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
  #201  
Old 01-29-2012, 2:22 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OK good. The more argument time, the better. I'd like to see how CO's scheme is defended. IMO, it's easier to defend "good cause" than it is to defend a system that doesn't allow carry in Denver because they happen to live in a non-reciprocal state.

I was curious about something on this case. CO/Denver says a visitor can possess/carry a firearm in someone else's home or hotel room. The CO statute is somewhat vague on this. Is this just the AG's opinion, or is there actual CO caselaw on this?
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-29-2012, 7:36 AM
emcon5's Avatar
emcon5 emcon5 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Reno
Posts: 2,893
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Wow. That is essentially a joint motion from NRA, SAF and the Brady bunch.

I think it is BS that Brady gets 50% of the time, three Amici, split the time in thirds. Also, why would they give them more time, and let them go last?
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-29-2012, 8:34 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by emcon5 View Post
Wow. That is essentially a joint motion from NRA, SAF and the Brady bunch.

I think it is BS that Brady gets 50% of the time, three Amici, split the time in thirds. Also, why would they give them more time, and let them go last?
I'm pretty much guessing that if there were not an agreement on the time split that the judge would mandate that the time be split 50/50 between both sides anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-29-2012, 8:37 AM
Knuckle Dragger's Avatar
Knuckle Dragger Knuckle Dragger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 86
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They get half time because half of the time goes to amici supporting the appellant and half goes to the amici supporting appelee.

Joint procedural motions are common as, in most cases, the parties try to cooperate on logistical and procedural issues. It's kind of bad form to do otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-29-2012, 10:51 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

Does anyone have a link to the Brady Campaign Amicus for this case? I found an article on their site about it, but no actual pdf.

Excerpt from the article from a while back:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brady Article
The case, Peterson v. LaCabe, claims that out-of-state residents have a right to carry loaded, concealed firearms in Colorado even if they do not meet Colorado’s requirements to carry concealed weapons.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1418

Of course its disingenuous at best to say that's what is being claimed in the case. The only requirement not met is residency. Is that really going to be the crux of their argument?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 01-29-2012, 1:31 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
Does anyone have a link to the Brady Campaign Amicus for this case? I found an article on their site about it, but no actual pdf.

Excerpt from the article from a while back:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1418

Of course its disingenuous at best to say that's what is being claimed in the case. The only requirement not met is residency. Is that really going to be the crux of their argument?
Funny how they claim this:

“This lawsuit is the gun lobby’s latest effort to weaken the ability of the people, their elected representatives, and law enforcement to keep guns from their streets. But the courts have wisely rejected the gun lobby argument that the Second Amendment mandates their agenda of any gun, for anybody, anywhere,” said Dennis Henigan, Acting President of the Brady Center. "The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that common sense gun laws, such as reasonable restrictions on carrying loaded, hidden firearms in public, are allowed by the Second Amendment."

Funny how that A) I'm the sole plaintiff, SAF, CGF, and NRA are not co-plaintiffs and B) they make hay out of "hidden guns" when I'm asking for the general right to carry. Considering I'm consenting to being background checked, fingerprinted, and being required training by Colorado law, not sure what they mean by "any gun, for anybody, anywhere". Can't be a felon, DV misdemeanant, found incompetent by a judge, be less than 18, etc....

Simply flat out, they lie. You're surprised by this?
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 01-29-2012, 1:33 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 Knuckle Dragger View Post
They get half time because half of the time goes to amici supporting the appellant and half goes to the amici supporting appelee.

Joint procedural motions are common as, in most cases, the parties try to cooperate on logistical and procedural issues. It's kind of bad form to do otherwise.
That's right, and when it comes to times procedural issues, if you want agreement from all amici, you have to divvy up. The NRA CRDF (not the folks who filed NRA v. City of Chicago, btw) is helping me. "Our side" really means them, too, so our side gets 10, theirs gets tens. It's fair.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 01-29-2012, 1:49 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 Gray Peterson View Post
Funny how they claim this:

“This lawsuit is the gun lobby’s latest effort to weaken the ability of the people, their elected representatives, and law enforcement to keep guns from their streets. But the courts have wisely rejected the gun lobby argument that the Second Amendment mandates their agenda of any gun, for anybody, anywhere,” said Dennis Henigan, Acting President of the Brady Center. "The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that common sense gun laws, such as reasonable restrictions on carrying loaded, hidden firearms in public, are allowed by the Second Amendment."

Funny how that A) I'm the sole plaintiff, SAF, CGF, and NRA are not co-plaintiffs and B) they make hay out of "hidden guns" when I'm asking for the general right to carry. Considering I'm consenting to being background checked, fingerprinted, and being required training by Colorado law, not sure what they mean by "any gun, for anybody, anywhere". Can't be a felon, DV misdemeanant, found incompetent by a judge, be less than 18, etc....

Simply flat out, they lie. You're surprised by this?
Surprised? Of course not. Lies, half truths, and deceit are the name of the game for them. "The gun lobby" is especially funny since your the sole plaintiff. It'll be funny to hear them flounder around with specious arguments based nearly entirely on lies and then listen to NRA-CRDF and SAF etc. arguments in favor of your position.

I suppose it was a bit silly of me to think that there might be another aspect to their argument. Even Denver couldn't come up with one.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 01-29-2012, 2:00 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

I've added the Brady Amicus to my archive - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pet...2011-07-18.pdf

-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
  #210  
Old 01-29-2012, 2:03 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

Thanks Gene!

Of course, the usual. "Keep and Bear" means in the home. Vocabulary never has been their strong suit.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon

Last edited by Connor P Price; 01-29-2012 at 2:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 01-29-2012, 2:31 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

"There is no constitutional requirement that the public, when walking to school, driving to work, or going about daily life, subject itself to the risks of unregulated gun carrying. And there never has been."

Unregulated, eh?
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 01-29-2012, 2:49 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 878
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
I've added the Brady Amicus to my archive - http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/pet...2011-07-18.pdf

-Gene
I feel for you guys who have to actually read such drivel.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 01-29-2012, 2:57 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 randomBytes View Post
I feel for you guys who have to actually read such drivel.
I love reading their briefs. It's fun to go through and pick apart.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 01-29-2012, 2:58 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,139
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

They're going to sail that 'in the home' chant 'round and 'round as the ship sinks.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 01-29-2012, 3:45 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Honestly, I don't think we should impugn their intelligence. I mean, how would you argue their position?

When you have a legal position which is ultimately not constitutionally viable and you are hired to advocate for that position, you are going to have to make arguments which do not appear to be tenable in the long run.

And then again, at this time they still win in the lower courts, so maybe the arguments aren't as bad as I typically find them to be.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 01-29-2012, 4:37 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 OleCuss View Post
Honestly, I don't think we should impugn their intelligence. I mean, how would you argue their position?
I've sometimes thought the same thing about government lawyers who have an obligation to defend the laws we challenge. I recognize its an uphill battle for them and I certainly don't envy the attorneys who are put in a position where the very best argument available to them is still pretty foolish. They make foolish arguments not because they are fools but because the legislators who wrote the laws are.

When it comes to the Brady Bunch I feel no need to hold back my opinion of them as fools. They submit their amicus briefs not because they have any obligation to defend the laws but because they want to. They make themselves look dumb all on their own, they didn't get stuck there by the government.

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

-Brandon

Last edited by Connor P Price; 01-29-2012 at 4:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 01-29-2012, 5:20 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 OleCuss View Post
Honestly, I don't think we should impugn their intelligence. I mean, how would you argue their position?

When you have a legal position which is ultimately not constitutionally viable and you are hired to advocate for that position, you are going to have to make arguments which do not appear to be tenable in the long run.

And then again, at this time they still win in the lower courts, so maybe the arguments aren't as bad as I typically find them to be.
So you believe that the Brady’s attorneys subscribe to the adage that, for every fee there is a remedy…

Their client (Brady’s) wants a brief submitted so they do their best to earn their fee….
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 01-29-2012, 6:32 PM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It continues to amaze me how the Brady bunch continue to twist the language of the SCOTUS decisions in Heller and McDonald to their own world view. In their world "most notable in the home" means "only in the home". And they refuse to recognize that the court answered a narrow question in Heller regarding gun permits in the home because that was the topic and scope of the specific regulation being argued, not that SCOTUS specifically stated that was the true limit of the scope of the 2nd amendment right. But surprised? No. They aren't dumb, just disingenuous and willing to use any subtrafuge because they know what the court actually ruled (favorable to the 2nd ammendment as a fundamental enumerated right with all that entails) and they're hoping to yet prevail despite that 'setback' through misdirection and obfuscation in the lower courts with the hope they are able to build sufficient case 'precedent' thru sympathetic circuit judges before the question of what bare outside the home represents will be ultimately reviewed by SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 01-29-2012, 7:31 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

I firmly believe that SCOTUS will never rule that the 2nd amentment ends at your door step.
Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 01-29-2012, 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 Rossi357 View Post
I firmly believe that SCOTUS will never rule that the 2nd amentment ends at your door step.
They never did in Heller/McDonald either. Hunting doesn't tend to happen in the home.
Reply With Quote
  #221  
Old 01-29-2012, 7:48 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
So you believe that the Brady’s attorneys subscribe to the adage that, for every fee there is a remedy…

Their client (Brady’s) wants a brief submitted so they do their best to earn their fee….
This comes pretty close to what I think.

And I'd not have much disagreement with what Connor P Price said as well. But I think that many of the Brady/LCAV type truly believe that they are doing a great service to mankind. The fact that my opinions are pretty close to diametrically opposed to theirs doesn't necessarily mean that I think them stupid.

One of the brightest people I know believes in the "Living Constitution". Now I know that there are variations of that which might be livable, but that's not what he believes in. He is still brilliant, just wrong.

But then, I had great respect for Osama Bin Ladin as well. Smart and capable with scruples. But if you'd given me a shot at him I'd have taken it.

You don't have to hate or belittle your opponent. You have to defeat them in the manner which also yields a recognizable victory for yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 01-29-2012, 9:48 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,640
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

"But then, I had great respect for Osama Bin Ladin as well. Smart and capable with scruples. [REALLY????] But if you'd given me a shot at him I'd have taken it."

"You don't have to hate or belittle your opponent. You have to defeat them in the manner which also yields a recognizable victory for yourself."

Maybe, but given the dire state of events at this point in time, I feel better about the "Conan the Barbarian" definition:

To defeat our opponents, to drive them before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

Okay, Okay - maybe not quite to that level. But usually you gotta land at least one really good punch on the person getting their arse kicked so that they will realize it and give up. Then, because these people do lack basic scruples, you have to remain eternally vigilant.

I bet a lot of Californians thought they had set the proper tone after they defeated Prop 15 (CA handgun ban) back in the day. The other side got smart and decided to take small (and sometimes big, like the AWB), insidious bites at the gun control apple - hoping the frog in the pot wouldn't realize the water was becoming toxic to life/freedom.
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 01-30-2012, 12:02 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Okay, Okay - maybe not quite to that level. But usually you gotta land at least one really good punch on the person getting their arse kicked so that they will realize it and give up.
Punch.

Punch.

Punch.

Punch.

Though I don't disagree with your overall point, the best strategy is to figure out what the smartest on the other side would be doing and search for those actors. Amusingly, those are hard to find and the "smartest on the other side" are increasingly sounding like us as they abandon the zealots who wish to undermine the bill of rights...

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, 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
  #224  
Old 01-30-2012, 12:48 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I see the Bradys are citing cases like State v. Fife which were upholding carry bans on pistols at a time when cheaper, smaller, concealable pistols were considered gangster/choice of minority weapons. These cases were probably also cited to defend the DC/Chicago handgun bans. So again, they're strategy is to try and re-argue Heller all over again.
There's also that 1876 WY carry law, which to my knowledge never even was challenged in court and was obviously overturned by the legislature at some point. It seems to be of little value since you could pass any law and it'll stand if no one challenges it.
And, like the folks above mentioned, it's all about concealed carry, which it's not. The Bradys don't seem to grasp the concept that if Gray were simply a FL resident, he could carry evil, hidden guns in public!
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 01-31-2012, 6:53 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

Just booked my flight hotel and rental car. See you guys there.

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
  #226  
Old 01-31-2012, 9:20 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
Just booked my flight hotel and rental car. See you guys there.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
See you there!
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 02-08-2012, 9:02 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

CA10 Panel approves request to enlarge argument time.

[9940638] Order filed by the Clerk at the direction of the Court - Granting Amicus motion to enlarge time for argument. Amici will have ten minutes Per Side to argue; (20 minutes total) at argumens set for March 19, 2012 in Denver, Colorado. Served on 02/07/2012.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf EnlargementOrder.pdf (14.9 KB, 12 views)
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 02-08-2012, 9:51 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Excellent news.

-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
  #229  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:05 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

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

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 02-09-2012, 12:34 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,779
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
CA10 Panel approves request to enlarge argument time.

[9940638] Order filed by the Clerk at the direction of the Court - Granting Amicus motion to enlarge time for argument. Amici will have ten minutes Per Side to argue; (20 minutes total) at argumens set for March 19, 2012 in Denver, Colorado. Served on 02/07/2012.
So 10 minutes for each side's amici, and then 10 minutes each for counsel?
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 02-09-2012, 3:31 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ten minutes for the Brady bunch. Five minutes each for the two pro-RKBA amici arguers.

Not what we'd prefer, but that's what we'll get.
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 02-09-2012, 9:23 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 press1280 View Post
So 10 minutes for each side's amici, and then 10 minutes each for counsel?
15 for each counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 02-10-2012, 12:18 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
Ten minutes for the Brady bunch. Five minutes each for the two pro-RKBA amici arguers.

Not what we'd prefer, but that's what we'll get.
That's a bit incorrect. It may be "not what we'd prefer" but it is what is considered just and fair by the courts as both sides of the argument are getting equal time.

-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
  #234  
Old 02-10-2012, 5:04 AM
goldrush goldrush is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
That's a bit incorrect. It may be "not what we'd prefer" but it is what is considered just and fair by the courts as both sides of the argument are getting equal time.

-Gene
Gene, listen up.

The court will have made up its mind long before oral argument comes around. Use oral argument as a means to remind the court of the implications of its decision, rather than thinking it's an opportunity for you to win the case on its merits.

Keep the questions at issue narrow, though it seems a bit late in the day for that.

When a judge opens his mouth with some attack disguised as a question, ask the judge, simply and bluntly: "Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" And shut up. This is the case. To hell with all that other stuff you pleaded. Every new question from the bench should be met with some slight variation of: "Well, your Honor, this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" When pressed further, ask the judge: "Does a resident of Washington have the right to carry his Bible with him when he visits Colorado?"

Don't do things your way. Do things my way, and you'll awaken that court to just what is at stake. If you want a win, you'll need to understand what oral argument really is, and you'll need to stiffen your backbone. Every attempt by the bench to divert the oral argument to some collateral point should be met with a restatement of the issue. "Yes, your Honor, I can see the implications of that case/issue/doctrine, but this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?"

If you want to win, you'll need to up the ante. Loudly picket the courthouse steps. You'll need at least 100 protesters with pickets. These are easy and relatively cheap to make. The same guys who make campaign signs can whip these up for you and give you the wooden stakes.

Mine the Colorado gun forums for volunteers.

Here's the slogan:

All Citizens
All Rights
All States

If you're good or just aggressive, slyly incorporate the protesters into your oral argument. "Well, your Honor, it's like what those demonstrators in front of the courthouse are chanting: "All Citizens, All Rights, All States." Do we still believe that in America, or not?" Then, immediately say: "Remember, your Honor, this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?"

This is how you win, Gene.

P.S. I'd be very tempted to embarrass the court. I'd find one of their rulings on an issue not mentioned in the Constitution but for which they nevertheless found a full constitutional right. I'd be tempted to hit them with this argument: "Your Honor, remember, this very court has an expansive view of rights. In Mussolini v. Hitler, this court found that Mussolini had a full constitutional right to do x, though x is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, or the writings of either Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Paine. If the court can find a full right to do something nowhere contemplated by the drafters of the Constitution, certainly, a fuller respect must be extended to an issue which was near and dear to their hearts and upon which they regularly spoke and wrote so earnestly, clearly and reverently."

Last edited by goldrush; 02-10-2012 at 5:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 02-10-2012, 5:36 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 goldrush View Post
Gene, listen up.

The court will have made up its mind long before oral argument comes around. Use oral argument as a means to remind the court of the implications of its decision, rather than thinking it's an opportunity for you to win the case on its merits.

Keep the questions at issue narrow, though it seems a bit late in the day for that.
I think if you listen to November oral arguments, "We feel pretty bound by Robertson v. Baldwin", and they were wondering if they could, as a jurisdictional matter, strike down the general carry ban in Denver. They were apparently confused as to interplay between the state and the city/county.

Quote:
When a judge opens his mouth with some attack disguised as a question, ask the judge, simply and bluntly: "Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" And shut up. This is the case. To hell with all that other stuff you pleaded. Every new question from the bench should be met with some slight variation of: "Well, your Honor, this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?" When pressed further, ask the judge: "Does a resident of Washington have the right to be a Methodist when he visits Colorado?"

Don't do things your way. Do things my way, and you'll awaken that court to just what is at stake. If you want a win, you'll need to understand what oral argument really is, and you'll need to stiffen your backbone. Every attempt by the bench to divert the oral argument to some collateral point should be met with a restatement of the issue. "Yes, your Honor, I can see the implications of that case/issue/doctrine, but this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?"

If you want to win, you'll need to up the ante. Loudly picket the courthouse steps. You'll need at least 100 protesters with pickets. These are easy and relatively cheap to make. The same guys who make campaign signs can whip these up for you and give you the wooden stakes.

Mine the Colorado gun forums for volunteers.

Here's the slogan:

All Citizens
All Rights
All States

If you're good or just aggressive, slyly incorporate the protesters into your oral argument. "Well, your Honor, it's like what those demonstrators in front of the courthouse are chanting: "All Citizens, All Rights, All States." Do we still believe that in America, or not?" Then, immediately say: "Remember, your Honor, this case asks if all Americans are equal and if they keep their rights throughout the country. Does a resident of Washington have the RKBA when he visits Colorado?"

This is how you win, Gene.
None of the questions asked in November of my attorney had anything to do with that. Their questions were pretty much "Was the OC issue plead" and "What sort of prayer for relief can and should we give?". They were not quibbling about whether or not a Washingtonian has a right to carry in Colorado. It was the prayer for relief that they were struggling with.

Also, can you give situations where this exact method works? Have you yourself argued cases in front of a court, where this exact method succeeded for you? You speak with such authority on the matter and you supposedly know how this works.

Before we should consider go down your path, the question should be asked: How do you know this works, and what is your professional credentials as a litigator which speaks to your assertion of authority on matters such as these, that this method works? If you're not willing to back it up with names, case cites, and actual situations which can be verified, how do I know that you don't have some form of ulterior motive?
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 02-10-2012, 5:53 AM
goldrush goldrush is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Before we should consider go down your path, the question should be asked:
Gray, the comments weren't directed at you, because you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of getting it. I yet have some hope for Gene, and perhaps counsel may check in here. Unless you're terminating your counsel and appearing pro se, be a good plaintiff; do your case a favor, and keep silent.

As for probabilities, back at ya. All other gun cases are being tried your way, and they're all losing. If you know one thing, thus far, you know what doesn't work.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 02-10-2012, 6:10 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 goldrush View Post
Gray, the comments weren't directed at you, because you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of getting it. I yet have some hope for Gene, and perhaps counsel may check in here. Unless you're terminating your counsel and appearing pro se, be a good plaintiff; do your case a favor, and keep silent.
And if you demonstrated actual success of this method, I can direct my counsel to go down your path...

Alas, your directing your comment to Gene, who isn't counsel in any case. What makes you think Gene can put your "plan" into motion?

Quote:
As for probabilities, back at ya. All other gun cases are being tried your way, and they're all losing. If you know one thing, thus far, you know what doesn't work.
Then speak to your credentials as an authority on civil rights litigation. You can't assert authority & knowledge with a pseudonym.

Gura has won two SCOTUS decisions, after both lost in district.

You're just "goldrush".

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-10-2012 at 6:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 02-10-2012, 6:52 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,091
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldrush View Post
Gene, listen up.
.
.
.
. . .clearly and reverently."
I'm really confused as to where you are going with things at this time:

1. Gene is certainly not going to be arguing any part of the case. That would seem to be clear in so many ways.
2. It's Gray's case. If anyone is going to be giving direction to the attorney in the case, it would be Gray.
3. If it is directed at the amici oral arguers? I'm pretty sure one is Gura - and I think he has a pretty good handle on things. I'm not sure who the other pro-RKBA amici oral attorney is, but I'm pretty sure neither Gene nor Gray are going to be able to tell them how to handle it - and I'm guessing that they are also qualified before SCOTUS so they probably understand how to handle an appellate court?

Perhaps you could clue me in a bit further on where you are going with this one? It probably makes sense, but I can't make sense of it.

One other thing. I'm pretty sure that arranging for picketers outside the court and then trying to use them to buttress an argument would be considered something of an insult to the court. I happily proclaim I'm not an attorney, but I'm having trouble seeing how that would be looked upon favorably by the court in such a case.

Last edited by OleCuss; 02-10-2012 at 6:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 02-10-2012, 6:55 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 OleCuss View Post
I'm really confused as to where you are going with things at this time:

1. Gene is certainly not going to be arguing any part of the case. That would seem to be clear in so many ways.
2. It's Gray's case. If anyone is going to be giving direction to the attorney in the case, it would be Gray.
3. If it is directed at the amici oral arguers? I'm pretty sure one is Gura - and I think he has a pretty good handle on things. I'm not sure who the other pro-RKBA amici oral attorney is, but I'm pretty sure neither Gene nor Gray are going to be able to tell them how to handle it - and I'm guessing that they are also qualified before SCOTUS so they probably understand how to handle an appellate court?

Perhaps you could clue me in a bit further on where you are going with this one? It probably makes sense, but I can't make sense of it.
Unless he speaks as to who he really is & his authority, he has the hallmarks of a "concern troll".

Last edited by Gray Peterson; 02-10-2012 at 7:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 02-10-2012, 7:34 AM
2009_gunner's Avatar
2009_gunner 2009_gunner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 472
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If anything, GoldRush, the self-diagnosed genius, is always entertaining.
__________________
It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque. - DC v. Heller

NRA Member / CRPA Member / SAF Member / San Diego CCW Sponsor
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 6:11 PM.




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.