• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Two More Concealed Carry Appeals Lose

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
<snip>

another prophetic comment to guide your efforts, quote: Or perhaps the head of the SAF, Alan Gottlieb, knows that he is going to lose but files these concealed carry lawsuits to entice the Kool-Aid drinkers to give him money. I don’t know. unquote. http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=4358

Dissappointed to see links to pacer v. actual documents being posted.

I doubt many are giving $$ to Calf.-man myself.

Right on the money in respect to Gottlieb IMO though....I've read much of his stuff and he's an idiot IMO...such pleadings that don't argue what they should.

That's why in cases I have a lawyer involved I also file a co-appearance ... so I can file pleadings too...even being able to file pleadings can push the pleadings of the lawyer into what I want or to force him to file various motions and objections etc.

In the real world lawyers are not as zealous as I am ....
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Lawyers are bound by ethics, their canons of ethics, while McBeth is not and lies like a cheap rug.

Thanks for your unwavering support !

Lawyers are "bound by ethics" ROFL ... you have not dealt with many .govs, have you? I whip them in court routinely .... they make outrageous claims and defenses that they know are wrong right from the get-go....

And your claim that I "lie like a cheap rug"? No evidence of this at all, just a wacky statement that has no merit.

At least you again used words that do not require a run over to a dictionary or thesaurus. Its unlike you ... are you ill ?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Lawyers are bound by ethics, their canons of ethics, while McBeth is not and lies like a cheap rug.

4 Dec 16 CBS news ~ drive by lawsuits, quote:
Because of the law, every business that serves the public -- all 7 million of them in America -- has to make sure disabled customers have equal access, and if businesses don’t comply, they can be sued without warning.

You might think you have to be a customer of a business to file a lawsuit against it, but in some states you don’t. You can simply drive by a store or restaurant, and if you see a sign in the wrong spot, or a ramp that’s off by a few inches, you can sue. They are called drive-by lawsuits, and some lawyers are filing hundreds of them against businesses that often have no idea they have done anything wrong.

Anderson Cooper: How many lawsuits have you filed?

Tom Frankovich: 2000, 2500. I mean, I don’t really keep track.

Anderson Cooper: Do you know how much you’ve made in the 2000 cases you’ve filed?

Tom Frankovich: Oh, I wouldn’t dare to say.

Anderson Cooper: Millions?

Tom Frankovich: Yeah I would say that.

Anderson Cooper: Couple million?

Tom Frankovich: Could be.

Most states and the District of Columbia currently award cash damages for plaintiffs who file such lawsuits

unquote. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-americans-with-disabilities-act-lawsuits-anderson-cooper/

ya sounds like good legal ethics being practiced doesn't...

ipse
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
See Canon 15

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/mrpc/Canons_Ethics.authcheckdam.pdf

Sic Mad Dog McBeth on 'em. How many meritless claims does he claim?

.gov lawyers ? I have encountered many that make claims that a 5 yo knows are merit-less ... and I win the cases simply because they had no defense to the charges made by me.

I even proven that they subordinate perjury ... ramifications against the .govs lawyers (personally) ? None.

The ones that actually admit guilt are very few and far between and even those only admit guilt to escape responsibility.

I do not win every case but have never filed (I would estimate I am 75% winner in cases decided on the merits) any frivolous case .. if I spent my time filing frivolous cases I would not have time for the ones with merit and that's counter-productive.


Oh the .govs know me ... I'm very polite even when tearing them a new one in court.
 

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
654
Location
Lynchburg
Hello out there California Right To Carry. Go back to post #17 in this thread and try to make some logical reasoned counter argument to my challenge to your position. I want you to not be able to claim you missed it. Can you do it?

I think no. But I still dare you to try!

Nemo
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
more 8yo playground ranting...nice!

normally the 8yo would have their mouth washed out by an adult for using those words in their retort...

i suspect post deletion would work just as well

yepper, your veracity is slipping even lower...nicely played!

ipse
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
Hello out there California Right To Carry. Go back to post #17 in this thread and try to make some logical reasoned counter argument to my challenge to your position. I want you to not be able to claim you missed it. Can you do it?

I think no. But I still dare you to try!

Nemo

i84eq.jpg

Note to admin, this is the "F-less" version.
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
Not to be argumentative but in the context of the Constitution and specifically the 2nd amendment, KEEP=Possess or control....

Limiting the word 'keep' to be only to 'own' eliminates on the right to 'possess or control' an arm loaned to one but not actually 'owned' by the possessor.

Please note: I am NOT saying that OWNERSHIP is NOT included in "KEEP"!

I would argue that the word own, in relation to ownership encompasses these two words

after all if you have ownership of an item, you posses it and have control over it. :p

but this cali guy... :banghead:

even his forum name is synonymous with carrying regardless of the method which is used to do so. it's right there after the California... begins with an R...
 
Last edited:

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
I would argue that the word own, in relation to ownership encompasses these two words

after all if you have ownership of an item, you posses it and have control over it. :p

but this cali guy... :banghead:

even his forum name is synonymous with carrying regardless of the vehicle which is used to do so. it's right there after the California... begins with an R...

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

Possession of a firearm is an innocent act. Carrying a weapon concealed has never been a right under the Second Amendment, not in 1791 or 1868 and not today. The Right To Carry has always been Open Carry under both the Second Amendment and under California common law.

I don't have a forum at my website but thanks for playing.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Not necessarily so.

1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault
Not all death threats are created equal.

We are gunna kill'em on Sunday.
 

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
654
Location
Lynchburg
Quote Originally Posted by Va_Nemo View Post
Hello out there California Right To Carry. Go back to post #17 in this thread and try to make some logical reasoned counter argument to my challenge to your position. I want you to not be able to claim you missed it. Can you do it?

I think no. But I still dare you to try!

Nemo


View attachment 13253

Note to admin, this is the "F-less" version.



So your answer is a meme of a cat in a nazi uniform? Should that indicate to me that you believe I am a nazi slang term for female genitalia?

Dare you try to answer my questions noted back in post 17? Or are you just going all alt-left on me by calling me a racist?

Or do you simply have no logical answer so you hide from reasonable intelligent discussion?

In case you have not noticed, yes I am calling you out and challenging you on what appears to be a complete lack of knowledge on Second Amendment related matters discussed here.

Nemo
 

California Right To Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
462
Location
United States
So your answer is a meme of a cat in a nazi uniform? Should that indicate to me that you believe I am a nazi slang term for female genitalia?

Dare you try to answer my questions noted back in post 17? Or are you just going all alt-left on me by calling me a racist?

Or do you simply have no logical answer so you hide from reasonable intelligent discussion?

In case you have not noticed, yes I am calling you out and challenging you on what appears to be a complete lack of knowledge on Second Amendment related matters discussed here.

Nemo

Your post was nothing but incoherent blather which makes it unworthy of a sincere response.

Here is your consolation prize for playing...

21950TurtleWax2.jpg
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
thank goodness this is a public forum so the jurists you face can see your remaining credibility circle the drain.

ipse
 
Last edited:

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251..." District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

"[A] right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations."" District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

Possession of a firearm is an innocent act. Carrying a weapon concealed has never been a right under the Second Amendment, not in 1791 or 1868 and not today. The Right To Carry has always been Open Carry under both the Second Amendment and under California common law.

I don't have a forum at my website but thanks for playing.

Please show me a quote from the actual framers of the document as to their intent, cause I seem to recall a mentioning of holding their firearms close to their bosom. ( this would be chest back then) and with those awfully long coats it isn't beyond the belief one could hide one of those newfangled rifles that had rifling in the barrel that where used to take out noblemen officers of the red coats.

not asking for some black robes, who places himself on a pedestal, opinion, the original writers intentions only please.


the only thing you could bring about to convince ANYONE otherwise, is the right to use a firearm ends with immoral action that takes away anothers rights either through severe injury or death, E.G. murder or attempted murder.
 
Last edited:
Top