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
  #241  
Old 02-10-2012, 8:10 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Unless he speaks as to who he really is & his authority, he has the hallmarks of a "concern troll".
You may very well be correct.

But the post I quoted was unusually interesting. Forget about any disagreement philosophically or legally, to me that post seemed so far off-base procedurally (and probably factually) as to really make me wonder if I'm missing something really big.

I don't think I'm missing anything quite that big so I'm wondering if he has a major misunderstanding of the case, the procedures, the facts, etc.

I mean, one might think from his post that he doesn't understand that it is your case! I have trouble believing that he could be that clueless.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 02-10-2012, 9:00 AM
goldrush goldrush is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 366
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:
You usually are. You're more interested in puffing yourself on this website and preserving what you think your rank is here than you are in advancing gun rights.

Your posts evidence a stunning and dangerous ignorance of how the law and the world works.

Just send the checks to Gene and holds the signs when and where he tells you. That's how you'll best help this movement.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 02-10-2012, 9:09 AM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 20,243
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldrush View Post
You usually are. You're more interested in puffing yourself on this website and preserving what you think your rank is here than you are in advancing gun rights.

Your posts evidence a stunning and dangerous ignorance of how the law and the world works.

Just send the checks to Gene and holds the signs when and where he tells you. That's how you'll best help this movement.
And your post is evidence of you being a rude, insulting AND violating the rules.

Go sit in the corner until you learn to play politely with the grown ups.
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CGF.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 02-10-2012, 9:20 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldrush View Post
You usually are. You're more interested in puffing yourself on this website and preserving what you think your rank is here than you are in advancing gun rights.

Your posts evidence a stunning and dangerous ignorance of how the law and the world works.

Just send the checks to Gene and holds the signs when and where he tells you. That's how you'll best help this movement.
Fascinating!

You do realize that I have no rank here? Gene, Brandon, and some of the other CGF board members may have seen me, but we've not met and I'd be very surprised if they knew who I am. . .

I'm happy to claim significant ignorance of the law. I have no legal training.

So far as ignorance of how the world works? I'd be very interested in learning how you figured that one out. I'm pretty sure there are at least several thousand people who would disagree with you - so your ability to determine that I have dangerous and stunning ignorance of how the world works really intrigues me. Would you be so kind as to explain to me how you determined that I have this "stunning and dangerous" ignorance when you do not know who I am, where I am, my experiences, my credentials, my family, etc.? It is, of course, entirely possible that you know someone who knows or knew me (I've had serious conversations with at least tens of thousands of people), but I'm betting that you would not know that they have known me.

And I really appreciate your attempt to tell me how to interact with Gene and how to behave in the RKBA movement. But I think I'll choose my own path on this one.

I'm sorry to disappoint you so badly. Perhaps you could help me by explaining how you came to know so much about me and the law and the world and give some additional pointers about how to improve myself?

Edit: Oops! Too late. The ban is in so you likely won't be able to help me on this one.

Kestryll: If you would prefer to delete this post I will have no objection. And if it helps at all, I wasn't offended by his post - but was quite amused.

Last edited by OleCuss; 02-10-2012 at 9:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 02-10-2012, 1:16 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 2009_gunner View Post
If anything, GoldRush, the self-diagnosed genius, is always entertaining.

I don't find him entertaining at all, I think he is annoying, similar to a rash...

Now if you consider a rash, located somewhere I wouldn't mention in polite company, entertaining then Gold rush is entertaining.....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 02-10-2012, 6:43 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 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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldrush View Post
You usually are. You're more interested in puffing yourself on this website and preserving what you think your rank is here than you are in advancing gun rights.

Your posts evidence a stunning and dangerous ignorance of how the law and the world works.

Just send the checks to Gene and holds the signs when and where he tells you. That's how you'll best help this movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
And your post is evidence of you being a rude, insulting AND violating the rules.

Go sit in the corner until you learn to play politely with the grown ups.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 02-10-2012, 7:12 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wouldn't worry too much, Gray. I have considered goldrush's methods and they seem strikingly like that of Adml. David Farragut.

While that method can work as a last ditch effort in war, it tends not to work in Court.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 02-10-2012, 7:49 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,588
iTrader: 3 / 100%
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?
LMMFAO - pretty much, if you have a face, you can get a CCW in Denver (as long as you're a resident)..They're REALLY saying this will increase "guns on the street in direct opposition to the people of Denver) ???

How do they argue this stuff and keep a straight face?????
__________________


"personal security, personal liberty, and private property"--could not be maintained solely by law, for "in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment." -
William Blackstone
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 02-10-2012, 7:56 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,588
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post
Thanks Gene!

Of course, the usual. "Keep and Bear" means in the home. Vocabulary never has been their strong suit.
I lived in Denver for years and was very active in the gun world there.

Seriously, I can't over state how easy it is get a CCW (their term). Take Class, be otherwise not prohibited, and you get it, provided you live in Denver. No "good cause" BS. All you need do is apply. It's totally shall issue. And Co in general is very pro-gun, to the point that i would guess more people have guns then don't (or at least it seems that way).
__________________


"personal security, personal liberty, and private property"--could not be maintained solely by law, for "in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment." -
William Blackstone
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 02-10-2012, 8:47 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 sreiter View Post
I lived in Denver for years and was very active in the gun world there.

Seriously, I can't over state how easy it is get a CCW (their term). Take Class, be otherwise not prohibited, and you get it, provided you live in Denver. No "good cause" BS. All you need do is apply. It's totally shall issue. And Co in general is very pro-gun, to the point that i would guess more people have guns then don't (or at least it seems that way).
Unfortunately, the Colorado Attorney General's Office attempted to claim the law wasn't really "must-issue". It's actually not "totally shall-issue". They have a dangerous persons clause in their statute.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 02-10-2012, 10:18 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

I'll be somewhat careful as goldrush is banned but anyone who thinks his advice is sound is incorrect.

This case is already in the category of extraordinary. It's very rare to have a second oral argument or to have amici invited to argue. Because this is a second oral argument one can have a pretty good sense of the status of the case from the first...

Frankly, I'm a bit at a loss as to why goldrush feels he has any experience at the appellate level. His recommendations would be about the opposite of what an experienced federal appellate counsel would recommend.

-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
  #252  
Old 02-10-2012, 11:39 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 hoffmang View Post
I'll be somewhat careful as goldrush is banned but anyone who thinks his advice is sound is incorrect.

This case is already in the category of extraordinary. It's very rare to have a second oral argument or to have amici invited to argue. Because this is a second oral argument one can have a pretty good sense of the status of the case from the first...

Frankly, I'm a bit at a loss as to why goldrush feels he has any experience at the appellate level. His recommendations would be about the opposite of what an experienced federal appellate counsel would recommend.

-Gene
I just finished devising a picket sign that would fold to fit nicely into my carry-on though!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker
Calguns Foundation: "Advancing your civil rights, and helping you win family bets, since 2008."

-Brandon
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 02-11-2012, 3:38 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,783
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sreiter View Post
I lived in Denver for years and was very active in the gun world there.

Seriously, I can't over state how easy it is get a CCW (their term). Take Class, be otherwise not prohibited, and you get it, provided you live in Denver. No "good cause" BS. All you need do is apply. It's totally shall issue. And Co in general is very pro-gun, to the point that i would guess more people have guns then don't (or at least it seems that way).
The Bradys argument will basically expose them as favoring discretionary CCW issuance; there's really no other way around it, as CO's/Denver's laws cut off residents from roughly half of the states from carrying there, even though they can get a reciprocal permit. They can't claim inability to adequately "monitor" someone since CO's reciprocity is based only upon another states' recognition of their permit.
I'm really hoping for the Brady amici to start their time with 2 or 3 words, then get bombarded with questions along these lines. I'd like to see how a human pretzel is made...........
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 02-11-2012, 8:39 AM
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

The most interesting problem for the anti-gun side in this case is that Denver requires a license to carry either openly or concealed that is denied to non residents and only some states' non residents.

Robertson v. Baldwin's dicta is going to control and not in nice ways for Brady. Then we'll have a Circuit that clearly recognizes some right to carry in public beyond the home.

I love Circuit splits.

-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
  #255  
Old 02-11-2012, 8:48 AM
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 hoffmang View Post
The most interesting problem for the anti-gun side in this case is that Denver requires a license to carry either openly or concealed that is denied to non residents and only some states' non residents.

Robertson v. Baldwin's dicta is going to control and not in nice ways for Brady. Then we'll have a Circuit that clearly recognizes some right to carry in public beyond the home.

I love Circuit splits.

-Gene
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 02-11-2012, 11:39 AM
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

The key quote that this panel is fixed on (in concert with Heller's "presumptively lawful" language regarding concealed carry restrictions) is:

Quote:
Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (art. 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (art. 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 672; nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify, if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon or by statutory enactment. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.
Robertson v Baldwin

Interestingly also, the panel stated that they are suspicious that the modern SCOTUS will opine a different standard. Oral argument one is quite interesting - MP3 - Unofficial transcript.

-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
  #257  
Old 02-11-2012, 12:17 PM
Maestro Pistolero's Avatar
Maestro Pistolero Maestro Pistolero is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,890
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons
I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but what possible purpose could such an opinion serve if open carry were not presumptively lawful? I know that our position is that SOME form of functional carry must be accommodated in the law for those not prohibited, and that CA has chosen concealed carry, and banned open carry.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 02-11-2012, 4:13 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,588
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Unfortunately, the Colorado Attorney General's Office attempted to claim the law wasn't really "must-issue". It's actually not "totally shall-issue". They have a dangerous persons clause in their statute.
Isn't that where the "otherwise prohibited" part come in?
Or are you saying that's "a out" for them?
As in their desecration who is a dangerous person, without be adjudicated as such.
I didnt hang around with scumbags, so maybe my view was somewhat different, but I knew tons of people with CCWs, knew several guys who taught classes, including a Lt on Denver PD (since retired), owner of the largest gun store in denver (now retired). All told me it was a walk in the park for anyone not otherwise prohibited (felons, and the like).

I had a friend pulled over for speeding, he informed the officer he was CCW'ing and the firearm was in condition 1. Cop didnt even ask him to place his gun on the deck/remove it from his person.
__________________


"personal security, personal liberty, and private property"--could not be maintained solely by law, for "in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment." -
William Blackstone
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 02-11-2012, 4:30 PM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,588
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
The key quote that this panel is fixed on (in concert with Heller's "presumptively lawful" language regarding concealed carry restrictions) is:


Robertson v Baldwin

Interestingly also, the panel stated that they are suspicious that the modern SCOTUS will opine a different standard. Oral argument one is quite interesting - MP3 - Unofficial transcript.

-Gene
I seriously F'ing hate the games they get to play to suit their own political views. When it suits them, they same "based on the way SCOTUS ruled in the past..." when its suits tem the other way "well my magic 8 balls tells me SCOTUS would totally vote a different way in the future, so i'll go wit that"

As pistolero points out. If CC restrictions doesn't does infringe upon your right to carry, the only possible explanation is open carry is the standard, prefer, legal way to carry. there are no other options. If no carry were a option, they wouldnt have been specific with only one form of carry (concealed) .
__________________


"personal security, personal liberty, and private property"--could not be maintained solely by law, for "in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment." -
William Blackstone
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 02-11-2012, 5:15 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 sreiter View Post
I seriously F'ing hate the games they get to play to suit their own political views. When it suits them, they same "based on the way SCOTUS ruled in the past..." when its suits tem the other way "well my magic 8 balls tells me SCOTUS would totally vote a different way in the future, so i'll go wit that"

As pistolero points out. If CC restrictions doesn't does infringe upon your right to carry, the only possible explanation is open carry is the standard, prefer, legal way to carry. there are no other options. If no carry were a option, they wouldnt have been specific with only one form of carry (concealed) .
There's also the counterpoint from Heller, a much more recent case than Robertson

At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed.1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: `wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'" Id., at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1998)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms."
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 02-12-2012, 9:03 AM
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 sreiter View Post
I seriously F'ing hate the games they get to play to suit their own political views.
I think folks are over-reacting to the Robertson v Baldwin issue. Judges who favor a real right to arms are not wrong to be cautious on the concealed v. open issue based on both Robertson and Heller/McDonald. They themselves admit that they think, when faced with the issue, SCOTUS will go a different direction regarding concealed v. open. However, today they're bound by two clear concepts. There is a right to carry in most places in public, and it has to at least allow open carrying if concealed carrying isn't available.

That's an honest read of current jurisprudence. It also does not really foreclose the nationwide carry strategy at all. SCOTUS will take a carry case and I expect them to make it clear that one or the other (or both) must be allowed but that governments have a long history [historical/categorical review] of getting to choose which version of loaded carry is the local approved form.

-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
  #262  
Old 02-12-2012, 9:08 AM
Mrbroom's Avatar
Mrbroom Mrbroom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 336
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Gene reminds me of E. F. Hutton... People listen..

I just went back and read the comments of goldrush.. The writing style has CN all over it!

Last edited by Mrbroom; 02-12-2012 at 9:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 02-12-2012, 9:24 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 Mrbroom View Post
Gene reminds me of E. F. Hutton... People listen..

I just went back and read the comments of goldrush.. The writing style has CN all over it!
May seem like it, but it's not Chuckie...
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 02-12-2012, 9:28 AM
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 Mrbroom View Post
Gene reminds me of E. F. Hutton... People listen..

I just went back and read the comments of goldrush.. The writing style has CN all over it!
Goldrush is as abrasive as CN....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 02-13-2012, 7:58 AM
Liberty1's Avatar
Liberty1 Liberty1 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,544
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post

Interestingly also, the panel stated that they are suspicious that the modern SCOTUS will opine a different standard. Oral argument one is quite interesting - MP3 - Unofficial transcript.

-Gene
That audio was great, looking forward to the next round of orals.
__________________
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria http://www.a-human-right.com/
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 02-13-2012, 9:07 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default 2 cents

The core of the second amendment is our right to self defense, so if a state has carry laws that eliminate the ability to carry functional arms in non sensitive zones in any manner, then how can those laws survive a constitutional challenge?

Perhaps Gray's case is headed for SCOTUS because it will give the SCOTUS a clean ccw case that can deal with numerous carry issues.

Nicki
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 02-20-2012, 4:32 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%
Default

I have my hotel reserved at the Curtis Denver - a DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel. This hotel is within a 10 minute walk of the Courthouse.

I decided (tentatively) to go to the Peterson v. Martinez oral arguments in the Tenth Circuit because of the significance I believe this case has for TruckerGuns and the fact that there is such a huge travel interest as well.

Anyone else? I'm planning to fly in on Saturday (03/17). I won't rent a car, and will not have a ride to the hotel from the airport, so will likely get a shuttle, unless someone here has a vehicle, maybe I could get a ride from someone to the hotel. I might just do something real freaky and drive all the way to Denver, but it's almost not likely for me to do that.

As with any court case hearing like this, a coat, tie, etc is always recommended. No "Gorskidrobe malfunctions"...

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 02-20-2012, 4:41 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 Window_Seat View Post
I have my hotel reserved at the Curtis Denver - a DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel. This hotel is within a 10 minute walk of the Courthouse.

I decided (tentatively) to go to the Peterson v. Martinez oral arguments in the Tenth Circuit because of the significance I believe this case has for TruckerGuns and the fact that there is such a huge travel interest as well.

Anyone else? I'm planning to fly in on Saturday (03/17). I won't rent a car, and will not have a ride to the hotel from the airport, so will likely get a shuttle, unless someone here has a vehicle, maybe I could get a ride from someone to the hotel. I might just do something real freaky and drive all the way to Denver, but it's almost not likely for me to do that.

As with any court case hearing like this, a coat, tie, etc is always recommended. No "Gorskidrobe malfunctions"...

Erik.
My girlfriend and I will be at The Curtis as well. I'll have a rental car and would be happy to give you a lift to the court house. Saturday might be a bit tough as we will be looking at apartments most of the day but shoot me a pm and we can probably work out a way to pick you up at the airport depending on timing.
__________________
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; 02-20-2012 at 4:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 02-20-2012, 4:45 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%
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor P Price View Post
My girlfriend and I will be at The Curtis as well. I'll have a rental car and would be happy to give you a lift to the court house.
Thanks Connor, and I'll certainly take you up on that offer.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 02-20-2012, 4:52 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You know? I'd actually consider going to hear the Peterson or the Nordyke orals, but I'm not a suit and tie kinda guy.

There's actually been one study which showed you IQ drops a few points if you wear a tie - I figure I can't afford the drop.
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 02-20-2012, 5:32 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OleCuss View Post
You know? I'd actually consider going to hear the Peterson or the Nordyke orals, but I'm not a suit and tie kinda guy.

There's actually been one study which showed you IQ drops a few points if you wear a tie - I figure I can't afford the drop.
If you can do slacks and a button-up, then try and make it to one of them. I think you'd take away quite a lot from the experience.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 02-20-2012, 6:39 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%
Default

One of the reasons why I want to go to the Peterson orals is due to the Court's policy on not making audio available until long after the hearings, and of course for the same reason that Brandon stressed.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 02-20-2012, 9:06 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

dupe
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.

Last edited by Al Norris; 02-20-2012 at 9:09 PM.. Reason: dupe
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 02-20-2012, 9:07 PM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I had been playing with the idea of going. I have two sisters that live in the suburbs, so accommodations aren't the problem.

Tomorrow, an event at the UW School of Law was scheduled, a lecture by Alan Gura. Because of road closures, that has been canceled and tentatively rescheduled for the 20th of March...

I think I can do a two-fer.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 02-20-2012, 9:45 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%
Default

This thing is doing dupe-dupe-dupity-dupe dupe dupe dupes......

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 02-20-2012, 9:49 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 Al Norris View Post
I had been playing with the idea of going. I have two sisters that live in the suburbs, so accommodations aren't the problem.

Tomorrow, an event at the UW School of Law was scheduled, a lecture by Alan Gura. Because of road closures, that has been canceled and tentatively rescheduled for the 20th of March...

I think I can do a two-fer.
Road closures?
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 02-20-2012, 10:16 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,419
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Road closures?
When they close the roads, or when roadways are impassable due to condition.



-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 02-20-2012, 10:52 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%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
When they close the roads, or when roadways are impassable due to condition.



-Brandon



Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 02-21-2012, 4:12 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
If you can do slacks and a button-up, then try and make it to one of them. I think you'd take away quite a lot from the experience.

-Brandon
I might go for that. While I don't do coat and tie, I also almost never do T-shirts either.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 02-21-2012, 6:02 AM
Al Norris Al Norris is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Idaho
Posts: 386
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Road closures?
Yeah. Road Closures, due to blowing/drifting snow. No visibility (blizzard conditions), etc.
__________________
Listings of the Current 2A Cases, over at the Firing Line.
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 4:28 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.