SpaceCritter
NES Member
Interesting. Connecticut does this:
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Duncan vs. Becarra (CA magazine ban case) -- Judge is awesome
- Thread starter thormx538
- Start date
Years ago a few friends that went to umass Lowell got arrested by ATF and charged with tax evasion for transporting massive quantities of cheap shitty beer and plastic bottle vodka from NH to mass. I’m talking multiple truck and car loads, bumper scraping pavement, two to three times per week quantities. Only got caught once, they had to forfeit about 800 bux worth of booze and got slapped on the wrist in court. Just boys being boys! They’re all tax paying members of society now!
Between Cali and the rest of the country.... I'm game!!
I met someone who had recently moved from CA to NH. He told me that the CA gov't wants to impose a 45% tax on the sale of homes to dissuade people from escaping CA!!
EC1
NES Member
Sounds like the kind of tax France imposed on its citizens vacating the country after they passed rather high income taxes.I met someone who had recently moved from CA to NH. He told me that the CA gov't wants to impose a 45% tax on the sale of homes to dissuade people from escaping CA!!
Thirwell1216
NES Member
They is also legislation proposed to fine people who don't vote.....I'm assuming vote their way.
sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com
Proposed California Legislation Would Penalize Registered Voters Who Fail To Vote
Americans often celebrate the right to vote in this country, but at what point does that right become an obligation? A Marin assemblyman is proposing legislation that would penalize people who fail to cast their ballots.
sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com
DispositionMatrix
NES Member
The state is arguing the firearms _can_ use reduced-capacity mags and therefore should, for the public good. A couple of the judges are asking why strict scrutiny should not be applied. The state argues Fyock supersedes this (I guess).
DispositionMatrix
NES Member
Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale
Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, Case No. C-13-5807-RMW | Casetext Search + Citator
Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale, Case No. C-13-5807-RMW | Casetext Search + Citator
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,109
- Likes
- 33,031
Cmon. No one has posted “What the Fyock are they talking about?”
nstassel
NES Member
CatSnoutSoup
NES Member
I would have thought it was more than “half” the magazines when you consider the limited number of magazine restricted states vs standard cap states.
His arguments were weak because it's a weak case other than the "because guns" doctrine. I mean the primary purpose for a magazine capacity restriction, according to their arguments, is that pauses to reload reduce casualties during a mass shooting, yet had little evidence to support that. He then further said that they need not prove causation (because they can't), and that correlation is sufficient.
The entire argument is that they can prohibit a constitutional right based on a compelling interest that they cannot even prove the restriction relevant too! Not only is the law not narrowly tailored, it may not even have, and there is little evidence in the record to even suggest it has, an impact on said interest.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
That was indeed fascinating.
Attorney Murphy did an excellent job.
I have read a metric ton of 2A decisions, but thats the first time I got to watch oral arguments in a 2A case.
The judges obvious ignorance about firearms does a lot to explain to me why we get so many bad decisions.
Attorney Murphy did an excellent job.
I have read a metric ton of 2A decisions, but thats the first time I got to watch oral arguments in a 2A case.
The judges obvious ignorance about firearms does a lot to explain to me why we get so many bad decisions.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,109
- Likes
- 33,031
Rocket Ma'am???
If only this would go nationwide.
. Hey - we can hope. Maybe this will win and SCOTUS will take it as indication and b-slap the NY thing to make it all nationwide. Hey - maybe I'm getting stay-at-home insanity.
I just watched the video and I have a few comments. First and foremost is that is an hour of my time that I'll nev have back.
I was surprised at how the only judge that seemed to pay attention was the guy in the top right panel. He seemed engaged and listened to all of the testimony. Asked appropriate questions (although not that many).
The chief justice (I assume) in the top left, was not very attentive during the states testimony always looking away unless she had a question. Was she letting him speak because she agreed with him or needed him to get his testimony into the record?
The middle judge seemed to have some relevant questions.
When the sides changed, the judges seemed to change as well. Both of the female judges took on a more adversarial tone. Where the states attorney got a hall pass, she was challenged on a lot of things. While the attorney had a lot of good and salient points, there is a LOT of room for confirmation bias for the judges.
It was very interesting to watch, though I'll never do it again. I can't wait for the ruling against the 2A and how they twist the "facts" and arguments to meet their views. This is afterall the ninth circus. We all know how this is going to go.
I was surprised at how the only judge that seemed to pay attention was the guy in the top right panel. He seemed engaged and listened to all of the testimony. Asked appropriate questions (although not that many).
The chief justice (I assume) in the top left, was not very attentive during the states testimony always looking away unless she had a question. Was she letting him speak because she agreed with him or needed him to get his testimony into the record?
The middle judge seemed to have some relevant questions.
When the sides changed, the judges seemed to change as well. Both of the female judges took on a more adversarial tone. Where the states attorney got a hall pass, she was challenged on a lot of things. While the attorney had a lot of good and salient points, there is a LOT of room for confirmation bias for the judges.
It was very interesting to watch, though I'll never do it again. I can't wait for the ruling against the 2A and how they twist the "facts" and arguments to meet their views. This is afterall the ninth circus. We all know how this is going to go.
Video conferencing can have a significant effect on how those viewing the subject see the person on camera. I spent a bunch of years with PictureTel in the 90s, and there is a real art to it. Heck PictureTel had their own recommended wall color, PictureTel Purple, to help get the best images possible. These kind of talking-head kluged conferences are terrible.
Look how the judges were framed, too close and off center, too far away, and from the side. Everyone is looking at a monitor but they don't seem to get it that the far end is looking through the camera. Relative camera/monitor position is crucial.
And the audio was terrible. PictureTel did studies to determine what were the most important aspects of a video conference and found that audio quality was the single most important item.
As for the chief justice, I don't think she was inattentively looking away, rather she was looking at reference material and making notes. In chambers her computer screen and any notes would be directly in front of her, below her line of sight to those testifying. In this hearing her computer/notes were off to the side, making it look like she was looking away.
The center judge was too close to the camera, and the guy on the right was too far away when he was leaning back (cheap camera, small lens).
So you have to get past all the terrible video and audio. PictureTel put some serious effort into understanding how video/audio is perceived by the viewer and found that viewers made subconscious decisions about the content and people dependant on the quality and presentation of the video/audio
As for the adversarial tone, that's the nature of the hearing and if it's not there they aren't doing their job. I think it's hard to tell but I think sometimes the adversarial judge is asking questions to get answers that support their position, looking for information that they feel will help convince the other judges.
And if a judge isn't asking questions, and just sits back and listens, that judge has already made a decision and just wants the hearing to end.
Look how the judges were framed, too close and off center, too far away, and from the side. Everyone is looking at a monitor but they don't seem to get it that the far end is looking through the camera. Relative camera/monitor position is crucial.
And the audio was terrible. PictureTel did studies to determine what were the most important aspects of a video conference and found that audio quality was the single most important item.
As for the chief justice, I don't think she was inattentively looking away, rather she was looking at reference material and making notes. In chambers her computer screen and any notes would be directly in front of her, below her line of sight to those testifying. In this hearing her computer/notes were off to the side, making it look like she was looking away.
The center judge was too close to the camera, and the guy on the right was too far away when he was leaning back (cheap camera, small lens).
So you have to get past all the terrible video and audio. PictureTel put some serious effort into understanding how video/audio is perceived by the viewer and found that viewers made subconscious decisions about the content and people dependant on the quality and presentation of the video/audio
As for the adversarial tone, that's the nature of the hearing and if it's not there they aren't doing their job. I think it's hard to tell but I think sometimes the adversarial judge is asking questions to get answers that support their position, looking for information that they feel will help convince the other judges.
And if a judge isn't asking questions, and just sits back and listens, that judge has already made a decision and just wants the hearing to end.
I agree with @42!. My impression of the judges was quite different from @dans.
To me it seemed the judges asked good and relevant questions, forced both sides to expand on their legal arguments. Since the state's argument is that 10 rounds is a necessary restriction, they asked where the number 10 comes from. They forced him to concede there is a number that would be too restrictive, and what that number would be. His answer? ZERO! He would not concede to a magazine capacity restriction of one NOT being too restrictive. In other words, a complete magazine ban would be permissible. Only a ban of single shot firearms wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Prior to this exchange the judge asked why this wouldn't be a slippery slope, and if they allowed it to stand, why the state couldn't just change it to a smaller number later. These are fantastic points and questions. In fact, they are some of the best questions and points.
While I will not be surprised if they rule in favor of the state (I've listened to oral arguments before in which I thought the judges did a good job and made good points only to rule contrary to them anyways), they didn't show bias.
To me it seemed the judges asked good and relevant questions, forced both sides to expand on their legal arguments. Since the state's argument is that 10 rounds is a necessary restriction, they asked where the number 10 comes from. They forced him to concede there is a number that would be too restrictive, and what that number would be. His answer? ZERO! He would not concede to a magazine capacity restriction of one NOT being too restrictive. In other words, a complete magazine ban would be permissible. Only a ban of single shot firearms wouldn't pass constitutional muster. Prior to this exchange the judge asked why this wouldn't be a slippery slope, and if they allowed it to stand, why the state couldn't just change it to a smaller number later. These are fantastic points and questions. In fact, they are some of the best questions and points.
While I will not be surprised if they rule in favor of the state (I've listened to oral arguments before in which I thought the judges did a good job and made good points only to rule contrary to them anyways), they didn't show bias.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
Great victory for freedom loving Americans everywhere.
I know there is another thread discussing this victory, but this thread discussing the case should be kept up to date.
I highly recommend watching the oral argument videos in this case, very eye opening on how the sausage is made.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlsgZUIDis&t=11s
I know there is another thread discussing this victory, but this thread discussing the case should be kept up to date.
I highly recommend watching the oral argument videos in this case, very eye opening on how the sausage is made.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlsgZUIDis&t=11s
One of the best quotes of the Judge, highlighting the ridiculousness of the State's case:
At oral argument, counsel for the state conceded that there is a threshold below which some capacity “does actually impose a severe burden on the core right of self-defense” and would be “too low.” When asked whether the state could permissibly restrict magazines to contain zero bullets, allowing for one round in the firearm’s chamber, counsel offered only a qualified concession: “I think that might be too low. Hypothetically.”
At oral argument, counsel for the state conceded that there is a threshold below which some capacity “does actually impose a severe burden on the core right of self-defense” and would be “too low.” When asked whether the state could permissibly restrict magazines to contain zero bullets, allowing for one round in the firearm’s chamber, counsel offered only a qualified concession: “I think that might be too low. Hypothetically.”
Personally I liked how the states averaging of 2 shots per self defense was completely reasonable, but the researchers average of time between shots in mass shootings was a completely abhorrent and unfounded number according to the state.
At 37:20 that girl was in a zone and delivered. Ianal and know very little about courts or proceedings, but I have to think her argument here weighed exceptionally heavy. Perhaps so strong that she tied the judges hands.
I would like to buy her a beer.
Cap'n Mike
NES Member
I agree.
Makes you wonder how often do we get bad judgments because the Attorney for the plaintiff is not as good as the Governments council?
Maybe never, but in this case, Attorney Murphy was far more persuasive.
allen-1
NES Member
Brownells: Putting Their Money Where Their Mouth Is -
A lot of companies talk a great game but rarely do they put their money where their mouth is.…
onlygunsandmoney.com
