|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 24, 2011, 04:18 PM | #26 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The Appellees (defendants) filed their response yesterday.
The overall theme was that if the court should decide in favor of the Appellants (plaintiffs), then CA would return to the days of Tombstone and Dodge City. Lots of very inaccurate (read Hollywood) history in this brief. Those of you that know your history should get a kick out of this. Consider this from page 10 of the PDF: Quote:
|
|
September 24, 2011, 05:25 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Many guns in the mainstream of common use have no external safety, unless one views a trigger mechanism as an external safety. For example, garden variety double action revolvers. To argue that it is constitutional to require a safety be engaged on a handgun would be to argue that the carrying of the one pistol that's in the most common use by police agencies and citizens could be banned. The uncontroverted safest way to carry a 1911 ready for defense is cocked and locked, unless one thinks lowering the hammer manually on a live round is a safe practice. Indeed, unless a 1911 is cocked, the safety cannot even be engaged. This argument fails totally. Otherwise Glocks, 1911s, and double-action revolvers would all be found unconstitutional to carry in ready condition for self-defense. |
|
September 24, 2011, 11:08 PM | #28 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
There's so much amusing stuff in there... but this kills me...
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
September 25, 2011, 06:33 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,747
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearms Safety, Pistol and Rifle Instructor “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life......” President John F. Kennedy |
|
September 25, 2011, 12:02 PM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
"Excuse me, Mr. Mugger, Sir, please stand by whilst I load my California-legal handgun so that I might shoot thee. Be patient, I'll only be a moment ..." |
|
September 25, 2011, 12:32 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
Is this going to become known as the "Barney Fife argument"? |
|
September 25, 2011, 01:21 PM | #32 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
September 25, 2011, 01:33 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
This ought to be like shooting fish in a bucket. But at the root of opposition to carry by citizens HAS to be an underlying fundamental belief that we either don't really have the right to self-defense (which necessarily includes the means to accomplish it), or that we can't be trusted with the right.
Since they can't or won't admit that, every argument that descends from those two beliefs is going to be disingenuous, inherently flawed, lacking in logic, and will be incongruent with very simple facts: 1. Just as a car needs to be running in order to move, a gun needs to be loaded and ready for immediate use for self defense. 2. The need for self defense is inherently impossible to predict. 3. Any self defense must necessarily take place in the immediate vicinity of the person defending him or herself. That will usually be outside the home. There is not one aspect of these simple physical realities that can't be fully understood and comprehended by the average 1st grader. But when ideology and political leanings are driving the bus, any pretense of logic or impartiality is left at the curb. There is no shame, and no honor in abusing judicial discretion to any extent to arrive at any per-determined conclusion whatsoever. It is a disgrace to the legal profession and the judiciary. The very idea that the government should defend ITSELF from it's own constitutional restrictions is itself an outrage. It can never be in the best interest of the republic to abuse the judicial system to inflict injury on the foundation of the government, the constitution. Last edited by maestro pistolero; September 25, 2011 at 01:38 PM. |
October 25, 2011, 10:54 PM | #34 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Today in Richards v. Prieto, Alan Gura has filed their reply to the defendants response (we've been waiting for this since they asked for an extension after the signing of AB 144).
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/ric...2011-10-25.pdf This is a terrific rebuttal in light of the passage of AB 144 - the ban on Unloaded Open Carry. Quote:
|
|
October 26, 2011, 10:32 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Stanislaus Co., Mexifornia
Posts: 615
|
If ones personal preference for a self defense handgun is a single action revolver then UOC is going to be a tough sell!!
|
January 24, 2012, 06:29 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
|
January 24, 2012, 08:47 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Judge Morrison Englands ruling will likely stand. Heller was not a resounding win for us: Four justices watered down their opinion on the Second Amendment in order to get a fifth justice on board.
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Morrison_England |
February 20, 2014, 01:02 PM | #38 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Remembering that this case is at the 9th Circuit, awaiting a decision, last Thursday 13 Feb., both the plaintiffs and the Defendants filed opposing 28J supplemental letters.
See doc #68 and #69 at the docket: 11-16255 CA9 Docket |
February 20, 2014, 01:16 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Sorry, the link is broken. goes to a Page Not Found.
What does Peruta (which I'm guessing is the subject of the 28J letter?) do to this case? Other than either make it very easy for a pro-2A judge to find for, or an anti-2A judge to drag his feet until after at least en banc is settled? |
February 20, 2014, 01:37 PM | #40 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Amazing what happens when you place a "," instead of a "." between the word, "docket" and "html!" Fixed.
|
February 20, 2014, 02:05 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
The reply is hilarious. Because the majority of the county is wilderness, and the open carry ban doesn't apply there, the Peruta finding of a right to self defense outside the home is met as long as people stay way the heck out of town and never re-enter an incorporated area.
|
March 5, 2014, 01:12 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
On CalGuns they're saying Richards has been reversed and remanded
Here's the pdf they uploaded over there |
March 5, 2014, 02:36 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 394
|
Good stuff!
|
March 5, 2014, 04:38 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Good, but not really that important because it's the same three judges as decided Peruta and with no new reasoning or facts added. Peruta is what matters, esp. whether or not it gets taken up en banc and whether or not it influences the Supremes to take Drake.
__________________
Jim March |
March 6, 2014, 09:31 AM | #45 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Jim, this is important, because Judge Thomas, who wrote the dissent in Peruta, reluctantly agrees that the case was decided correctly:
Quote:
|
|
March 6, 2014, 10:11 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
|
Thomas is only saying here "well if Peruta stands, this stands, but I still say Peruta is wrong". So no, there's no new analysis or...well, anything.
I expect the Hawaiian variant of this to be the same.
__________________
Jim March |
March 6, 2014, 10:42 AM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
When he says
Quote:
|
|
March 6, 2014, 12:08 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
Thomas agued in dissent in Peruta that the majority erred in looking beyond the specific question presented, which was a challenge to the good cause requirement of the concealed carry law. Looking solely at concealed carry, Thomas concluded, based on a long history of cases upholding concealed carry bans, that concealed carry was not within the scope of the Second Amendment--as had the eastern circuits in Kachalsky, Drake and Woolard.
The majority did look at that law more globally, found a right to carry outside the home, and concluded that carry for self defense had to be allowed in one form or another; California having effectively banned urban open carry, concealed carry had to be allowed, and a discretionary system of issuance that had the effect of banning most people from exercising the right was unconstitutional. In Richards, and contrary to what Al says, Thomas did not concede that the majority was correct, only that under principles of stare decisis the outcome was determined by Peruta. In his concurrence, though, he made the point that he believed that Peruta was wrongly decided, and essentially invited en banc review. |
March 6, 2014, 12:24 PM | #50 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Which is why I stated that Judge Thomas "reluctantly agreed." <-- Note the term I used. I did not say he "conceded." You named it: stare decisis.
Not being an attorney affords me the leeway to put legalese into a manner in which the non-legal mind (and the majority of the people), can understand. You want to take issue with that? Certify my entry into the Bar, and I will go all legalese on everyone. As many of my posts will attest, I'm quite capable of that. |
Tags |
2nd amendment , ca may issue , firearm rights , saf/gura |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|