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 01-15-2013, 10:47 PM
Libertarian71's Avatar
Libertarian71 Libertarian71 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of California
Posts: 648
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
What is amusing is that I have more short term worry about that than carry.
The New York law, in effect, renders inoperable the vast majority, make that overwhelming majority, of semi-automatic pistols. This is backdoor confiscation, and runs afoul of Heller and McDonald, as semi-automatic pistols are the ones most "commonly is use" currently.

Other than 1911s, the Glock 36, the LC9, and maybe some Kahrs or Kel-Tecs, I am not even aware of semi-automatic pistols that use seven round magazines.

In addition, what effect will this have on the Second Amendment rights of women who want to defend themselves? Are they going to be forced to use heavier recoil 1911s, or revolvers, most of which have heavy trigger pulls? (My wife is petite, and she struggles with operating the 10-pound trigger pull on a S&W 60 J-Frame)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklon View Post
As an American citizen, the 1911 is your birthright: using John Moses Browning as His chosen instrument, The Lord God above gave us the 1911 as His gift to a free people.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 01-15-2013, 10:48 PM
Merkava_4 Merkava_4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"The court below stands among those holding that the Second Amendment has no practical impact beyond the threshold of one’s home. Reasons for this conclusion vary – the right to bear arms outside the home is alleged to be non-adjudicable by lower courts, Heller is alleged to be limited to its facts, or as the lower court reasoned, the “core” self-defense interest identified in Heller is alleged to be limited to the home, such that rational basis review (styled as intermediate scrutiny, but rational basis review nonetheless) governs elsewhere."


What does non-adjudicable mean? I can't find its definition on the internet anywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 01-15-2013, 10:52 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,218
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair View Post
Hispanics at least change enough to worry both parties. Bush II got a fair number of them, I think almost half, but the Republicans made up so many scare stories that the percentage dropped in 2008. This time, Romney went on and on about self-deportation and the real crazies were even worse, so even more voted for Obama. If the Republicans weren't such out and out screaming meanies about that stuff, even simple stuff like not deporting kids to Mexico whose parents brought them over at 3 months old and who can't even speak Spanish, they might bring the percentage back up.
Yeah, it is so cruel to force illegal aliens to export themselves and their progeny who have illegally benefited by being in the US, w/our FREE schooling, meals at schools, ER services, welfare, etc. and FORCE them to go back to where they came from and live in their own country. Yep, definitely "cruel and unusual punishment".... Frankly, I think we should force them to reimburse us for their ill gotten gains!

With 57% of Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) on WELFARE, I don't see many of them EVER turning R unless R becomes RINO -- watered down D. That's the reason Dems LOVE Mexican immigrants -- over 1/2 are on welfare vs. <7% of immigrants from Great Britain. Those British people are self-sustaining and not government dependents and therefore might NOT vote for Democrats. (Actually, government dependents are dependents upon productive tax paying citizens which are disproportionately Repubs, so the Repubs are subsidizing their political destruction.)
http://www.examiner.com/article/fift...nts-on-welfare

"Angry white guys" have been the main defenders of the RKBA around this country for the last 50 years. The "Protestant work ethic" made America what it was vis-a-vis Catholic Latin America.

Alas, it is almost too late to stem the tide, but SOME conservatives are now willing to stop being cowards and start talking about RACE (as AG Eric Holder wants us to, but not the way he intended).

This country is about to go belly up and there's no other worthwhile nation to move to....

Ann Coulter on Demographics As Destiny
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-11-14.html

As for wooing those Hispanics/Latinos.... LOL! Even Catholic Pat Buchanan points out the futility of that.
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbu...ead/page/full/
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbu...oneyard/page/2

And don't even start me about interracial crime stats! Just google "Jared Taylor c-span crime race" for an eye-opening C-SPAN video. Small wonder the racial composition of our prisons is what it is.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 01-15-2013, 11:34 PM
Libertarian71's Avatar
Libertarian71 Libertarian71 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of California
Posts: 648
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkava_4 View Post
"The court below stands among those holding that the Second Amendment has no practical impact beyond the threshold of one’s home. Reasons for this conclusion vary – the right to bear arms outside the home is alleged to be non-adjudicable by lower courts, Heller is alleged to be limited to its facts, or as the lower court reasoned, the “core” self-defense interest identified in Heller is alleged to be limited to the home, such that rational basis review (styled as intermediate scrutiny, but rational basis review nonetheless) governs elsewhere."

What does non-adjudicable mean? I can't find its definition on the internet anywhere.
It means that the issue cannot be adjudicated, i.e., decided by a court. Another term meaning the same thing, which I prefer, is "nonjusticiable."
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklon View Post
As an American citizen, the 1911 is your birthright: using John Moses Browning as His chosen instrument, The Lord God above gave us the 1911 as His gift to a free people.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 01-16-2013, 12:25 AM
Merkava_4 Merkava_4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertarian71 View Post
It means that the issue cannot be adjudicated, i.e., decided by a court. Another term meaning the same thing, which I prefer, is "nonjusticiable."

Thank you, I appreciate it.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 01-16-2013, 5:33 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,509
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
And you guys think I'm pessimistic because I think this nation's done for...


Nope. I'm a realist. It's not my fault that the real world is much worse than most people think it is.

I dispute that we're "done for." Hope still remains. We won't be "done for" until hope leaves.

And there is still reason for hope.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair View Post
You are making the same mistake so many prognosticators make -- you are extrapolating the current rate of change to infinity and beyond. Real life doesn't work that way. The Dems thought FDR gave them a permanent Democratic House -- Gingrich thought he had a permanent Republican House -- the 2006 Dems thought they had a permanent House.

The Dems will overreach and disgust voters, Republicans will start giving up on the Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, Huckabee losers and pick sane candidates, and Democrats will splinter from arguments over divvying up the permanent pie they think they have.

For the next year, not much will change, but come 2014, gunnies will not forget, especially with gloating Dems overreaching, and things will swing back. 2016 presidency depends on whether the losers have finally evaporated or not; too soon to tell. It could take another round of idiots to get the message across.

Never discount the ability of Dems to screw things up.

The most recent example....


Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
IMHO, if the core of the second amendment is self-defense and handguns are commonly protected arms and we have the right to have "functional" arms, I have a few questions.

We know that arms have to be "functional" so that they are immediately ready in cases of "armed confrontation".

My question is this, would the definition of "functional" include "standard or common" magazine capacities.

New York just banned above 7 round magazines, yet most semi-auto handguns carry 8 plus rounds.

Are "normal capacity mags" dangerous and unusual?

Then there is the issue of types of "self-defense" arms.

How rare does a gun have to be before it becomes dangerous and unusal.

I would submit that while a AR or AK pistol is not as commmon as the rifle versions, they aren't exactly unusual. Since these pistols have the evil features, would this new New York law be a ban on a "constitutionally protected class" of arms?

Could New York have inadvertently given us a "gift", at least as far as magazine capacities?

Nicki

If you mean in the same way DC gave us a gift, & the same way that Chicago gave us a gift, yes, they did!


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

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 01-16-2013, 6:21 AM
Scarecrow Repair's Avatar
Scarecrow Repair Scarecrow Repair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Internet Tough Guy(tm), them thar hills
Posts: 2,426
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Yeah, it is so cruel to force illegal aliens to export themselves and their progeny who have illegally benefited by being in the US, w/our FREE schooling, meals at schools, ER services, welfare, etc. and FORCE them to go back to where they came from and live in their own country.
As a side note, you ignore that these illegals pay taxes, and most of them go out of their way to avoid any other illegal activity because they come here to work, not steal. Deny that all you want, but study after study has shown you are wrong.

But thanks for illustrating my argument so nicely. The idea of deporting some kid about to graduate from high school with straight As and a full boat scholarship simply because she was brought to this country when she was 3 months old ... or deporting parents but keeping the kids, then sending the kids to foster homes and orphanages ... can you not distinguish that from the drug cartel soldiers and bums? Are you seriously that blind to the difference, can you not see how just plain barbaric that is to most of the population?

Your attitude is typical of why the Republicans are losing appeal.
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 01-16-2013, 6:44 AM
Chatterbox Chatterbox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicki View Post
IMHO, if the core of the second amendment is self-defense and handguns are commonly protected arms and we have the right to have "functional" arms, I have a few questions.

We know that arms have to be "functional" so that they are immediately ready in cases of "armed confrontation".

My question is this, would the definition of "functional" include "standard or common" magazine capacities.

New York just banned above 7 round magazines, yet most semi-auto handguns carry 8 plus rounds.

Are "normal capacity mags" dangerous and unusual?

Could New York have inadvertently given us a "gift", at least as far as magazine capacities?

Nicki
My understanding that the law does not ban possession of 7+ round magazines, only 10+ round magazines. However, the 10 round magazines cannot be loaded with 8 or more rounds.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 01-16-2013, 3:06 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 6,218
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair View Post
As a side note, you ignore that these illegals pay taxes, and most of them go out of their way to avoid any other illegal activity because they come here to work, not steal. Deny that all you want, but study after study has shown you are wrong.
Um, I guess you missed it, so I'll repeat it for you: 57% of Mexican Immigrants (not just illegals), are on welfare! link here again:
http://www.examiner.com/article/fift...nts-on-welfare

Do you actually believe that fewer than 1 out of 2 Mexican immigrants who does work pays enough taxes to pay for their own benefits (free public schools, free ER care, etc.) PLUS pay for the 57% of their countrymen who get all those FREE benefits PLUS WELFARE benefits???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair View Post
But thanks for illustrating my argument so nicely. The idea of deporting some kid about to graduate from high school with straight As and a full boat scholarship simply because she was brought to this country when she was 3 months old ... or deporting parents but keeping the kids, then sending the kids to foster homes and orphanages ...
Thanks for illustrating my argument so nicely -- "If it saves only one child....." LOL! Typical leftist argument. Send the kid back. The schooling she got while she was here was heads and shoulders above what her parents would have given her back in Mexico. If anything, we should charge Mexico for enriching their nation by teaching her and returning her to contribute to the Mexican economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair View Post
can you not distinguish that from the drug cartel soldiers and bums?
They are all criminals -- PERIOD! Of course, some criminals are worse than others.... and, as I reiterated above, 57% of them are BUMS on welfare! We've got enough of our own people, esp NAMs (non-Asian minorities), who are un/under employed and/or on welfare w/o taking on Mexico's "refusees" (refuse refugees).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair View Post
Are you seriously that blind to the difference, can you not see how just plain barbaric that is to most of the population?
Forcing Mexicans to live in Mexico is barbaric??? LOL! I love it!

You must be some sort of right-wing jingoist racist American supremacist to have such a low opinion of the "People of Color" to our south, their culture, and their country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Repair View Post
Your attitude is typical of why the Republicans are losing appeal.
Yeah, and your attitude is why both CA and America are financially broke and why there's such a thing as "career criminals" and multi-generational welfare and prison populations in the US. When this ship hits the iceberg w/in 5 years, and our "poor" get not only their cable TV and EBT cards cut off, but also their gas, electricity, and water they'll learn how spoiled they have been in this country. The blame will fall squarely on you and your fellow leftists, not those mean, old Republicans.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Supporting CGF at the expense of supporting NRA is wildly stupid. . . .

Never, ever, ever choose not to be an NRA member.

-Gene
180+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Crime Avoidance & Self-Defense Advice

Last edited by Paladin; 01-16-2013 at 3:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 01-16-2013, 7:40 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Um, I guess you missed it, so I'll repeat it for you: 57% of Mexican Immigrants (not just illegals), are on welfare! link here again:
http://www.examiner.com/article/fift...nts-on-welfare

Do you actually believe that fewer than 1 out of 2 Mexican immigrants who does work pays enough taxes to pay for their own benefits (free public schools, free ER care, etc.) PLUS pay for the 57% of their countrymen who get all those FREE benefits PLUS WELFARE benefits???

Thanks for illustrating my argument so nicely -- "If it saves only one child....." LOL! Typical leftist argument. Send the kid back. The schooling she got while she was here was heads and shoulders above what her parents would have given her back in Mexico. If anything, we should charge Mexico for enriching their nation by teaching her and returning her to contribute to the Mexican economy.
The solution to this is simple: if the parents are on welfare, then we deport them. Any of their kids that are doing really well in school (e.g., top 10%) can, at the parents discretion, be left here and foster parentage will be arranged. The kids that are left behind under foster parentage will be given citizenship (if they're doing really well in school, then they show promise and we'd be losing our investment in them by kicking them across the border).

This has the advantage of allowing the best and brightest to stay here and contribute to our society, while getting rid of the freeloaders.


So what of the illegal aliens that are working and paying taxes? Give them visas of some kind and make them go through the citizenship process. If they're serious about staying, they'll become citizens. If they're not, then we kick them back across the border.


That's not enough on its own, of course (among other things, you have to do something to incent people to go through the normal citizenship process rather than attempt to come here illegally, and there's probably some balance between carrot and stick that will strike the right chord), and there are probably some significant details that have to be worked through.


Keep in mind that the "detritus" that came to this country 100 years ago turned this country into the powerhouse that it is now (or was until recently).


Thoughts?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 01-16-2013, 10:48 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
I dispute that we're "done for." Hope still remains. We won't be "done for" until hope leaves.
I'm speaking strictly from the point of view of likely outcomes, not from the point of view of what is highly unlikely but still possible.


Quote:
And there is still reason for hope.
There is. But that reason for hope is now very, very slim.

Some hope is, of course, better than no hope, and I'm as hopeful as the next guy. But what I hope for and what I expect are two very different things here, because what I expect is based strictly on the real world and on likely outcomes, while what I hope for is based on what is still possible at all.


In terms of what is likely, we will continue to circle the drain, and can take action to increase the amount of time circling, but the chance of getting out of the sink now appears so slim that there is but a fool's hope of that happening. I hope it does happen, but the odds are hugely against it. We have a huge array of forces and the vast majority of the history of the world against us.

Remember: the only time significant liberty is gained is when the big red reset button is pushed (because that is what is necessary to wipe most of the laws off the books), and the vast majority of the time it is pushed, the end result is something even worse than what preceded it.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 01-16-2013, 11:08 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The solution to this is simple: if the parents are on welfare, then we deport them. Any of their kids that are doing really well in school (e.g., top 10%) can, at the parents discretion, be left here and foster parentage will be arranged. The kids that are left behind under foster parentage will be given citizenship (if they're doing really well in school, then they show promise and we'd be losing our investment in them by kicking them across the border).

This has the advantage of allowing the best and brightest to stay here and contribute to our society, while getting rid of the freeloaders.


So what of the illegal aliens that are working and paying taxes? Give them visas of some kind and make them go through the citizenship process. If they're serious about staying, they'll become citizens. If they're not, then we kick them back across the border.


That's not enough on its own, of course (among other things, you have to do something to incent people to go through the normal citizenship process rather than attempt to come here illegally, and there's probably some balance between carrot and stick that will strike the right chord), and there are probably some significant details that have to be worked through.


Keep in mind that the "detritus" that came to this country 100 years ago turned this country into the powerhouse that it is now (or was until recently).


Thoughts?
They won't do that because of blah blah civil rights and blah blah separating families.

I say they should have thought about the risk before coming here.

And I was under the impression that they didn't give green cards to people that were going to squat on welfare. Why the hell are they still here if they're on welfare? The legal ones that is.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 01-17-2013, 12:05 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakiri View Post
They won't do that because of blah blah civil rights and blah blah separating families.
That's why allowing the kids to stay behind would be a decision the parents would be making. Their decision will be between splitting the family up and having everyone in the family kicked back over the border.


Quote:
I say they should have thought about the risk before coming here.
Again, the reason for doing things the way I'm suggesting is twofold: firstly, we have an investment in the kids we're educating, and the only way we can get a return on that is by allowing those kids to stay, become US citizens, and become productive members of our society. Secondly, it is counterproductive to turn away people who are proven contributors, as the illegal aliens who are working and paying taxes quite obviously are.

As for civil rights, the way to deal with that is to do all this through the courts. Everyone deserves due process here, and the person accused of being here illegally has a right to face his accusers.


Quote:
And I was under the impression that they didn't give green cards to people that were going to squat on welfare. Why the hell are they still here if they're on welfare? The legal ones that is.
Where did I say anything about allowing those on welfare to stay? Those get punted across the border automatically (after adjudication of such, of course). It's only the people who are working and paying taxes that would be given an appropriate visa and an opportunity for citizenship.


If your question is about those who are here legally, then yours is a reasonable question.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 01-17-2013, 7:48 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,509
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm speaking strictly from the point of view of likely outcomes, not from the point of view of what is highly unlikely but still possible.




There is. But that reason for hope is now very, very slim.

Some hope is, of course, better than no hope, and I'm as hopeful as the next guy. But what I hope for and what I expect are two very different things here, because what I expect is based strictly on the real world and on likely outcomes, while what I hope for is based on what is still possible at all.


In terms of what is likely, we will continue to circle the drain, and can take action to increase the amount of time circling, but the chance of getting out of the sink now appears so slim that there is but a fool's hope of that happening. I hope it does happen, but the odds are hugely against it. We have a huge array of forces and the vast majority of the history of the world against us.

Remember: the only time significant liberty is gained is when the big red reset button is pushed (because that is what is necessary to wipe most of the laws off the books), and the vast majority of the time it is pushed, the end result is something even worse than what preceded it.

While there's hope, there's a still a chance. Agree that it is a small hope & so a small chance. But that chance drops to zero when hope does.

And here the old saying "Pressure builds diamonds" comes to mind. The push is on. But, from what I see (the bandwidth here isn't big enough lately, NRA is getting 8,000 new members a month, etc) the push BACK is also on.


The Raisuli


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

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 01-17-2013, 9:48 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulay El Raisuli View Post
While there's hope, there's a still a chance. Agree that it is a small hope & so a small chance. But that chance drops to zero when hope does.
Exactly.

Some people confuse my near certainty that this country is finished with a belief that it's no use fighting. No. There are some fights that must be fought no matter the odds of winning. The fight for liberty is one of them.


Quote:
And here the old saying "Pressure builds diamonds" comes to mind. The push is on. But, from what I see (the bandwidth here isn't big enough lately, NRA is getting 8,000 new members a month, etc) the push BACK is also on.
True enough, but it almost certainly won't matter in the end. Not until an "electable" party that actually supports liberty comes onto the stage. Until then, it is not a matter of whether we will lose all our liberties, it is only a matter of how long until we do. Regardless, I find it heartening that there are quite a few people who are willing to fight for our liberties. I just wish they were willing to support all liberty, and not just the liberties they like. It is precisely because they are not willing to support all liberty that a pro-liberty party will never come to the fore.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 01-17-2013, 10:18 AM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 2,692
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Exactly.

Some people confuse my near certainty that this country is finished with a belief that it's no use fighting. No. There are some fights that must be fought no matter the odds of winning. The fight for liberty is one of them.



Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.
Winston Churchill
__________________

...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

John Wayne as John Bernard (J. B.) Books in The Shootist
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 01-17-2013, 10:34 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt Raven View Post
Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.
Winston Churchill
How ironic that it was Churchill that said that, when the UK is now one of the most overregulated, anti-rights countries in the western world.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 01-17-2013, 11:24 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
How ironic that it was Churchill that said that, when the UK is now one of the most overregulated, anti-rights countries in the western world.
Churchill was a completely untypical Englishman even then. He was in a backwater for years before becoming P.M., and then only came to the front because most other British pols were completely and obviously in the same "Peace in our time" mindset as other sheep like Neville Chamberlain and had no idea how to respond to Hitler.

As soon as the war was over, he was unceremoniously shoved aside into another backwater, no longer needed, thank you very much, and goodbye.

Since then, only Margaret Thatcher has come anywhere close to having brass ones in the same league.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.


Last edited by Glock22Fan; 01-17-2013 at 11:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 01-17-2013, 11:54 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,535
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

While I am not convinced KC that you really do have as much hope as the next guy I do value reading your usually well written and informed posts. If anything you help us avoid an unhealthy level of group think, that could be dangerous as we march forward with no one bothering to point out the enemy at our flank.
__________________
Support my Steam Greenlight campaign for Omega Reaction!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=618002901

Just vote Yes please, not asking for money.

Last edited by stix213; 01-17-2013 at 12:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 01-17-2013, 7:06 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
While I am not convinced KC that you really do have as much hope as the next guy
Oh, but I do. I really, really, REALLY hope that we win our liberties back!


Quote:
I do value reading your usually well written and informed posts. If anything you help us avoid an unhealthy level of group think, that could be dangerous as we march forward with no one bothering to point out the enemy at our flank.
Thank you sir, for the very kind words! I do try to inject a bit of reality into things when I can...
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 01-17-2013, 10:53 PM
sharxbyte's Avatar
sharxbyte sharxbyte is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Kommifornistan
Posts: 2,376
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Prayers for all involved!
__________________
My AR is 7.62x39, so that if/when we get invaded, I can shoot their ammo back at them!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff View Post
Where is this ammo "Black market" he speaks of? Do they have .223 in stock?
My Home-Made Recurve Bow Thread


Own An 80%? CLICK HERE!


Kevin de Leon, on minority women and profiling.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 02-03-2013, 12:56 AM
Wolverine's Avatar
Wolverine Wolverine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 729
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Update: SCOTUS has granted NY an extension to file a response to Gura's petition. The new due date is March 13, 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 02-03-2013, 5:51 AM
SilverBulletZ06 SilverBulletZ06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
Update: SCOTUS has granted NY an extension to file a response to Gura's petition. The new due date is March 13, 2013.
Makes you wonder why they just don't make the deadline twice as long doesn't it.

Well NY has waited this long...
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 02-03-2013, 5:52 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,684
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertarian71 View Post
The New York law, in effect, renders inoperable the vast majority, make that overwhelming majority, of semi-automatic pistols. This is backdoor confiscation, and runs afoul of Heller and McDonald, as semi-automatic pistols are the ones most "commonly is use" currently.

Other than 1911s, the Glock 36, the LC9, and maybe some Kahrs or Kel-Tecs, I am not even aware of semi-automatic pistols that use seven round magazines.

In addition, what effect will this have on the Second Amendment rights of women who want to defend themselves? Are they going to be forced to use heavier recoil 1911s, or revolvers, most of which have heavy trigger pulls? (My wife is petite, and she struggles with operating the 10-pound trigger pull on a S&W 60 J-Frame)
Good point about backdoor confiscation. Also about certain women who carry. There are many people that don't like to carry 1911s because they need to be carried cocked and locked - that includes men as well as women. There was a great line from a woman who testified in the recent Senate hearings. During an exchange with democrat Senator Whitehouse (RI) she said the proposed bill was taking away a woman's right to choose. Really put Whitehouse on the defensive. Oddly enough it didn't make it to Diane Sawyer's or Brian Williams' desk for the nightly news - must have been an oversight
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 02-03-2013, 5:55 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,770
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
Update: SCOTUS has granted NY an extension to file a response to Gura's petition. The new due date is March 13, 2013.
After some digging, I looked at all the cert. grants since October, and all have either had oral arguments or have been scheduled for this term. April oral arguments are still open.......a chance this term?
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 02-03-2013, 6:02 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,053
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think there is a chance - and a pretty decent one.

As I (a non-lawyer who has no expertise in reading SCOTUS moves) see it, the SCOTUS is actually working the case. I'm not so sure they'd be asking for the reply this session if they did not have a real interest in granting cert.

Once SCOTUS gets the reply it really shouldn't take more than a week or so for them to figure out all the ins and outs of the cert petition - and that is plenty of time to schedule the orals in April and issue a decision before July.

But I really don't know the odds. I'm guessing 50% chance, but that is more of a SWAG than an estimate.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 02-03-2013, 6:44 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 1,770
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Alright, I wasn't looking in the right place.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/1...dnotedlist.pdf

It does seem SCOTUS has a dozen cert grants which have not been assigned an argument date. Those will most likely fill the April argument calendar
At least oral arguments will be early in the term(if they grant cert.)
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 02-03-2013, 10:31 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

NY being granted an extension is completely normal course. Best estimates are that this case will be in conference in the very early part of April. Should SCOTUS grant cert, oral argument would occur in the October - December 2013 timeframe. A decision could come in spring 2014, but the better bet is that they'll release an opinion in the last days of June 2014.

-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
  #269  
Old 02-03-2013, 10:35 AM
sandman21's Avatar
sandman21 sandman21 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,144
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Only 6 months off from my prediction.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 02-03-2013, 1:12 PM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
After some digging, I looked at all the cert. grants since October, and all have either had oral arguments or have been scheduled for this term. April oral arguments are still open.......a chance this term?
No, it takes months for all of the participants to file their briefs before oral arguments can be held. A ruling in late June 2014 is most likely.
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 02-03-2013, 2:28 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Exactly.

Some people confuse my near certainty that this country is finished with a belief that it's no use fighting. No. There are some fights that must be fought no matter the odds of winning. The fight for liberty is one of them.




True enough, but it almost certainly won't matter in the end. Not until an "electable" party that actually supports liberty comes onto the stage. Until then, it is not a matter of whether we will lose all our liberties, it is only a matter of how long until we do. Regardless, I find it heartening that there are quite a few people who are willing to fight for our liberties. I just wish they were willing to support all liberty, and not just the liberties they like. It is precisely because they are not willing to support all liberty that a pro-liberty party will never come to the fore.
This country won't elect anyone in that'll take away their handouts.

The UK is currently trying to privatize some of their benefits and cutting others. The way they're going about it is questionable(screwing over some disabled folks in the hope to get the three gen families out of council houses) but it's causing a HUGE uproar. They're afraid the government will stop caring for people on long term life support and just cut the cord, etc. Single disabled cannot get housing because they're being taxed for each spare bedroom in the place when they have to put them in multiroom units because all the singles are taken already.

It's a mess. They're trying to pull government out of some of it, and people are protesting. They want their handouts.

Here in the States? We can't elect anyone that'll take the handouts away. We can't elect anyone that'll tighten up the requirements for them. We can't elect anyone that'll do anything to restore liberty because it requires us to stop being liberal socialists.

And they totally won't stand for having to get jobs that don't exist.

Don't get me started on jobs.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 03-27-2013, 8:13 AM
M. D. Van Norman's Avatar
M. D. Van Norman M. D. Van Norman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California refugee
Posts: 4,168
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Alan Gura’s reply brief in Kachalsky has been filed.
__________________
Matthew D. Van Norman
Dancing Giant Sales | Licensed Firearms Dealer | Rainier, WA
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 03-27-2013, 11:04 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 790
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

nice

a few things get in over my head but not unexpected. clean cut and dry for the most part even a layman can follow the logic which makes disputing it hard and if the justices want to disregard it their logic in response after arguements will be either be very similar to the 9th's and not based in reality or well founded. leaves little room for open endedness and insteads sets teh stage for cinanigans or a real response and action

i like the emphisis on an October 2013 hearing and getting to the point about a fundamental right being allowed at the discression of politicians and police.

I also look forward to the wollard challenge being forth coming
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Quote:
....."there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” and the public interest always weighs in favor of protecting constitutional rights. See Joelner v. Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004).
I VOTE and contribute to organizations who share my pursuit of freedom
1991

Last edited by ddestruel; 03-27-2013 at 11:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 03-27-2013, 11:09 AM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,496
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. D. Van Norman View Post
Alan Gura’s reply brief in Kachalsky has been filed.
Excellent point when he says "Law-abiding responsible Americans do not keep and carry guns for the purpose of shooting others." This emphasis is paramount not to the court, but to the any decision that may be handed down. The only ways you can finally reverse the flow is reverse the conversation away from "People with guns shoot others" to "People who break the law, break the law in any way they see fit". The national discussion is about guns, not about people who break the law, which I think is all backwards. I don't blame the hammer when I bang my thumb, I blame myself.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 03-27-2013, 12:30 PM
Southwest Chuck Southwest Chuck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 1,817
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I love how Gura writes. He eviscerates the 2nd and 4th Circuits rational just as they would eviscerate the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
Woollard confirms Petitioners’ prediction that left
standing, the lower court’s (Kachalsky) opinion would enable the Second Amendment’s continued evisceration.
He also pointedly tells SCOTUS to "Put-up or Shut-up" in regards to these lower court challenges to Heller & McDonald and put a stop to the judicial rebellion to a Enumerated and Fundamental Right. Gura wants them to smack these Courts down HARD, as well as send a message to all others !

Quote:
The only thing worse than explicitly refusing to
enforce an enumerated constitutional right would be
to declare a right “fundamental” while standing aside
as lower courts render it worthless. Few outcomes
could promote as much cynicism about our legal
system. If this Court is unprepared to overrule
Heller, it should reverse decisions such as that entered by
the lower court here.
I love it !
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest Chuck View Post
I am humbled at the efforts of so many Patriots on this and other forums, CGN, CGF, SAF, NRA, CRPF, MDS etc. etc. I am lucky to be living in an era of a new awakening of the American Spirit; One that embraces it's Constitutional History, and it's Founding Fathers vision, especially in an age of such uncertainty that we are now in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby View Post
Go cheap you will always have cheap and if you sell, it will sell for even cheaper. Buy the best you can every time.
^^^ Wise Man. Take his advice
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 03-27-2013, 1:01 PM
Calzona's Avatar
Calzona Calzona is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 301
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Really powerful stuff. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
__________________
These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along, move along.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 03-27-2013, 1:26 PM
glockman19's Avatar
glockman19 glockman19 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 9,527
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Excellent read. Sounds like CA is in violation. Ban on open carry and discressionary concealed carry making it unconstitutional...because CA does not allow either.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 03-27-2013, 1:31 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,053
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That really is an interesting brief.

I admit to a gross over-simplification, but as I see it Gura's basic point is that if SCOTUS wants to be relevant in the future they are going to have to take this and a few other cases and beat the lower courts into submission.

I think it's a pretty good point. I think it is possible he went a little further than he should have in some ways, but time will tell. . .
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 03-27-2013, 1:44 PM
ScottB ScottB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simi
Posts: 1,948
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glockman19 View Post
Excellent read. Sounds like CA is in violation. Ban on open carry and discressionary concealed carry making it unconstitutional...because CA does not allow either.
At this point CA is merely in violation of Gura's argument. There is a another side and the Court will decide ...
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 03-27-2013, 1:53 PM
Tyrone's Avatar
Tyrone Tyrone is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: East Bay, SF Bay Area
Posts: 266
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Concur with SouthwestChuck on the following quote: "The only thing worse than explicitly refusing to enforce an enumerated constitutional right would be
to declare a right “fundamental” while standing aside as lower courts render it worthless. Few outcomes could promote as much cynicism about our legal
system." The ultimate rule boils down to this IMHO, the State can allow open or concealed carry or both, but it cannot deny both because doing so abridges the 2nd Amdt right to "bear arms."
__________________
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
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 9:02 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.