Quote of the day–Acting P.J. LEVY, J. GOMES, J. FRANSON

Appellants’ position is that it is physically impossible to comply with the dual microstamping requirement using current technology.  At this stage in the proceeding, we must accept that allegation as true.  It is unreasonable to require an individual to attempt what is impossible to accomplish.  Accordingly, substantial compliance is not a consideration.

Acting P.J. LEVY, J. GOMES, J. FRANSON
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
  v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendant and Respondent.

December 1, 2016
[H/T David Hardy.

I find it very telling it took, not the legislature, not the governor, not the district court, but all the way up to the appeals court level for someone to finally agree it is “unreasonable to require an individual to attempt what is impossible to accomplish”. Anti-gun people are either willfully ignorant, evil, or have mental problems, and engage in crazy talk with no shame.—Joe]

15 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Acting P.J. LEVY, J. GOMES, J. FRANSON

  1. “….. are either willfully ignorant, evil, or have mental problems, and engage in crazy talk with no shame.”

    Embrace the power of “&”.

  2. I’d like to know WHEN someone in Kalifornia is going to sue under “Shall NOT be infringed”? Surely by now there is a preponderance of evidence that that is exactly what is going on there. Even an idiot juror would have to see that.
    Or all the legal eagles waiting for something to happen in the legal realm elsewhere, in order to then make it apply to Commiefornia?

  3. Ayn Rand chronicled, back in the 1960s, how the left openly promoted insanity as a rebellion against “The System”. The Soviets would execute one railroad manager for over-taxing the rolling stock with heavy loads, and then execute the next manager for under-utilizing it. The subject of your post is in keeping with this long, rich tradition.

    It is foolish to take the publicly stated goals (excuses, really) of the left at face value (this is where the Republican Party failed completely, starting around the year 1900 if not sooner). Always keep in mind that the left’s motives all center on impeding, discrediting and frustrating, and then, like vampires, feeding off of, the blood, sweat and tears of honest, productive citizens.

    Once you truly realize that, all of your prior confusions and frustrations will turn to understanding. All that remains after that is standing up to them, denying them their cannibal pot. At that stage they have no choice but to shape up, or turn to more obvious forms of crime, and we know what to do about the latter.

    Shall we delve into a specific example, by way of making the point? Let’s;
    Progressives claim to be compassionate. They therefore have the stupid among us convinced that government re-distribution schemes are the same thing as charity. They turn a beautiful thing like charity into something ugly and criminal, i.e. coercion, while expecting us to see them as charitable when all they wanted in the first place was a legal means of committing robbery. It’s criminal, it’s childish, it’s transparent, and there’s no reason to entertain their assertions for one second.

    Deny them their premise, and then it becomes clear what should be done. The biggest mistake we can make is to entertain the premise, because at that point we’ve lost the whole contest and then we’re only talking about the degree and manner of criminality we’re willing to accept in the name of compassion; we’ve gone insane right along with them.

  4. The issue is that two-thirds of California voters (i.e. Prop 63 supporters) are morons, dolts, idiots, and ignorant, panty-soiling hoplophobes, who fear all firearms and have no understanding of our Constitutional rights.

    So, there are no repercussions for our brain-dead representatives and justices when they flagrantly violate the law. Look at Kevin DeLeon! This waste of human skin and oxygen thief knows ZERO about firearms or our rights and yet presumes to offer up horrible legislation.

    Now, if we could do away with qualified immunity and lawsuit protections for these abusers of our civil rights, I bet that most would fly straight and stay on the narrow Constitutional path or face years of incarceration and financial ruin.

    Yes, I have a dream.

    • Proposition 63, background checks to buy ammunition, will be as effective as an annual breathalyzer test to reduce drunk driving.

      • Effective at what? It probably will be somewhat effective at its actual goal, which is to infringe the right of law abiding citizens to keep and use arms.

  5. “It is unreasonable to require…” is horrible grammar. It is a pronoun; the referent noun in the sentence is the infinitive ‘to require’. The authors is a judge, which means he finished high school, finished college, and finished law school, and still doesn’t know how to write.

    • It’s passive voice. He knows how to write legalese, which isn’t the same as real English (or, I assume, any other language that follows common law practices and philosophies, if there are any).

  6. With all the things that are OK to own in CA, but problematic to ship to CA, seems to me there is a business opportunity to open a large mail-box station just across the border in NV and AZ. Cash-only monthly and annual leases available.

    (of course, I’d bet the government prohibits that).

Comments are closed.