Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/29/2002 4:10:21 AM EST
Grrr..... CHRONICLE PROFILE: Gary Gorski A lonely fight for gun rights Scrappy lawyer mounts challenge to state's assault weapons ban [url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/12/23/MN210896.DTL[/url] But that didn't stop him. While many people assume this latest fight against gun control in California is being waged by the National Rifle Association or state gun owner groups, the real contestant is Gorski, a virtual unknown, who filed the challenge on behalf of nine plaintiffs -- most of them rugby buddies. [b]Chuck Michel, a spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA lawyer, said he sympathized with Gorski's impatience, but said his approach was "not the way to go about correcting the problem."[/b] Gee, then pray tell, what is "the way" to correct this "problem". Assclowns!
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 4:25:21 AM EST
Here is a guy who has picked up the flag off the ground and is carrying it forward. Californians interested in God-given rights should be lining up behind him! Fargen NRA, see what they do? Where's GOA on this one?
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 4:26:37 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 6:25:46 AM EST
Chuck Michel, a spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA lawyer, said he sympathized with Gorski's impatience, but said his approach was "not the way to go about correcting the problem." Michel has filed a lawsuit in Fresno Superior Court challenging the weapons ban on the basis of its ambiguity. Gorski, he said, is a "well-intentioned loose cannon."
View Quote
The NRA has a chance to fight for the RKBA on constitutional grounds - but they opt out and instead prefer to argue on the grounds of legal "technicalities" (ambiguous laws) because the NRA is afraid they'd lose on a straight-ahead decision regarding the 2nd Amendment. [V]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 6:48:17 AM EST
More power too him!!!!
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:03:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Chuck Michel, a spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA lawyer, said he sympathized with Gorski's impatience, but said his approach was "not the way to go about correcting the problem." Michel has filed a lawsuit in Fresno Superior Court challenging the weapons ban on the basis of its ambiguity. Gorski, he said, is a "well-intentioned loose cannon."
View Quote
The NRA has a chance to fight for the RKBA on constitutional grounds - but they opt out and instead prefer to argue on the grounds of legal "technicalities" (ambiguous laws) because the NRA is afraid they'd lose on a straight-ahead decision regarding the 2nd Amendment. [V]
View Quote
Yep, they are waiting for a case that they can win and set a precedent. Would you have attacked Ohamaha beach with 50 guys?
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:10:34 AM EST
From the article..
Chuck Michel, a spokesman for the California Rifle and Pistol Association and an NRA lawyer, said he sympathized with Gorski's impatience, but said his approach was "not the way to go about correcting the problem." Michel has filed a lawsuit in Fresno Superior Court [red]challenging the weapons ban on the basis of its ambiguity.[/red] Gorski, he said, is a "well-intentioned loose cannon."
View Quote
Typical nra response. Never DIRECTLY challenge the laws. They raise more funds by beating around the bush. Were this suit won on 2nd Amendment grounds, it would gut fundraising for nra. They know that. I will be making an effort to contact Mr. Gorski immediatly to see what assistance, (if any), I can provide him......
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 7:29:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 8:07:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By Paul: Didn't the Ninth Circus confirm that SB23 was completely legal and not a violation of the US Constitution?
View Quote
Yes, the case however, is similar to the Miller case, with one big exception, Miller was convicted of charges other than the sawed off shotgun. The plaintiffs in this case, are not "criminals". IMHO, this case is ripe for the high court. We have LONG needed a 2nd Amendment case ruling from the high court. One way or another, let the chips fall where they may.
The California Rifle and Pistol Association has about a dozen or more cases going before the liberal run courts at any time for what they're worth. The bastards continue to make law from the bench backing their fellow liberals who continue to violate federal law outright. They're even bold about it and the United States Constitution no longer applies in California. I'm dead serious.
View Quote
And dead right.....
Every failed attempt is used by the anti's to form case law and further their warped adjenda. Their bottom line is a subject base who are totally dependent upon the state for everything - personal protection is one of the major parts and has the second edge to it of preventing those with a backbone and a set to go along with it from rebelling come the proper time. The right case to over throw only some of these bizarro laws might have been Emerson and I'm still waiting on the last shoe to drop on that one.
View Quote
Emerson is over...
This is a battle of lawyers and politicians against the lay people of the state. The government is no longer one of the peoples will but one of the elite professional lawyer/politicians who have gained power slowly over time without enough caring people noticing.
View Quote
I have contacted Mr. Gorski, and am waiting for return calls from him. At this time I don't think some of the organizations I'm involved with are involved in this case. At the time I ran the Seaside boycott, (see user info), I developed a national network of people who assisted with the boycott. With Mr. Gorski's permission, I intend to re-activate this network to spread the word to gunowners in the country, and assist if possible in fund-raising....
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 8:17:31 AM EST
Is he accepting funds to help in his fight? Or is he going solo?
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 8:28:37 AM EST
and a cherished autographed picture of his hero, pro wrestler-turned-politician Jesse Ventura, Minnesota's governor.
View Quote
I'm with him right up to this point. Thank God that fool only has eight more days in office. It will be interesting to see what kind of stupidity he pulls at the last minute. Originally posted by Paul:
The government is no longer one of the peoples will but one of the elite professional lawyer/politicians who have gained power slowly over time without enough caring people noticing.
View Quote
Paul, you are absolutely right. The only adjective that I would add is "wealthy."
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 8:29:08 AM EST
The Ninth Circuit basically affirmed the right of the states to regulate possession of firearms based on the fact that the state must supply a "well regulated militia." My understanding of the issue is that the NRA is trying to pick its battles in order to develop case law that can be used to challenge the greater issues later. What Gorski is doing is taking the 'silver bullet' approach by attacking the situation directly. Remember, gun control has been here since 1934 and has become more stringent as the years pass. And, of course, once the sheeple got used to it, the pace has quickened. Thinking that any court is going to repeal 22,000 laws overnight is foolish. SCOTUS got whipped by the FDR administration when he threatened to pack the court with as many as 17 justices to ensure his unconstitutional social programs were implemented. Stopping and reversing gun control is going to require a lot of time.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 8:45:45 AM EST
The National Guard or State Militia was not even around when the constitution was written. It was a 100 years later. Why doesn't he argue that point?
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 9:10:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By RichinCM: The Ninth Circuit basically affirmed the right of the states to regulate possession of firearms based on the fact that the state must supply a "well regulated militia." My understanding of the issue is that the NRA is trying to pick its battles in order to develop case law that can be used to challenge the greater issues later. What Gorski is doing is taking the 'silver bullet' approach by attacking the situation directly. Remember, gun control has been here since 1934 and has become more stringent as the years pass. And, of course, once the sheeple got used to it, the pace has quickened. Thinking that any court is going to repeal 22,000 laws overnight is foolish. SCOTUS got whipped by the FDR administration when he threatened to pack the court with as many as 17 justices to ensure his unconstitutional social programs were implemented. [red]Stopping and reversing gun control is going to require a lot of time.[/red]
View Quote
Time we don't have. The govt. education system is effective at dumbing citizens down. We need to get all the cards on the table while those willing to fight are still able to....This is NOT a democracy.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 9:15:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 9:20:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Here is a guy who has picked up the flag off the ground and is carrying it forward. Californians interested in God-given rights should be lining up behind him! Fargen NRA, see what they do? Where's GOA on this one?
View Quote
Fargen GOA..... Scott
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 9:23:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/29/2002 9:27:07 AM EST by DScottHewitt]
Y'all do know that [b]IN THREE DAYS!!!!![/b] Kalifornistan is requiring a thumb-print to buy a firearm? From GlockTalk:
[i]Originally posted by raygun [/i] [B]The state is saying that a California drivers license or ID isn't valid. I don't see why Big 5 would be asking for two forms of ID? There is no law requiring two forms of photo ID only proof of residency by one of the following: A lease or deed to your property with the address you are stating where you live. A utility bill within 90 days, or military orders with a permanent duty station. This amounts to nothing but more California harrasment! Is your wife or girfreind or roommate not on the lease or utility bills? Well he or she can't legally buy a gun. What about college kids and everyone else who doesn't have these documents? California just eliminated a bunch of people from buying guns in this state. [red]We will also need to give a thumb print on the DROS form in 2003 because as gun owners we are guilty until proven innocent.[/red] From the CA DOJ website: Effective January 1, 2003, provides that no firearms dealer may deliver a handgun without first requiring the recipient of that handgun to correctly and properly perform a safe handling demonstration with that handgun. The firearms dealer is required to retain an affidavit signed by himself/herself and the handgun recipient as proof of compliance. Failure to comply may result in removal of the firearms dealer from the Centralized List of Firearms Dealers. Persons who are exempt for the HSC requirement are also exempt from the safety handling demonstration requirements (PC 12071(b)(8). [red]Effective January 1, 2003, requires each person taking delivery of a firearm from a firearms dealer to provide his/her right thumbprint on the Dealers Record of Sale form (PC 12077).[/red] Effective January 1, 2003 requires each firearms dealer delivering a handgun to obtain proof of residency from the handgun recipient. Satisfactory proof of residency may include a utility bill from within the three months prior to the delivery, a residential lease, a property deed, military permanent duty station orders indicating assignment within this state, or other evidence of residency as permitted by the DOJ. The firearms dealer is required to retain the residency documentation as proof of compliance. Failure to comply may result in removal of the firearms dealer from the Centralized List of Firearms Dealers (PC 12071 (b)(8) (C). [/B]
View Quote
Scott EDIT: Red highlights my addendum.....
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 9:34:31 AM EST
Originally Posted By Sylvan: Just keep sending checks and we will tell you when the war is over.
View Quote
This would make a great sig line. I say screw the NRA's strategy of waiting for the perfect case law or whatever their bs excuse is. Fight for our rights on 2nd amendment grounds. Either we win big or we lose. The way it is now we just die a slow death.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 1:03:52 PM EST
"Y'all do know that IN THREE DAYS!!!!! Kalifornistan is requiring a thumb-print to buy a firearm?" Well, on the brighter side, in only three days we will start to see the dramatic decrease in crime that results from this brilliant new system.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 1:31:48 PM EST
Talked with Gary Gorski today, seems like a good guy. He does not require any assistance at this time. The case is on appeal to the 11 members of the ninth circut. He has submitted his briefs, and the court has requested the state to respond, so it looks like there will be oral arguements before the court. He is glad the 3 member court gave such a detailed denial of his case, as it gives him more ammo for the appeal. He gave me his e-mail address, and I'm going to hook him up with a couple of folks I know in the pro-gun community. He was real open, and gratified at the support he has recieved from gun owners. He did verify that nra has taken a "hands-off" atitude as the news article suggests.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:00:37 PM EST
Forgot, Gary's web site.. [url]http://www.gwgorski.com/[/url]
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:08:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:11:17 PM EST
Originally Posted By liberty86: Forgot, Gary's web site.. [url]http://www.gwgorski.com/[/url]
View Quote
This guy is one of the board's better members.
Link Posted: 12/29/2002 2:16:21 PM EST
Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: This guy is one of the board's [s]better[/s] best members. Edited by me.
Top Top