011, 7:03 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Calguns Wiki (on Peterson):


(Edit)

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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 12-29-2011, 7:28 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The order specifically listed the NRA...
I really hope this isn't sabotage...
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 12-29-2011, 7:47 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
Calguns Wiki (on Peterson):


(Edit)

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.
John Monroe is representing me. GCO is not an amicus party to the proceeding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
I really hope this isn't sabotage...
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.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 12-29-2011, 8:00 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Few (like fewer than 5) people other than you do I trust enough to believe that and be relieved.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 12-29-2011, 8:02 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Other than and including, I should specify.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 12-29-2011, 8:10 PM
Rossi357's Avatar
Rossi357 Rossi357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sandy Eggo County
Posts: 1,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
Well, if Peruta & Richards are calendared in March also it should be a very interesting month...
I thought these two were stayed pending Nordyke?
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 12-29-2011, 8:14 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi357 View Post
I thought these two were stayed pending Nordyke?
Correct, he probably meant Nordyke, which is scheduled the same week...

Hoo boy, I might be burning some vacation days for you guys.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 12-29-2011, 8:19 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
Few (like fewer than 5) people other than you do I trust enough to believe that and be relieved.
Glad to be part of that elite club.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 12-29-2011, 9:03 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Very much looking forward to seeing how this develops.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 12-29-2011, 9:21 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,492
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

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, 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
  #152  
Old 12-29-2011, 10:03 PM
Connor P Price's Avatar
Connor P Price Connor P Price is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

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:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 12-29-2011, 11:58 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
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.
Agreed here. There's the question of whether or not it's just the NRA-CRDF or it's all three sets of amicus. I expect will find out the answer soon.

Quote:
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
Cautious optimism is a good thing. I won't count chickens, but the fact that they're asking for amicus participation is exceptionally rare I believe is good news for 2A and RKBA.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 12-30-2011, 12:30 AM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Gray: yes.

;-)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 12-30-2011, 12:31 AM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Glad to be part of that elite club.
There is an elite club inside the elite club. ;-)

Kind of like Merry Pranksters.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 12-30-2011, 12:37 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklander View Post
There is an elite club inside the elite club. ;-)

Kind of like Merry Pranksters.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
First rule of Merry Pranksters is, you don't talk about Merry Pranksters.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 12-30-2011, 12:41 AM
oaklander oaklander is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Deep East Oakland
Posts: 11,105
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
First rule of Merry Pranksters is, you don't talk about Merry Pranksters.
That reminds me that I will have to show you some of my homemade soap!

It is scented with patchouli.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 12-30-2011, 7:13 AM
Knuckle Dragger's Avatar
Knuckle Dragger Knuckle Dragger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 86
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
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
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.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 12-30-2011, 7:25 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Dragger View Post
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.
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..
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 12-30-2011, 8:10 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post
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
OAK-DEN is quite a hefty price, but the Denver market has always been one of those that is quite expen$$$ive... I may consider going, but it also depends on exactly when the Nordyke en banc orals are going to be held.

Erik.
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 1:23 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.