How long will Californians Tolerate This?

[Sons of Liberty]

[SNIP]

Would you regard a police officer an expert on the law because they carry a badge? They make their living administering justice, and I think it would be highly suspect if you agreed with the above statement. Since you might not agree that a police officer is an expert on the law, how then could you not accept the possibility that someone could both be knowledgeble and adept in using the legal system without being a paid attorney?

I would grant some credibility to someone who has become a lawyer due to the years of study required and passing the bar. Just trying to determine if I could grant Gene some "deference" (although there are other factors I would consider).

 

[bigtoe416]

I'll put Gene's legal knowledge up against both JD's (Jon Birdt, Gary Gorski's) and non-JD's (Kevin Hall, Charles Nichols) any day of the week.

I love how I got pulled into this conversation. It'd be hard to have more legal knowledge than somebody whose main purpose in life (I'm guessing) is to run a gun-rights organization. I never claimed I knew more than anybody, please don't pull me into these conversations if at all possible. Much obliged.

 

[hoffmang]

I love how I got pulled into this conversation. It'd be hard to have more legal knowledge than somebody whose main purpose in life (I'm guessing) is to run a gun-rights organization. I never claimed I knew more than anybody, please don't pull me into these conversations if at all possible. Much obliged.

So why did you see your case through to a loss after I personally asked you to withdraw it and warned you that it would come out exactly as it did and that it would be used against the right to keep and bear arms exactly as it has been?

-Gene

 

[pullnshoot25]

I learned a long time ago not to **** with the following people...

-Hoffmang, because he sees the future in the murkiest of waters, calls it right and has a mind so sharp it makes God Himself cry.

-Wildhawker, because no matter how logical I am or have been, he is even more logical (and sadly, a better writer) than I and has logically bitch-slapped me back to the 4th grade a few times. Seriously, I can see why Charles Nichols, Jon Birdt and the like do not directly engage Wildhawker or Hoffmang. I've been there, it is kind of a bizatch to have the weight of reality bear down on you. Unlike some people though, I didn't and still don't run away.

As an aside, I consider Hoffmang and Wildhawker to be good friends despite the physical and chronological distances between us and all the chidings and arguments we have had.

Take note that my rather effervescent endorsement of these two does not mean that they can nor should rule the roost without reproach or questioning. However, their track records and dedication are steadfast reminders of their commitment to the cause of advancing civil rights here in CA and elsewhere. Until they betray that trust, act unethically or in a questionable manner, I do not feel that my trust is misplaced. Take a second to think about that.

That said, lets all quit the schismatic infighting and focus on the root problems. It gets a bit tiresome to keep reading this back-and-forth arguing when a more concerted effort should be afoot. We shouldn't be dividing and conquering ourselves.

Got a patient so I have to go.

-N8

 

[MKEgal]

As to 12031(e)'s unconstitutionality it matters not whether the facts were a search or a seizure.

Ahem. How do you seize something without first searching for it?

Coming at it from a slightly different angle...
unless there's a "loaded chamber" indicator, don't the police have to seize the pistol before they can search it (to see if it's in compliance w/ the unconstitutional "no loaded carry" law)?

So there are 2 searches (find the pistol, check the pistol) & a seizure involved each time this happens.

Though I could see the reasoning behind the argument that because the pistol is openly carried, plainly visible, the first search (find) isn't actually a search.

Has anyone tried carrying a pistol w/ a "loaded chamber" indicator, to see if police would just look at the thing instead of taking it from the holster, handling it, & being tempted to record/run the serial #?
(Depends on the holster... I just checked, & one of my holsters allows the indicator to be seen, the other doesn't.)

Or how about covering the serial #s?
(If possible... on my favorite model, one iteration is stamped on the barrel inside the ejector port.)

 

[bigtoe416]

So why did you see your case through to a loss after I personally asked you to withdraw it and warned you that it would come out exactly as it did and that it would be used against the right to keep and bear arms exactly as it has been?

I thought I addressed those points in my locked thread on the topic of my case. To reiterate briefly though, you said one of several circumstances would happen, one being that I would lose, and I lost. That's not because you're prescient, it's because you listed several possible events that likely would take place. You also said several things that didn't turn out to be true (such as the superintendent pointing out that the right to bear arms hadn't been established). Why didn't I listen to you? Because you never presented a legal argument to me. You gave me plenty of scary reasons why I'd lose (most of the judges are secret members of LCAV, pro-se cases never win (mostly true), I'd ruin everything when I lost (without any citations as to how that would happen, since gun rights organizations are still around and doing stuff I must assume that I didn't ruin everything)). If you had written me an email citing cases like U.S. v. Lewis or quoting the Nordyke decision and asking me how I planned to overcome that you probably would have scared me out of continuing. I study logic all day long, using scary ideas without logic tends to not persuade me. Hopefully this will come across as helpful for talking people out of cases instead of coming across as an attack on you. Believe it or not I think you're a good guy (the feeling isn't mutual, I'm sure).

To also briefly touch on your comment that my case would ruin everything, the opinion of my case heavily rested on the Nordyke decision. To briefly quote,

The Court determined that open, public spaces ““fit comfortably within the same category as schools and government buildings.”” Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439, 460 (9th Cir. 2009); 575 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2009) (ordering rehearing en banc); 611 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2010) (remanding back to panel after McDonald). Thus, it held that prohibiting the possession of firearms on municipal property ““fits within the exception from the Second Amendment for ‘‘sensitive places’’ that Heller recognized.”” Id.

If/when Nordyke is overturned, the decision in my case will be significantly weakened (possibly nullified).

 

[230therapy]

Fixed it for you.

Heh...the correct way I should have said it is: California lost useful open carry in 1967.

That whole "unloaded" bit...silly...