FEDERAL COURT: STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUED OVER 2ND A. VIOLATIONS!

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

It's not a bad strategy to run up a list of successes before tackling the bigger issues. When CGF and SAF finally address the difficult issues like LOC and "assault weapons", they will be in a much stronger position if they can show a 1.000 batting average.

Click to expand...

A court doesn't give a flying @#$% what their "batting average" is.

cato wrote:

If federal judges keep having to look at cases where the state of Ca is clearly off it's sanity rocker and with good guy plaintiffs just wanting to defend themselves (the core 2nd A right) and own protected arms, then we stand a much better chance of building a favorable case law base, winning this war, and getting broader carry rights then we have now.

Click to expand...

Or, we'll get bad case law while CGF twiddles their thumbs challenging easy but non-threatening statutes, and courts will have the following precedent to look at: Law-abiding gun owners claiming they have a right to buy obscure models of handguns, and criminals claiming they have a right to be armed in school zones.

Sorry, I'm not hopeful. In fact I'm rather depressed. It's a two-way street, so don't demand any "support" from me.

imported post

oops

imported post

marshaul wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

It's not a bad strategy to run up a list of successes before tackling the bigger issues. When CGF and SAF finally address the difficult issues like LOC and "assault weapons", they will be in a much stronger position if they can show a 1.000 batting average.

Click to expand...

A court doesn't give a flying @#$% what their "batting average" is.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the court's opinion.

imported post

flintlock tom wrote:

marshaul wrote:

flintlock tom wrote:

It's not a bad strategy to run up a list of successes before tackling the bigger issues. When CGF and SAF finally address the difficult issues like LOC and "assault weapons", they will be in a much stronger position if they can show a 1.000 batting average.

Click to expand...

A court doesn't give a flying @#$% what their "batting average" is.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the court's opinion.

Click to expand...

You were talking about support from Californians, then? You have a point, but I'm afraid that a few more donations aren't going to be the deciding factor.

imported post

Agreed.

imported post

Well as someone with a disability of my one arm I can say I can fully understand how frustrated the plaintive is to try to find a gun that is ambidextrous in the state of CA. I finally bought my first gun and out of all the ones i looked at only the HK USP was ambidextrous at least for the magazine release.

As to someones comment there were other things they could have went for first. You might be right then again this case might be what truly opens up a lot of other things that would make fighting the "bigger" cases easier to win. I can't say what the "right people" might have been thinking when they brought their case.

imported post

I just want to clarify my opinion of CGF, as looking over my previous posts I see how it might easily be misunderstood.

I believe that Gene and the "right people" do strongly believe and support our right to carry without a permit. I have not had the opportunity to meet Gene et al in person, but a very reliable, pro-OC source has assured me that OC is on their list.

What I'm opining here is that I simply am uncertain in their strategy. This despite the fact that they've got me horribly outclassed when it comes to brains and experience. I may very well be (and hopefully am) wrong.

By no means do I intend to discourage donations to the cause. I think CGF is a worthy cause to donate to. (Now, if we had an organization that had OC as it's top priority, I'd have to send my money that way instead... so let me know when one exists.)

imported post

This is Gura and Kilmer choosing this case first with CGF and SAF backing (and I'll bet NRA money under the table too) so I've got no arguments against doing it. This torpedo (Roster Ban) is in the water and running hot. I think we'll see them launching another soon.

Do I want Vermont in CA? Yes. Will I see it in my life time? I don't know.

but look at this cool OC rifle poster again...:lol:

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Yet, of course, actions speak louder than words.

They simply don't believe they time is (or presumably ever will be) "right".

Click to expand...

We're less then a month past incorporation. What do you expect and on what time table?

We've been wondering in the desert for 70+ post Miller years (40 years post Mulford Act in Ca.), I see paradise in the distance but it won't be here tomorrow. Look at that travesty of a Nordyke decision pissin on open carry on government "sensitive" open space property. We need to tread smartly in the next few cases or we'll get more of the "you have the Right but can't exercise it outside of your home (oh and make sure you have your home carry license too)" kinda right which DC has right now.

I have a right to reproduce with my wife (it's not enumerated however) but I can't do that in public. I even needed a license to get married (how crazy is that).

I want Vermont/Alaska or Nevada, but as a stepping stone, Penn. or Indiana, (God save us from Texas carry - I'll OC rifle then) will suffice (for now).

artwork by oleg volk:

imported post

For those who want to support an OC case only, there is still Theseus' 626.9 school zone caseand he is still needingyour support!

If you're reading this and haven't donated OR can donate even $20 or $50 or $100 per month please do so now!

and the monies donated go directly toTheseus' defense facilitated by the Calguns Foundation and tax deductible too:

http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/36-current-legal-cases/67-donate-to-theseus-open-carry-case

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

IMO the "safe" handgun roster is an easy target, but not a threat so it should have been much lower on the priority list.

Click to expand...

The low hanging plums are always a good target, even if it's an incremental advance. Just take out the easy stuff with a resounding court win, then it can be referred to in future cases that are related in some way.

imported post

I like my Taurus PT-99 with reversable magazine release, just pull my finger out of the trigger guard, and press witth trigger finger, don't even need to change your grip at all

imported post

FYI CGF and SAF are filing another suit, this one challenging CCW policies: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/25492.html

imported post

Dave1947 wrote:

I like my Taurus PT-99 with reversable magazine release, just pull my finger out of the trigger guard, and press witth trigger finger, don't even need to change your grip at all.

Click to expand...

lol, non sequitur ftw! :lol:

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

IMO the "safe" handgun roster is an easy target, but not a threat so it should have been much lower on the priority list.

Click to expand...

It could be a good strategy. Pick on fights where you can win. Make a lot of noise, create a lot attention, shape public opinion. Especially now that the Gallup boss is saying that more and more people seems to be tolerant of gun ownership. This builds precedence.A starting point. Like a game of chess, eat as much pawn as you can, then open the queen, and finally,touch the king a mile away with a thirty-odd-six.