LA county CCW lawsuit filed

mjones said:

Birdt loses in federal court

Click to expand...

Holy death by a thousand bites batman.....
The court has found an excuse for everything, little by little.
But this tells us how they feel about our individualism, and any right to self defense; We don't have any, and don't deserve any.

Important Government Objective”
It is clear that the protection of public health and safety are important government objectives,
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996), as is crime prevention, Foucha v. Louisiana, 504
U.S. 71, 81 (1992). In considering California’s concealed weapons regulations, the Peruta court
noted:
In particular, the government has an important interest in reducing the number of
concealed weapons in public in order to reduce the risks to other members of the
public who use the streets and go to public accommodations. The government also
has an important interest in reducing the number of concealed handguns in public
because of their disproportionate involvement in life-threatening crimes of violence,
particularly in streets and other public places

Click to expand...

The government also has an important interest in reducing the number of concealed handguns in public
because of their disproportionate involvement in life-threatening crimes of violence,
particularly in streets and other public places

?????
What the heck, can they back this statement up with facts? How about a list of all law abiding CC carriers that have used their weapon to MURDER and not self defense. I don't think there is a DISPROPORTIONATE invollement like they site, more likely the goverment is getting to big for their own pants.

I don't think it will be long before something happens to slap the goverment down if they keep this crap up.

DocWalker said:

What the heck, can they back this statement up with facts?

Click to expand...

With the current level of established level of constitutional scrutiny ... no, they don't.

There are many reasons why this lawsuit was a 'bad idea', but one of the most important problems was/is timing. Essential items need to occur, in order to topple unconstitutional laws.

mjones said:

With the current level of established level of constitutional scrutiny ... no, they don't.

There are many reasons why this lawsuit was a 'bad idea', but one of the most important problems was/is timing. Essential items need to occur, in order to topple unconstitutional laws.

Click to expand...

What timing? How long has Mulford act been in effect? I am troubled at the thought of putting all the eggs in the judicial branch basket, and having only a select few claim they are the only ones with enough sense to carry that basket. I don't know this guy Birdt, or his client, but at least they are doing something. So many are doing nothing, and now we have some people telling the rest of us that we should either get behind them, or do nothing as well.

Save Our State said:

What timing? How long has Mulford act been in effect? I am troubled at the thought of putting all the eggs in the judicial branch basket, and having only a select few claim they are the only ones with enough sense to carry that basket. I don't know this guy Birdt, or his client, but at least they are doing something. So many are doing nothing, and now we have some people telling the rest of us that we should either get behind them, or do nothing as well.

Click to expand...

In response to the bolded; A fart in a bathtub doesnt make it a Jacuzzi. This is where those who have been following the progress of the 2A in jurisprudence will tell you that doing something for the sake of making something happen is not necessarily valuable. In order to see real progress, California MUST have the individual right to own and carry recognized in a meaningful way before reform can occur. Just like one cannot randomly select a piece to move on a chess board, you cannot arbitrarily select any gun related issue you want to challenge and just file a lawsuit.

There are already pieces in play on the 2A chessboard that have been waiting- Nordyke, Richards v Prieto, and Richards v Harris all enjoy the glacial and ponderous timetable of judicial promptness. Nordyke has been in the pipe for more than a decade- but eventually, the California courts will have to address it and abide by SCOTUS precidence in Heller and McDonald... or not. (And subsequently, get slapped by the supremes.)

Other than timing, there is also venue. One cannot simply move his chess pieces around in whatever squares they want, or they will lose their pieces by defenses already established as anti-gun, and will decide in favor of their own interests. You have to ask yourself why anyone would pursue a case in a district that has no constructionist judges. Birdt apparently didnt, and the result is wasted effort, time, and resources. It's like sending a 5'2" center against a 7'3" power forward- you're just asking for the defender to slap your layup away.

It's boring, but the way gun owners win this game is from the free throw line. We get fouled in the right places and the right times, our players put up points one at a time on an undefendable goal. In the end, these points count more than the full court three-point attempts that end in air balls.

Judge Otero, a CCW holder and Bush appointee will be hearing the next summary judgment on February 27, 2012.

jonbirdt said:

Judge Otero, a CCW holder and Bush appointee will be hearing the next summary judgment on February 27, 2012.

Click to expand...

Being an elected official who claims to be a multi-decade member of the NRA, percieved as generally supportive of licensed concealed carry, and a public supporter of SB610 is no assurance that one will issue a license to carry. Ask me, I know.
While I don't doubt the alleged conservative credentials, no one should underestimate the power of political influence in regards to gun rights in California. He wouldnt be the first to debauch themselves in their own hypocrisy, but I hope they can prove my skepticism as ill-placed. Good Luck.

ConditionThree said:

In response to the bolded; A fart in a bathtub doesnt make it a Jacuzzi. This is where those who have been following the progress of the 2A in jurisprudence will tell you that doing something for the sake of making something happen is not necessarily valuable. In order to see real progress, California MUST have the individual right to own and carry recognized in a meaningful way before reform can occur. Just like one cannot randomly select a piece to move on a chess board, you cannot arbitrarily select any gun related issue you want to challenge and just file a lawsuit.

There are already pieces in play on the 2A chessboard that have been waiting- Nordyke, Richards v Prieto, and Richards v Harris all enjoy the glacial and ponderous timetable of judicial promptness. Nordyke has been in the pipe for more than a decade- but eventually, the California courts will have to address it and abide by SCOTUS precidence in Heller and McDonald... or not. (And subsequently, get slapped by the supremes.)

Other than timing, there is also venue. One cannot simply move his chess pieces around in whatever squares they want, or they will lose their pieces by defenses already established as anti-gun, and will decide in favor of their own interests. You have to ask yourself why anyone would pursue a case in a district that has no constructionist judges. Birdt apparently didnt, and the result is wasted effort, time, and resources. It's like sending a 5'2" center against a 7'3" power forward- you're just asking for the defender to slap your layup away.

It's boring, but the way gun owners win this game is from the free throw line. We get fouled in the right places and the right times, our players put up points one at a time on an undefendable goal. In the end, these points count more than the full court three-point attempts that end in air balls.

Click to expand...

I got sick of chess in the 70's, and never liked basketball from the start, so please spare me the analogies. Your scheme sounds good on paper, but it assumes the court will rule for the reasonable sensible and constitutional aspects of the people's will. I don't believe that's the plan of the other side. Not any more anyway. while your new associates have been playing chess or basketball for the better part of 40 years, the new king(s) have been stacking the deck in their favor, and taking leave of our liberties. Sorry if I fail to seethe optimism in regards to the inevitability of the supreme court's future restoration of our rights, but I've kept score on this, and although they have made some wins, those wins have not translated into anything more than sorely restricted priviledges, or wins that matter only academically.
Good luck to you Condition3.

Save Our State said:

I got sick of chess in the 70's, and never liked basketball from the start, so please spare me the analogies. Your scheme sounds good on paper, but it assumes the court will rule for the reasonable sensible and constitutional aspects of the people's will. I don't believe that's the plan of the other side. Not any more anyway. while your new associates have been playing chess or basketball for the better part of 40 years, the new king(s) have been stacking the deck in their favor, and taking leave of our liberties. Sorry if I fail to seethe optimism in regards to the inevitability of the supreme court's future restoration of our rights, but I've kept score on this, and although they have made some wins, those wins have not translated into anything more than sorely restricted priviledges, or wins that matter only academically.
Good luck to you Condition3.

Click to expand...

I find that it is often necessary to use metaphors to communicate when people aren't fully receiving the message. If I have failed to use a metaphor that speaks to you, I apologize.

In the big picture, California is swiftly becoming the only place in the country where the second amendment is trending towards more restrictions. While the composition of our state legislature isn't likely to change any time soon, there were misplaced aspirations that our executive leader would slouch towards liberty. Having failed our expectations by signing bad legislation, Jerry Brown has elimated any trust in his ability to do the right thing. If you are keeping score- the two aforementioned represent two-thirds of our government and the remaining third represents the soft line in the sand behind which the remaining scraps of liberty must be defended. Can judges be compelled to rule in favor of liberty when they arent so inclined? No- but unlike the other two divisions of government, our judiciary is bound not by constituents but by higher courts. This is where our choice conflict is- because the highest court in the land has already affirmed that we have the individual right to possess weapons for self defense ready in the event of a confrontation.

I hope you like puzzles. Because the piece that is currently missing from this picture is the piece that is marked "bear". Before any of the countless other issues, wants, and desires of gun owners are addressed, carry must be addressed as the sole defining battle for the second amendment in our time.

Birdts case before the Central District court was Quixotic and will be so, until carry is a judicially affirmed component of the second amendment. If there were any hope for a favorable ruling, it would have been in the Eastern District court against an agency that is not a monolithic anti-gun fortress like LA city and county. On the contrary- it would be against agencies that are generally perceived as carry license neutral or permissive.

ConditionThree said:

I find that it is often necessary to use metaphors .

Click to expand...

Good Lord Condition3.

Got to love the judges that will forever cling to the "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" line of Heller. Judges should be seeking to take an expanded view on protecting rights, not a limited view. After all, the main reason government exists to the ensure that our natural rights are protected; "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." Cling cling cling. Hopefully the day will come when their progeny will look upon them as traitors.

Save Our State said:

Good Lord Condition3.

Click to expand...

The internet is srs bsns...

jonbirdt said:

http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Birdt_Opening_Brief.pdf

Click to expand...

Uh oh. I think I can hear someone angrily adding Jon Birdt to a list of people and organizations (SAF, NRA, CGF, Alan Gura) that they believe are anti-open carry, because the appeal does not challenge the statutory scheme for licencing concealled carry.

I did just spank upland pretty bad with an open carry so hopefully I don't make that list. I am already on enough lists. If you have a case I am happy to file it but the state gets to pick the option they just have to allow it.

Just finished reading it (well, actually did it at work). Could the appeal have been tailored any narrower?

Nordyke just ended so there is nothing else in the 9th circuit since Richards and peruta will be remanded. It is intentionally narrow so I am glad you see that. Nordyke set us back years because it was all over and the same will happen to Richards and peruta because the decisions were based on open carry. The constitution allows them to pick oc or cc but they have to allow- that is the narrow issue and they have no wiggle room. The other two motions in la are even more narrow- should be a good 2a summer. Somewhere next year we will have a clear 2a opinion from a circuit court on the outside the home issue.

jonbirdt said:

Nordyke just ended so there is nothing else in the 9th circuit since Richards and peruta will be remanded. It is intentionally narrow so I am glad you see that. Nordyke set us back years because it was all over and the same will happen to Richards and peruta because the decisions were based on open carry. The constitution allows them to pick oc or cc but they have to allow- that is the narrow issue and they have no wiggle room. The other two motions in la are even more narrow- should be a good 2a summer. Somewhere next year we will have a clear 2a opinion from a circuit court on the outside the home issue.

Click to expand...

Hello Jon,

I read your brief. Nice!

In a fair-and-just world, your appeal should be a slam-dunk. As I recall, you have been chastised by people who claim to have a "master strategy" but who lack a clear tactical ground game. Tactically, your appeal appears to be "legal combat tactics" at its best.

A good strategy is required, but tactics win wars, both gun-barrel war and political-legal war.

I am waiting for the legal-giants in our movement to criticize your filing.

markm

Go get ' em Birdt!

jonbirdt said:

Nordyke just ended so there is nothing else in the 9th circuit since Richards and peruta will be remanded. It is intentionally narrow so I am glad you see that. Nordyke set us back years because it was all over and the same will happen to Richards and peruta because the decisions were based on open carry. The constitution allows them to pick oc or cc but they have to allow- that is the narrow issue and they have no wiggle room. The other two motions in la are even more narrow- should be a good 2a summer. Somewhere next year we will have a clear 2a opinion from a circuit court on the outside the home issue.

Click to expand...

Good going Jon, fighting for the rights of all ! Robin47