Gundude
Regular Member
If you were a lawyer, would you put your name on that brief? Speaks volumes on the integrity of some lawyers.
Last edited:
Just be glad they didn't cite it as California Rifles & Associated Pistols.
"shall not issue" huh? In the wake of McDonald and Heller, wouldn't that mean that LOC would have to be legal then?
I'm glad the others made it quite clear he was WRONG
I have taken the time to read the documents recently filed by the County of San Diego in my Federal Case.
To say the least I am shocked but not surprised that they are trying to offer outright false informaiton and misleading information to the court and people who access the documents filed.
Most on this message board know that I maintain a website with most of the evidence and filings in the case at www.cagunrights.com
Here is the link which will take you directly to my comments:
http://www.ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/10.04.10 MSJ Files/Response to Specific%
Read my comments, and access the evidence that I base them on and JUDGE for yourself.
I wonder about the original theory of the legislature concerning the issueing of CCW's
They never intended to issue them to criminals, only law abiding citizens. They decided to have the Sheriff's administer issueing them to law abiding citizens and weed out the people who shouldn't have them. Personal protection had to be the paramount reason for issueing. Why else would a law abiding citizen want one.
Some Sheriff's decided this was backwards. "I won't give them to everyone, just the people that I think should have them.
In CA it was very clearly about preventing minorities from carrying concealed - primarily the Chinese.
When is the case going to be heard? I want to get my court on!