tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post4270087050885355627..comments2024-01-05T12:03:52.460-05:00Comments on No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Two Responses To The Nordyke DecisionJohn Richardsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03151468462458613615noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-37733309354705517832012-06-17T19:48:48.602-04:002012-06-17T19:48:48.602-04:00Yeah, no kidding. Why face up to your own mistakes...Yeah, no kidding. Why face up to your own mistakes when it's much easier to assassinate the character of anonymous critics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-91816230858364095222012-06-14T18:15:48.344-04:002012-06-14T18:15:48.344-04:00LOL. Just shocking there was no response to this.LOL. Just shocking there was no response to this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-46500608159267232912012-06-07T12:42:22.743-04:002012-06-07T12:42:22.743-04:00No good points can be made by someone unless they ...No good points can be made by someone unless they reveal their identity. Otherwise their arguments make no sense and the reasoning is just completely unsound!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-25423360742786824692012-06-06T14:49:56.119-04:002012-06-06T14:49:56.119-04:00"And, not surprisingly, they have yet to win ..."And, not surprisingly, they have yet to win a single important case"<br /><br />Although those litigators haven't, the NRA's civil rights attorneys certainly have. <br /><br />See, for example, Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, which struck down the City's hangun ban pre-Heller, and in doing so substantially bolstered CA's implied preemption doctrine in the context of firearms laws. And Parker v. CA, which struck down one of the most controversial pieces of gun control legislation, AB 962, on constitutional vagueness grounds. And the NRA filed probably the best case to address the standard of review issue, Jackson v. San Francisco. That case was stalled by SF's obstructionist motions, and I believe the NRA defeated all of them and now has a substantive merits motion pending if I'm not mistaken.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-82258696200680229702012-06-06T02:58:16.612-04:002012-06-06T02:58:16.612-04:00It's always a pleasure to read the gems that a...It's always a pleasure to read the gems that are proffered on the Internetz when people virulently snipe from behind their "Anonymous" moniker.<br /><br />-BrandonBrandon Combshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04146356160351901702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-24764401170414441822012-06-05T21:45:08.880-04:002012-06-05T21:45:08.880-04:00Nordyke wasn't litigated for twelve years over...<i>Nordyke</i> wasn't litigated for twelve years over the narrow question “Could the County ban gun shows?” To suggest so now shows either willful ignorance or blatant prevarication.<br /><br />Go back and review the published proclamations of the various California-based gun rights organizations that were supporting <i>Nordyke</i>. Prior to <i>McDonald</i>, it was heralded as the vehicle for Second Amendment incorporation. Afterwards, it was anointed as the case that would settle the “tiered scrutiny” debate. And when the second panel opinion introduced its substantial burden test, <i>Nordyke</i> was hailed as the case that would create a circuit split (with <i>Ezell</i>) and become the third gun case to reach the Supreme Court. In point of fact, <i>Nordyke</i> has repeatedly been held out as <b>the</b> “‘magic bullet’ court case.”<br /><br />And while all of this was happening, every other gun rights case in the Ninth Circuit was stayed. But that didn't stop these same gun rights organizations from repeatedly telling their supporters that “shall issue” carry was coming to California no later than June 2012, and that other outlier regulations (like our handgun roster, assault weapons ban, magazine capacity restrictions, etc.) would fall soon, too. Of course, just like you, they, too, insisted that every delay and bad decision was the fault of judges who hated the Second Amendment. Never, ever, could any setback possibly be self-inflicted!<br /><br />For most of the country, the long-term looks good for self-defense rights. States and localities which already respect these rights are repealing bad laws and instituting new protections. Outright bans — whether of handguns or public carry — are probably gone for good.<br /><br />But California was Ground Zero for a more sophisticated form of anti-gun zealotry: here, pro bono attorneys cleverly wrote onerous regulations instead of prohibitions. Unfortunately, California's gun rights litigators have so far refused to acknowledge this critical distinction. And, not surprisingly, they have yet to win a single important case. Blind support (like yours) only enables their continued failure — and the adoption of California-style regulation wherever self-defense rights are under assault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-81873153770670570392012-06-05T14:16:27.698-04:002012-06-05T14:16:27.698-04:00Cite please?
What exactly did you expect in terms...Cite please?<br /><br />What exactly did you expect in terms of magical change in 2A jurisprudence in California from a narrow case about gun shows being banned by a single county on public property when private property venues remained available? <br /><br />The narrow question was "Could the county ban them?", the narrow answer, "No." To claim that as a "failure" is as wrong-headed as those who felt Heller was a "failure" because the Court (gasp) ruled on the narrow question at hand of "carry within the home" and didn't make Constitutional Carry the law of the land or something.<br /><br />I swear some pro-gun people look for reasons to bitch rather than accepting that we are in a long-term campaign to turn back a long-term erosion of gun rights; that there won't be a "magic bullet" court case.<br /><br />What this ruling that, essentially, bans are not allowable (which is what the County avoided by accepting secured guns) does is open the door for Peruta to proceed which, based on the reasoning of the trial judge, stands a decent chance of getting rid of either the open carry ban in Cali or the may-issue carry restrictions.Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05414687981098467556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4146148016062694502.post-78204770652778030462012-06-04T22:47:36.834-04:002012-06-04T22:47:36.834-04:00This Nordyke case was a disaster for the so-called...This <i>Nordyke</i> case was a disaster for the so-called gun rights organizations supporting it. It calls into serious question the judgment and competence of those who claim to be leading the judicial fight in California.<br /><br />Sadly, rather than recognize their mistakes, these leaders instead resort to the most disingenuous bluster by claiming absolute victory in the face of near complete defeat. Their behavior proves once again that these individuals are far more interested in their positions, power and public image than actually succeeding in court.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com