Hello All,
As I was reading the Peruta summary judgement, I kept thinking to myself, who is litigating this for the plaintiff?
Do they understand the judicial temperment of our current supreme court? Do they review case law? Do they know how to use strategy and tactics to accomplish a legal goal?
I am stunned, shocked, and amazed.
Before I go further, I want to thank Mr. Peruta for attempting this lawsuit as a named plaintiff. Thank you sir, for you are a patriot.
I am sorry that your legal team was inept.
Judge Gonzales did what she was supposed to do when considering a complaint. She went above her call of duty and explained how we can further protect and regain our right to bear arms. I FEEL that she knows that Associate Justice Kennedy of SCOTUS, will not go for "strict scrutiny" when ejudicating the carrying of guns in public places, again, my FEELING!
She did her homework.
Case law and regulatory schemes from most states, both recent and old, give three choices for carrying a weapon in public. UOC, or LOC, or with a "shall issue" CCW.
The lame-duck governor of Wisconsin has vetoed legislation for CCW (shall issue) because LOC is legal in Wisconsin. Notwithstanding, Wisconsin LOC law has come under fire for being poorly written and unevenly enforced, but the citizens of Wisconsin are supposed to have a regulatory scheme that allows for RKBA.
In Kalifornia, we have 12031. However, we also have 629, which seems to make the regulatory scheme unconstitutional.
If 629 were stricken as an unconstitutional statute vis-a-vi California's regulatory scheme for public carry of weapons, I believe Justice Kennedy would rule that 12031 is constitutional by using "intermediate scrutiny." Again, my FEELING!
Stategy and Tactics.
Who was the tactician for this case? Whoever you are, you blew it. 629 and 12031 should have been brought into this case as California's regulatory scheme must be ruled constitutional or unconstitutional as a COMPLETE governmental regulatory scheme.
I believe, when SCOTUS rules on the public carry of weapons by law abiding citizens, states will be given the option to allow UOC, or LOC, or "shall issue" CCW. However, states like AZ, AK, and all others, may allow all three. In order for the regulatory scheme to be constitutional, a state must codify as legal, just one option.
This is my opinion based on the reality of our situation. YOU MAY NOT LIKE MY OPINION BASED ON REALITY, BUT IT IS REALITY! Forget about the philosophical arguments about RKBA.
As a student of Strategy and tactics, we must start by gettting a ruling from SCOTUS that creates case law for a regulatory scheme that allows LOC, or "shall issue" CCW, or both if the state in question so chooses.
Cornwalis had a good strategy for ending the Revolutionary War. But, Cornwalis' tactical awareness sucked. Washington chose a strategy that allowed for MANY tactical losses, but in the end, Lafayette, the French navy, and Washington's army surrounded Cornwalis at Yorktown. It was the de facto end of the Revolutionary War. After many tactical losses during the campaign, Washington proved himself to be a strategic genius.
Statgey and tactics matter!
How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time.
Big Toe: Your lawsuit should be part of a larger strategy. We need some real legal experts to help you get your tactical lawsuit combined with a strategic plan that can take you to SCOTUS. You are smarter than the so-called experts!
markm
As I was reading the Peruta summary judgement, I kept thinking to myself, who is litigating this for the plaintiff?
Do they understand the judicial temperment of our current supreme court? Do they review case law? Do they know how to use strategy and tactics to accomplish a legal goal?
I am stunned, shocked, and amazed.
Before I go further, I want to thank Mr. Peruta for attempting this lawsuit as a named plaintiff. Thank you sir, for you are a patriot.
I am sorry that your legal team was inept.
Judge Gonzales did what she was supposed to do when considering a complaint. She went above her call of duty and explained how we can further protect and regain our right to bear arms. I FEEL that she knows that Associate Justice Kennedy of SCOTUS, will not go for "strict scrutiny" when ejudicating the carrying of guns in public places, again, my FEELING!
She did her homework.
Case law and regulatory schemes from most states, both recent and old, give three choices for carrying a weapon in public. UOC, or LOC, or with a "shall issue" CCW.
The lame-duck governor of Wisconsin has vetoed legislation for CCW (shall issue) because LOC is legal in Wisconsin. Notwithstanding, Wisconsin LOC law has come under fire for being poorly written and unevenly enforced, but the citizens of Wisconsin are supposed to have a regulatory scheme that allows for RKBA.
In Kalifornia, we have 12031. However, we also have 629, which seems to make the regulatory scheme unconstitutional.
If 629 were stricken as an unconstitutional statute vis-a-vi California's regulatory scheme for public carry of weapons, I believe Justice Kennedy would rule that 12031 is constitutional by using "intermediate scrutiny." Again, my FEELING!
Stategy and Tactics.
Who was the tactician for this case? Whoever you are, you blew it. 629 and 12031 should have been brought into this case as California's regulatory scheme must be ruled constitutional or unconstitutional as a COMPLETE governmental regulatory scheme.
I believe, when SCOTUS rules on the public carry of weapons by law abiding citizens, states will be given the option to allow UOC, or LOC, or "shall issue" CCW. However, states like AZ, AK, and all others, may allow all three. In order for the regulatory scheme to be constitutional, a state must codify as legal, just one option.
This is my opinion based on the reality of our situation. YOU MAY NOT LIKE MY OPINION BASED ON REALITY, BUT IT IS REALITY! Forget about the philosophical arguments about RKBA.
As a student of Strategy and tactics, we must start by gettting a ruling from SCOTUS that creates case law for a regulatory scheme that allows LOC, or "shall issue" CCW, or both if the state in question so chooses.
Cornwalis had a good strategy for ending the Revolutionary War. But, Cornwalis' tactical awareness sucked. Washington chose a strategy that allowed for MANY tactical losses, but in the end, Lafayette, the French navy, and Washington's army surrounded Cornwalis at Yorktown. It was the de facto end of the Revolutionary War. After many tactical losses during the campaign, Washington proved himself to be a strategic genius.
Statgey and tactics matter!
How do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time.
Big Toe: Your lawsuit should be part of a larger strategy. We need some real legal experts to help you get your tactical lawsuit combined with a strategic plan that can take you to SCOTUS. You are smarter than the so-called experts!
markm