Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Irony

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Irony

    See http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=433595

    At almost the exact moment that AB-144 progressed in the legislature, Judge England was ruling that Yolo Counties policies survived constitutional scrutiny because one could carry an unloaded firearm in public.

    Notice of appeal has already been filed. Onward and upward.
    This is the second case that states CA may-issue is legal because UOC is an alternative. (Peruta being the other one.)

  2. #2
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    A new reality show to air soon

    A new reality show is in the making. It will be called "Dancing with the Judges". The dance will be called "The judicial sidestep". The winner gets a 2 week, all expenses paid vacation in Seeley, Calif. (Google earth)
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  3. #3
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    That is ironic. Too bad they cannot see the forest through the trees...UOC is not the exercise of one's 2A rights. But why would we expect them to know that, they wear black dresses and pretend their "judgements" (aka opinion) somehow carry more weight than the Constitution itself.

    ETA: Curious thought...has any state achieved shall issue conceal carry permitting through the court system only? Or has it been a combination of court opinions and legislative action?
    Last edited by coolusername2007; 05-17-2011 at 12:06 AM.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  4. #4
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a
    concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo
    County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon
    nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in
    circumstances that may occur in a public setting.
    To me, this is the reason why the right people's strategy is fundamentally flawed. From my chair (based on two opinions so far), the better strategy would be to annihilate 12031(e), abolish UOC through the courts, then call for state wide LOC to force the legislature's hands into shall issue so our guns can go back into hiding "for the children." This strategy IMO dovetails much better with McDonald and still accomplishes CCW for those who don't want to LOC. In the end, we still get both, its just that LOC would be first.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  5. #5
    Regular Member wildhawker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    A new reality show is in the making. It will be called "Dancing with the Judges". The dance will be called "The judicial sidestep". The winner gets a 2 week, all expenses paid vacation in Seeley, Calif. (Google earth)
    That is funny!
    Brandon Combs
    Secretary, Calguns Foundation
    Member, CRPA Board of Directors

    Join me in making regular monthly tax-deductible donations to the Calguns Foundation and help us advance gun rights in California today!

    Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all comments are my own and not the approved position of any organization, nor should they be considered legal advice.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Peninsula, Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    120
    What the "right people" get that you may not is that there is one and only one judge in all of the 50 states that matters.

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by coolusername2007 View Post
    To me, this is the reason why the right people's strategy is fundamentally flawed. From my chair (based on two opinions so far), the better strategy would be to annihilate 12031(e), abolish UOC through the courts, then call for state wide LOC to force the legislature's hands into shall issue so our guns can go back into hiding "for the children." This strategy IMO dovetails much better with McDonald and still accomplishes CCW for those who don't want to LOC. In the end, we still get both, its just that LOC would be first.
    I tend to agree with your assessment of what the SCOTUS is trying to insinuate in Heller and McDonald. Time will tell if getting CCWs first or LOC first was the right strategy.

  8. #8
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I tend to agree with your assessment of what the SCOTUS is trying to insinuate in Heller and McDonald. Time will tell if getting CCWs first or LOC first was the right strategy.
    Yeah, I think its pretty clear. I don't know of any state that has achieved shall issue strictly through the courts, which seems to be the strategy here in the PRK. I could be wrong, but I think all others have gotten there through the legislative process, and possibly helped with court wins.

    The problem is one way could achieve loaded carry in short order, and the other way might achieve loaded carry within the next decade, if at all.

    IMHO 12031(e) and UOC are low hanging fruit, while in this state CCW is a long, hard road.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710
    The problem with a legislative solution to LOC/CCW is that what the legislature gives, the legislature can take away. It's only a privilege. That's what the 40 states that have fair systems really have now. If we get a win in the Supreme Court, nobody can take it away. Only then does it truely become a Right.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    I don't expect any relief from Legislature. The only place for relief is through the court system.
    Two courts have said that UOC satifies our 2nd amendment right, but the Legislature continues with AB 144. A court case similar to the one for the internet ammo bill will be needed stop it.
    I think all the carry cases pending were expected to be denied and appealed upward.
    The ultimate relief will have to come from SCOTUS, the same way Heller and McDonald progressed. They both lost in the lower courts.

    Just my thoughts
    Last edited by Gundude; 05-17-2011 at 08:32 PM.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  11. #11
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by MudCamper View Post
    The problem with a legislative solution to LOC/CCW is that what the legislature gives, the legislature can take away. It's only a privilege. That's what the 40 states that have fair systems really have now. If we get a win in the Supreme Court, nobody can take it away. Only then does it truely become a Right.
    SCOTUS is NOT going to decide CCW is protected under 2A, Scalia said as much in McDonald. CCW is going to have to come from the legislatures. Why? Because it has ALWAYS been a licensed privilege. LOC is entirely different however. As we all know LOC is the 2A and ALWAYS WAS. Now don't get me wrong, I personally believe CCW is a natural law right, I'm just being realistic.

    As for the bolded part...huh? Courts do not create rights any more than legislatures do.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  12. #12
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    I don't expect any relief from Legislature. The only place for relief is through the court system.
    Two courts have said that UOC satifies our 2nd amendment right, but the Legislature continues with AB 144. A court case similar to the internet ammo bill would stop it.
    I think all the carry cases pending were expected to be denied and appealed upward.
    The ultimate relief will have to come from SCOTUS, the same way Heller and McDonald progressed. They both lost in the lower courts.

    Just my thoughts
    I don't expect it either. But you never know what will happen once LOC is the only option and all the Bradys and statists can no longer bear to see what we bear. Then and only then will the legislature give the go ahead for shall issue, that is if they ever do.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •