PDA

View Full Version : What happens if theres another ban?


joemama
09-15-2008, 11:05 PM
Just wondering, If theres another ban similar to the last one on "assault weapons" and we have to register our cali compliant AR's as such. After we have registered them as assault weapons does that mean we can configure them any way we want as if they were "assault weapons" or do we have to keep them compliant to the previous ban? or is this something that is yet to be decided if a ban comes about?

bwiese
09-15-2008, 11:25 PM
Don't confuse state vs Fed issues.

Firstly, since Fed AWB is dead nobody can speculate what a new law would entail - HOWEVER, a new Fed AWB will not happen, as it's post-Heller decision: it calls into question any 'ban', and furthermore the balance in House/Senate will still be progun even if we commit Obamacide.

And Calif's AW ban already exists - how can they further ban a ban? In fact, if they try to roll back OLL stuff they'll end up having to reverse AB2728, which will open up even more cans of worms - ones they originally tried to avoid by driving passage of AB2728 in 2006.

Furthermore, post-Heller and post-incorporation (in the next 6ish months) the whole CA gun law front will change. Few if any crazy gun laws will be passable or even make it out of budget session due to RKBA being incorporated into CA: every proposed gun law in CA will have a legislative budget analysis statement that says "unknown potentially very high litigation costs to state and municipalities..." -- right when the state is broke (and which'll still stay the same for some time even as economy improves).

Flat Broke
09-15-2008, 11:41 PM
Don't confuse state vs Fed issues.

Firstly, since Fed AWB is dead nobody can speculate what a new law would entail - HOWEVER, a new Fed AWB will not happen, as it's post-Heller decision: it calls into question any 'ban', and furthermore the balance in House/Senate will still be progun even if we commit Obamacide.

And Calif's AW ban already exists - how can they further ban a ban? In fact, if they try to roll back OLL stuff they'll end up having to reverse AB2728, which will open up even more cans of worms - ones they originally tried to avoid by driving passage of AB2728 in 2006.

Furthermore, post-Heller and post-incorporation (in the next 6ish months) the whole CA gun law front will change. Few if any crazy gun laws will be passable or even make it out of budget session due to RKBA being incorporated into CA: every proposed gun law in CA will have a legislative budget analysis statement that says "unknown potentially very high litigation costs to state and municipalities..." -- right when the state is broke (and which'll still stay the same for some time even as economy improves).

Bill,

Would it then stand to reason, that this may be the opportune time to try and get some of the laws off the books? If an entity were to file suit against the state challenging the constitutionality of SB 23, would the state take a step back and weigh the litigation cost against the benefit? Has anyone done an analysis of what the state's threshold of afordability is on issues like this vs. how much each CA gun owner would have to donate to effectively put enough cash in the kitty to fund a case that the state wouldn't want to expend funds to counter?

Interesting times ahead, any way we look at it I guess.

Chris

bwiese
09-15-2008, 11:50 PM
Would it then stand to reason, that this may be the opportune time to try and get some of the laws off the books? If an entity were to file suit against the state challenging the constitutionality of SB 23, would the state take a step back and weigh the litigation cost against the benefit?

The AW laws and other laws have been readily challengeable in the past for a variety of reasons - some of which were magnified by the OLL revolution and corresponding DOJ behavior reacting to it (plus other DOJ behavior in the past before OLL era).

However the risk of challenging them before incorporation would just mean that, if stricken, the legislature could just come back with a new/worse version.

Everything changed with Heller and this is part of the reason Hunt was abandoned (it generated a mound of useful paperwork for us though) and successor hasn't kicked in yet.

After incorporation that's no longer the case, and many CA gun laws are up for grabs. Don't expect "instant Arizona", and things like HSC and initial 10 day wait for new gun owners will likely stand. But a lot of onerous purposless crap that has other constitutional equal protecdtion issues will go away. From a practical public standpoint, budget is irrelevant for laws already on the books, the AG is often generally obliged (whether he wants to or not) to defend CA laws unless he can readily agree they're facially unconstitutional. The budget stuff I mentioned applies to *new* laws that might be drafted in the future....

nick
09-16-2008, 12:33 AM
Well, if the last federal AWB is any indicator, the number of such "assault weapons" in the country would increase exponentially. The government officials seem to be having a problem to grasp simple ideas like, "you ban something, you make it more attractive" and "if you raise taxes, you won't necessarily have more tax revenue" :)

X-NewYawker
09-16-2008, 5:37 AM
Heller, even with incorporation, does not prevent gun bans. I don't know where the idea that laws will be "rolled back" comes from.
PART of Heller is that some reasonable restrictions can be in place -- it will be up to states to decide what they believe is reasonable (like DC/s continued ban on semi-auto pistols) and THEN --
THEN lawsuits will have to be taken in (in CA for eg.) to try to reverse particular laws.
SO: Heller also doesn't prevent new AW bans, it gives us a legal basis to challenge them. No self respecting Democratic Lawmaker would roll over and stop proposing new AWBs.
A lot hinges on November. A Dem sweep of the houses will embolden them. One more anti-gun Justice added to the Supreme court could help rule on a future case (say one prompted by a CA lawsuit) that AWs are NOT included in the RKBA.
Heller was a great first step -- the razor thin majority ruling should keep us ALL vigilant.

dominic
09-16-2008, 6:05 AM
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future security." The Decleration of Independence of the United States of America.

It is the responsibility of capable men to take action against an oppressive government.