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:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Brady Center to file in San Diego Federal Court
- Thread starter Edward Peruta
- Start date
Gundude
Regular Member
Fraidy's 2nd amendment....The right to hunt ducks in your house shall not be infringed.
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
Regarding the Nov. 1st hearing date
For those who may have been planning to attend the Federal Court Hearing on November 1st, I'd like to let you know that the hearing more than likely will take place later in November.
On this particular topic, I feel confident providing information received from my attorneys.
Regardless of when it is held it should be entertaining and educational.
For those who may have been planning to attend the Federal Court Hearing on November 1st, I'd like to let you know that the hearing more than likely will take place later in November.
On this particular topic, I feel confident providing information received from my attorneys.
Regardless of when it is held it should be entertaining and educational.
coolusername2007
Regular Member
LOL! That's funny. :lol:
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
Hearing date changed from Nov. 1st to Nov. 15th
IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the Briefing
Schedule is GRANTED. The parties shall file their motions in accordance with the dates
stipulated to and set forth in the parties’ joint motion, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment shall be heard in this Court on November 15, 2010 at 10:30 am.Schedule is GRANTED. The parties shall file their motions in accordance with the dates
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 6, 2010
IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court
IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:09-cv-02371-IEG -BGS Document 42 Filed 10/06/10 Page 2 of 2
Gundude
Regular Member
Qualified immunity??
When I read that, I spewed coffee on my monitor and keyboard.
When I read that, I spewed coffee on my monitor and keyboard.
chewy352
Regular Member
Epic Fail
Through all of this I forgot to share this wonderful audio with you all.
Go to: http://www.amatotalk.com/index.php?...egory&id=0&Itemid=138&limit=11&limitstart=396
The 9th title down is: San Diego County Sheriff's Debate
The date is: Monday 14 September 2009
The question starts at 10:30
Gores answer starts at 11:04
ENJOY!!!!!!
Through all of this I forgot to share this wonderful audio with you all.
Go to: http://www.amatotalk.com/index.php?...egory&id=0&Itemid=138&limit=11&limitstart=396
The 9th title down is: San Diego County Sheriff's Debate
The date is: Monday 14 September 2009
The question starts at 10:30
Gores answer starts at 11:04
ENJOY!!!!!!
Gundude
Regular Member
Damn! I spewed more coffee on my keyboard. "Shall not issue"? He certainly believes that.
Epic fail
Epic fail
We-the-People
Regular Member
"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'm glad the others made it quite clear he was WRONG
chewy352
Regular Member
Yup. Unfortunately they lost. Power of the incumbency.
RockerFor2A
Regular Member
I voted for Jay. What a doof, this Gore guy. Problem with a lot of these guys like Gore and Landsdowne (sp?) is that they're politicians with badges. They've got their eye set on higher office in the future. Look at Sanders-- he was chief of police once. They ingratiate themselves to the politicians so they'll have allies later when they run for another office later. Gore is more politician than LEO.
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
My comments after reading a document filed with the Federal Court in San Diego
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://ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/10.04.10%20MSJ%20Files/Response%20to%20Specific%20statements%20by%20San%20Diego.pdf
Read my comments, and access the evidence that I base them on and JUDGE for yourself.
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://ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/10.04.10%20MSJ%20Files/Response%20to%20Specific%20statements%20by%20San%20Diego.pdf
Read my comments, and access the evidence that I base them on and JUDGE for yourself.
Last edited:
Gundude
Regular Member
Got an error signal to check the spelling.
Edward Peruta
Regular Member
Corrected the link
Thanks, I corrected the link
http://ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/1...ponse to Specific statements by San Diego.pdf
Thanks, I corrected the link
http://ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/1...ponse to Specific statements by San Diego.pdf
Thundar
Regular Member
Ed,
The Honorary Sherriffs Association allegation should be enough to require a trial. The facts are not clear and your allegation if taken as true would certainly pass as a 14th A = protection violation.
Going to trial sucks, as it means more $, but do not dispair. The ruling in your case has already helped open carry more than one could imagine. Remember the initial ruling in your case put Judge Kennedy, who is presiding over the DC Bear Arms Case, on the hot seat when Alan Gura used your ruling.
This is the perversion of justice that makes your blood boil. You have clear statements about the honorary deputies special treatment. Push to take the disputed facts to trial. Your lawyer should be able to take them to the wood shed.
Do not fear an unfavorable outcome at trial, remember you have already achieved a great victory in this case.
The Honorary Sherriffs Association allegation should be enough to require a trial. The facts are not clear and your allegation if taken as true would certainly pass as a 14th A = protection violation.
Going to trial sucks, as it means more $, but do not dispair. The ruling in your case has already helped open carry more than one could imagine. Remember the initial ruling in your case put Judge Kennedy, who is presiding over the DC Bear Arms Case, on the hot seat when Alan Gura used your ruling.
This is the perversion of justice that makes your blood boil. You have clear statements about the honorary deputies special treatment. Push to take the disputed facts to trial. Your lawyer should be able to take them to the wood shed.
Do not fear an unfavorable outcome at trial, remember you have already achieved a great victory in this case.
Gundude
Regular Member
Original CCW theory
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.
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.
mjones
Regular Member
In CA it was very clearly about preventing minorities from carrying concealed - primarily the Chinese.
Gundude
Regular Member
I think that was guns in general, not just concealed. That was why there was no 2nd amendment language in the state constitution.
Last edited:
pullnshoot25
Regular Member
When is the case going to be heard? I want to get my court on!
Gundude
Regular Member
The last I heard was Nov 15th.