State of California's Brief in Opposition to Certiorari (Silveira)

[2dogs]

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


State of California's Brief in Opposition to Certiorari
--Latest Development

This is the reply the Supreme Court ordered the State of California to produce. It came directly from the counsel of record listed on page one to Silveira attorney Gary Gorski. The file is 70 pages and 902KB, so be patient when downloading. Rather than opening it from its location, consider right-clicking and saving it to your hard drive -- then opening it.


* Note Lockyer's opening sentence describing petitioners as "......a group of self-described "model" citizens....................."

What an arrogant twit.

 

[Henry Bowman]

The tenor and language of the brief are shockingly casual for being before the Supremes.

 

[Kharn]

I just love how Lockyer questions why the petitioners didnt just apply for a permit to buy assault rifles (IIRC, those permits are only granted to police officers), or why they didnt just chop off the offending features.

He goes on to say that their seeking relief from Kali law would have no effect, as the guns they want are banned by the '94 AW ban. Lying sack of .

Kharn

 

[publius]

.pdf files are the only thing more annoying than Lockyer.

Thanks, KABA, I really needed to burn all that extra bandwidth just to have everything perfectly set up for printing, so that I could read the dern thing in my web browser.

Somebody should tell them about the existence of html, but I'm in no mood right now.

 

[Jim March]

Lockyer created the PDF, not Shamaya. He just reprinted it. Converting a PDF into HTML is a MAJOR pain in the neck, esp. where you've got complex footnote formats to retain.

 

[Frohickey]

Whats wrong with .pdf file?

I actually like the pdf files. It allows me to keep the file around for later reading/viewing.

 

[tyme]

pdf: 178k
marginally cleaned-up html: 60k

Fixing things so that there aren't 50 billion span tags would probably cut it down to 30k-40k.

http://www.thehighroad.org/library/silveira/CAreply.html

Yes, it's ugly and it has font problems, but it's readable, more or less. If someone wants to post a link to a fixed-up copy, I'll replace the above version.

 

[Sven]

just in tyme... thanks!

 

[publius]

Jim,

First, Lockyer created his pdf, and I know he doesn't really care for us to read it. I was talking about KABA's response, which I'm guessing Lockyer didn't create, based on the part I read before getting frustrated and quitting.

Second, I know it's a pain (I've done it myself, by hand), but they do want people to read the thing, right? Decreasing download time is one good way to accomplish that end. In my case, there are other reasons as well. When viewing a pdf via Internet Exploder, I'm unable to resize the font, something I frequently want to do with most any web doc because I use a Mac, where font sizes are smaller by nature, and because my eyes are showing their age. Also, I like my scroll wheel on my mouse, which I have set to page down one page. Viewing pdfs through IE, it doesn't work at all. Instead, I click on the scroll bar to go down a page, and I find, drumroll please...., the formatted-for-printing bottom of the page I was just reading, along with the formatted-for-printing top of the page I want to read next. Another click gets me to where I wanted to go. Oh, did I mention that my Mac is getting on in years, and there's a nice little delay with each click?

Frohickey, I didn't say they should eliminate the pdf, but providing an html alternative would be nice. Additionally, there are other ways to save something. Select the text and save as a word processing doc, or, if you have a Mac and Internet Exploder, add the web page to your scrapbook. (It saves any web page, including dynamically generated shopping cart checkouts and such, exactly as you see it on the screen, complete with working links. Pretty handy thing sometimes.) Or, you could save the html doc, maybe mirror it somewhere else yourself. Take along any images, if you want it to look pretty. You could trust that KABA will be there for a while, and just bookmark it. Take screenshots of it. There's more than one way to skin that cat, but like I said, the best option would be for KABA to make both html and pdf versions available. If they really want wider circulation of both Lockyer's response to the cert petition and their reaction to it, they could even do what tyme did to Lockyer's pdf file and make a servicable html version available.

tyme,
THANKS!!!! Now there's some hope I'll get through the whole thing before becoming frustrated and quitting.

 

[tyme]

Adobe acrobat will convert non-graphic (non-scanned) pdf documents to html, word, and several other formats.

 

[MicroBalrog]

So, what happens now?

 

[Kharn]

MicroBalrog:
We wait. Thats all we can do until the Supremes decide if they will hear the case.

Kharn

 

[2dogs]

Yes, it's ugly and it has font problems, but it's readable, more or less.

Hey, all I get on your link is gibberish.

 

[Kharn]

tyme;
Pardon us, but your html is showing.

Kharn

 

[2dogs]

Pardon us, but your html is showing.

Got it- my blunder.

 

[Sven]

Can we the people write letters to the Justices?

 

[Kharn]

I was incorrect in my earlier post about it being a matter of days.
I scanned a bunch of cases on the SC website, using a search for "response requested" in the docket files. Apparently, every case with a response requested has to be redistributed before the Justices will conference on it. The rescheduling happens anywhere from 1 day to 2+ weeks after the last brief is recieved. The conference is scheduled anywhere from two weeks to 2-3 months (the Court is not in session during the summer) away. Once the conference occurs, typical response is under a week from the 2nd conference date, with 3-4 days being the most common (Friday conference, Monday or Tuesday announcement?).

Sven:
Comments are apparently accepted, but who knows how much weight they carry.

Kharn

 

[Frohickey]

publius and pdfs

If you are on a Mac, shouldn't you be used Safari and OS X?
If you are still on OS 9, then Netscape Navigator 4.0.8 is the best there is, and Acrobat 4.

Stay away from Acrobat 6, like the plague. Its s.....l....o.....w.

The way I have it on mine, Safari is the web browser, and when I click on a .pdf, it opens it on Acrobat 5, which launches pretty quick if its not already open.