|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 26, 2013, 09:46 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
...I don't feel anyone tugging on my leg, which is odd, considering that post. |
|
February 26, 2013, 11:26 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Chicago Police routinely shoot and kill people, then they say the person had a dark object in their hand, the object turns out to be a cell phone.
It's happened many times but people in Chicago haven't stopped carrying cell phones. |
February 26, 2013, 11:34 PM | #53 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
February 27, 2013, 01:38 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I found one instance of this, it seems it is hardly a trend. Stating that this happens routinely strains credulity.
http://articles.chicagobreakingnews....e-morning-shot http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1...y-officer.html |
February 27, 2013, 09:32 AM | #55 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Things like that happen. And that's indeed a long way from (emphasis added) -- And sometimes a use of force (by a cop or by a private citizen) will work out to be justified when the belief of a threat was reasonable, even if mistaken.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
February 27, 2013, 12:22 PM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
While I completely understand that sometimes human perception collides with sets of facts to create tragic mistakes, I can't think of a single instance where a non-LE got that same benefit of the doubt. Just saying.
Quote:
Also, I want to express my sympathy to Gray, who, for better or worse, has spent enormous energy, and time (and money, I presume) to attempt to further gun rights. Whatever disagreements some may have with the strategy, I do believe it was thoughtful and well-intended. And, for all we know, it may well be vindicated in the end. That is certainly my hope. Last edited by maestro pistolero; February 27, 2013 at 12:38 PM. |
|
March 8, 2013, 04:27 PM | #57 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Peterson petition for rehearing filed
and order of the court ordering a response. Both attached.
|
March 8, 2013, 05:19 PM | #58 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Excellent brief. I wish Gray success.
I did catch a few typos/grammatical errors: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by maestro pistolero; March 8, 2013 at 05:30 PM. |
|||
March 8, 2013, 08:58 PM | #59 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
We know of at least 3 Judges on the circuit that will not be calling for a vote....
|
March 9, 2013, 08:06 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
And not to mention we'd have to have a Clinton/Obama appointee vote for rehearing. Not impossible, but not likely either. I wonder if a cert grant in Kachalsky changes their mind?
|
March 9, 2013, 12:13 PM | #61 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
We are having this discussion over on MD Shooters as well. Al, this what I said over there. I just do not get this petition:
What I did not see in the petition was a response to this statement in the court's opinion: Peterson has repeatedly expressed, however, that he is not challenging the Denver ordinance. After Suthers advocated for the constitutionality of the Denver ordinance in his motion for summary judgment, Peterson clarified that he was not arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutional, but that it is Colorado’s “refusal to allow Plaintiff to obtain a CHL that is unconstitutional.” (Slip op. at 18) That is the heart of the court's opinion as to Denver. The plaintiff cannot both attack and not attack the Denver statute. If the court is correct (and that may be a big "if"), that Peterson did not attack the Denver statute in district corut, then I don't see how the petition can challenge Denver's refusal to allow OC. And if he isn't challenging that refusal to allow OC, that only leaves the attack on Colorado's refusal to give him a non-resident CCW, and the court says it is bound by the Robertson dicta on that. Now you can now say that the Robertson dicta was overruled by Heller and that is a fair argument, but you can not still attack the Denver ordinance that you did not attack in D.Ct. As I understand it, Colorado allows OC without a permit and concealed carry with a permit but allows the CC permit only to residents. Denver, by ordinance that the court says that Peterson did not challenge, bans OC completely and only allows CC with the Colorado permit. So, if, as Peterson says, OC is fine as one alternative, he *must* challenge the Denver ordinance banning open carry. Or he can challenge the State restriction of the CC permit to residents, but the petition does not raise that argument. So it is OC or bust. The court says bust cuz he didn't challenge the Denver ordinance. QED. So where am I wrong in this? |
March 9, 2013, 06:35 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
|
The P & I clause was brought up in district court but the ruling stated that claim was also abandoned. Don't know if it can be brought back or not at this stage. Very confusing indeed. Is there any benefit to giving up certain claims along the way?
|
March 9, 2013, 07:24 PM | #63 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
The P&I was not abandoned in the CA -- the court specifically addressed it rejected the argument. And sure, every appellate attorney worth his salt narrows his case on appeal and on rehearing and on cert. If your best argument can't win, you sure can't win with the 2nd best argument. The trick is to know the difference. Which is why some lawyers get paid the big bucks.
|
March 10, 2013, 01:19 AM | #64 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
March 10, 2013, 01:24 AM | #65 |
Member
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
|
Yup, and he lost on the merits of the P&I argument. He does not see rehearing on that point.
|
|
|