PDA

View Full Version : Could it ever be overturned????


YoungGun2
01-27-2009, 11:13 AM
I'm not a Politician, but will the 30 round/detachable magazines ban ever expire here in CA or could it ever be overturned??
And if so what could I/We do to get the ball rolling??

sorensen440
01-27-2009, 11:15 AM
Maybe overturned but it does not expire

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 11:20 AM
It could be argued that they are not "unusual or dangerous", so yes, it is a possibility.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

JDay
01-27-2009, 1:46 PM
Wait for Nordyke.

bulgron
01-27-2009, 1:53 PM
Wait for Nordyke.

Yep. Only two more weeks. :D

sorensen440
01-27-2009, 1:55 PM
Yep. Only two more weeks. :D
I suppose if we keep saying that every day at some point it really will be two weeks away

CAL.BAR
01-27-2009, 2:00 PM
No chance. No anti-gun measure in CA has ever been rolled back (or in the country that I'm aware of) (not counting the 1994 which had a sunset clause.)

Can you just imagine how the press would play with that proposal "Gun lobby wants to put high capacity military style machine gun magazines back on the street"

Never going to happen in CA.

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 2:29 PM
No chance. No anti-gun measure in CA has ever been rolled back (or in the country that I'm aware of) (not counting the 1994 which had a sunset clause.)

Can you just imagine how the press would play with that proposal "Gun lobby wants to put high capacity military style machine gun magazines back on the street"

Never going to happen in CA.

They said the same thing about DC. :D

Regards,


SwissFluCase

bcj128
01-27-2009, 2:35 PM
No chance. No anti-gun measure in CA has ever been rolled back (or in the country that I'm aware of) (not counting the 1994 which had a sunset clause.)

Can you just imagine how the press would play with that proposal "Gun lobby wants to put high capacity military style machine gun magazines back on the street"

Never going to happen in CA.

Just out of curiosity, who runs this state, if not the citizens...maybe we need to remind Sacramento. Gun owners need to be more vocal, and let the politicians know that these issues are important to us.

sorensen440
01-27-2009, 2:37 PM
No chance. No anti-gun measure in CA has ever been rolled back (or in the country that I'm aware of) (not counting the 1994 which had a sunset clause.)

Can you just imagine how the press would play with that proposal "Gun lobby wants to put high capacity military style machine gun magazines back on the street"

Never going to happen in CA.
Do a search on heller ;)

BONECUTTER
01-27-2009, 2:41 PM
No chance. No anti-gun measure in CA has ever been rolled back (or in the country that I'm aware of) (not counting the 1994 which had a sunset clause.)

Can you just imagine how the press would play with that proposal "Gun lobby wants to put high capacity military style machine gun magazines back on the street"

Never going to happen in CA.

San Francisco handgun ban????

Vtec44
01-27-2009, 2:42 PM
Do a search on heller ;)

Handgun ban in Evanston, Morton Gove, and Winnetka IL have all been repealed because of Washington DC vs Heller decision (although it is only applicable to the Federal level for now). :D

bwiese
01-27-2009, 2:43 PM
No chance. No anti-gun measure in CA has ever been rolled back (or in the country that I'm aware of) (not counting the 1994 which had a sunset clause.)

Can you just imagine how the press would play with that proposal "Gun lobby wants to put high capacity military style machine gun magazines back on the street"

Never going to happen in CA.

BS. You're forgetting about all the legal work that's moving in our favor.

What about AB2728 that stopped listing new AWs by name?

For the first time, Yugo M59/66s, Mini14s, M1As, Garands etc became protected since 1989.

Joe
01-27-2009, 2:45 PM
No chance. No anti-gun measure in CA has ever been rolled back (or in the country that I'm aware of) (not counting the 1994 which had a sunset clause.)

Can you just imagine how the press would play with that proposal "Gun lobby wants to put high capacity military style machine gun magazines back on the street"

Never going to happen in CA.


I bet the news article would look something more like this:

"Machine guns with extremely high capacity magazines can now be legally bought and sold with no background checks. These deadly assault weapons have already been the cause for 7 babies being murdered. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

Jpach
01-27-2009, 2:47 PM
DjandJ, I have heard stuff like what you said usually from non-calgunners. Say if we lose to the courts in CA and are able to take it all the way to SCOTUS and they rule in our favor, do you think that just because we live in CA nothing will change and business will go on as usual? CA cant escape the wrath of SCOTUS, like Sorensen said please do a search on heller

artherd
01-27-2009, 3:05 PM
Donate to The Calguns Foundation - we're making it happen.

wildhawker
01-27-2009, 4:54 PM
Donate to The Calguns Foundation - we're making it happen.

Good point! When is that newfangled money-swap software going to be operational? :thumbsup:

Kid Stanislaus
01-27-2009, 4:56 PM
Just out of curiosity, who runs this state, if not the citizens...maybe we need to remind Sacramento. Gun owners need to be more vocal, and let the politicians know that these issues are important to us.

Gun owners DO need to be more vocal but also more activitist. In addition they need to VOTE and give MONEY to politicians that support them.

CSACANNONEER
01-27-2009, 5:32 PM
No chance. No anti-gun measure in CA has ever been rolled back (or in the country that I'm aware of) (not counting the 1994 which had a sunset clause.)

Can you just imagine how the press would play with that proposal "Gun lobby wants to put high capacity military style machine gun magazines back on the street"

Never going to happen in CA.

San Mateo County's AW ban back in '87!

JDay
01-27-2009, 5:39 PM
San Francisco handgun ban????

That was never law since state firearms trumped it, SF also never enforced it because they knew it was getting smacked down in the courts.

GM4spd
01-27-2009, 5:48 PM
Never going to happen,regardless of Heller or anything else coming down
the road. Pete

workinwifdakids
01-27-2009, 6:44 PM
I think things are going to move quickly on this. The momentum is in our favor, as CA is quickly becoming insolvent as well as ungovernable.

There's quiet talk in Sacramento about a Constitutional convention in order to press the 'reset' button. It will be... interesting.

sorensen440
01-27-2009, 7:05 PM
Never going to happen,regardless of Heller or anything else coming down
the road. Pete
I disagree
the pieces of the puzzle are starting to line up

CAL.BAR
01-27-2009, 7:07 PM
They said the same thing about DC. :D

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Yes and all it took was the bloody supreme court stacked with republican appointees (and a vary bare majority) You will not have as much luck with the CA Sup.Ct

CAL.BAR
01-27-2009, 7:08 PM
San Francisco handgun ban????

Only a city ordnance - name a STATEWIDE restriction or ban that has been overturned (D.C. aside)

CAL.BAR
01-27-2009, 7:09 PM
BS. You're forgetting about all the legal work that's moving in our favor.

What about AB2728 that stopped listing new AWs by name?

For the first time, Yugo M59/66s, Mini14s, M1As, Garands etc became protected since 1989.

Stopping further restriction is not the same as rolling back existing law (especially one that's nearly a decade old now)

CAL.BAR
01-27-2009, 7:15 PM
DjandJ, I have heard stuff like what you said usually from non-calgunners. Say if we lose to the courts in CA and are able to take it all the way to SCOTUS and they rule in our favor, do you think that just because we live in CA nothing will change and business will go on as usual? CA cant escape the wrath of SCOTUS, like Sorensen said please do a search on heller

Jpach - I am very well acquainted with what Heller did and did not say. Heller narrowly overturned a total and complete ban on all handguns even in homes. Heller did NOTHING to remove a state's power to "reasonably restrict" weapons ownership etc. Even with incorporation through Nordyke, CA will still maintain the right to "reasonably" restrict weapons ownership.

You will find VERY few Californians who don't think that 10 round limits are "reasonable". You will find VERY few Californians who don't think that AW restrictions are "reasonable" I personally do not subscribe to such notions, however I'm also an atheist. I know when I'm in the minority (especially when it's a very small one)

I'm also a realist. Heller may stop outright bans, but "reasonable restrictions" go merrily along.

CAL.BAR
01-27-2009, 7:16 PM
San Mateo County's AW ban back in '87!

Again, county or city ordnances not a statewide ban.
The higher the law, the harder it is to overturn it.

CAL.BAR
01-27-2009, 7:20 PM
I disagree
the pieces of the puzzle are starting to line up

What pieces? No ruling has yet maintained that the states can't enact "reasonable regulation" of firearms. In the eyes of the general populace, 10 rounds are reasonable.

Advocating for gun rights in CA is right up there with advocating for enough punishment for DUI already. No one can or will stand up for drinking and driving, or anything else that isn't politically expedient. Draw me up the wording for our campaign to brink back full capacity magazines so it doesn't sound like the kiss of death for the state legislator who brings it up.

bulgron
01-27-2009, 7:21 PM
You will find VERY few Californians who don't think that 10 round limits are "reasonable". You will find VERY few Californians who don't think that AW restrictions are "reasonable"

What Californians think is reasonable is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the nation as a whole thinks is reasonable. Or, more to the point, what we can convince the courts is reasonable, based on the usage habits of the nation as a whole.

Anyway, all I want is my right to bear arms in public back. Everything else beyond that is just gravy.

CAL.BAR
01-27-2009, 7:27 PM
What Californians think is reasonable is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the nation as a whole thinks is reasonable. Or, more to the point, what we can convince the courts is reasonable, based on the usage habits of the nation as a whole.

Anyway, all I want is my right to bear arms in public back. Everything else beyond that is just gravy.

"Nation" has nothing to do with this. 10 rds is a CA law which can be overturned only by CA citizens. The Feds (with few exceptions it will take half a volume to tell you about) cannot overturn state laws unless they conflict with Federal Laws. Since there is no Federal 10 rd limit, CA is free to add whatever further "reasonable" restrictions as they see fit to their laws. This one lives in our own laps. And we are a VERY blue state. Hell our Republican Gov just signed micro stamping legislation for Pete's sake.

yellowfin
01-27-2009, 7:30 PM
The Feds (with few exceptions it will take half a volume to tell you about) cannot overturn state laws unless they conflict with Federal Laws. Since there is no Federal 10 rd limit, CA is free to add whatever further "reasonable" restrictions as they see fit to their laws. That's what we need to push nationally, that Fed laws are a maximum restriction rather than a minimum, and that less and less restriction is the way to move rather than more and more. We need to change the terms of the discussion.

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 7:36 PM
"Nation" has nothing to do with this. 10 rds is a CA law which can be overturned only by CA citizens. The Feds (with few exceptions it will take half a volume to tell you about) cannot overturn state laws unless they conflict with Federal Laws. Since there is no Federal 10 rd limit, CA is free to add whatever further "reasonable" restrictions as they see fit to their laws. This one lives in our own laps. And we are a VERY blue state. Hell our Republican Gov just signed micro stamping legislation for Pete's sake.

Incorrect. Incorporation is a federal case. The federal courts will tell California what gun laws it can and cannot have on the books, just like the federal government told the deep south to desegregate.

One of the many benefits of living in a republic is that there is no "majority rules" when in comes to basic rights, nor can one subdivision enact laws contrary to the laws of the land. The prop 8 people on both sides are still learning this.

You *do* want standard capacity magazines, right?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 7:40 PM
There's quiet talk in Sacramento about a Constitutional convention in order to press the 'reset' button. It will be... interesting.

Do you mean a federal Constitutional convention? If it is for reasons of bankruptcy protection, that could be very very bad. :eek:

I didn't know the state of CA could have it's own Constitutional convention, but if that is the case, it could be a much better thing.

Inquiring minds want to know...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

bulgron
01-27-2009, 7:46 PM
"Nation" has nothing to do with this. 10 rds is a CA law which can be overturned only by CA citizens. The Feds (with few exceptions it will take half a volume to tell you about) cannot overturn state laws unless they conflict with Federal Laws.

I don't have the time or the patience to educate you on how the federal courts work and how civil liberties are incrementally advanced case by case within them. Suffice to say, the highest law in the land is the U.S. Federal Constitution (provided incorporation occurs for a given portion of it), and if we can convince a Federal court that a California state gun control law is in violation of it, then that California state law IS overturned.

That said, I think it will be a long time before we can attack 10 round limits in court. There's way bigger fish to fry first.

bulgron
01-27-2009, 7:49 PM
Do you mean a federal Constitutional convention? If it is for reasons of bankruptcy protection, that could be very very bad. :eek:

I didn't know the state of CA could have it's own Constitutional convention, but if that is the case, it could be a much better thing.

Inquiring minds want to know...

Regards,


SwissFluCase

I believe he meant a California state constitutional convention. There must be some mechanism by which the state can re-write it's own constitution, but I have no idea what it is.

Anyway, given the dominant politics in this state, I have to wonder how anyone here can think that such a thing could possibly turn out well for us.

It might turn out well for some people, though, if the state was busted up in two or three parts as a result of a constitutional re-write.

SwissFluCase
01-27-2009, 7:55 PM
I believe he meant a California state constitutional convention. There must be some mechanism by which the state can re-write it's own constitution, but I have no idea what it is.

Anyway, given the dominant politics in this state, I have to wonder how anyone here can think that such a thing could possibly turn out well for us.

It might turn out well for some people, though, if the state was busted up in two or three parts as a result of a constitutional re-write.

Wouldn't fed.gov have a major say in this? It seems like Congress would have a major part in any new constitution. It certainly seems the fed.gov would take over day to day affairs if CA went bankrupt.

I wouldn't mind three little California's though. I think everyone would be happier.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

YoungGun2
01-27-2009, 8:29 PM
Would'nt be a bad think....:cheers2:

Thanks for all the input guys.....The more info that gets out the better we are!!!

bulgron
01-27-2009, 8:30 PM
Wouldn't fed.gov have a major say in this? It seems like Congress would have a major part in any new constitution. It certainly seems the fed.gov would take over day to day affairs if CA went bankrupt.

I believe the feds get to approve state constitutions, but again I don't really know the details. It all seems like so much academics, though, unless the quiet little conversations turn into really loud conversations.


I wouldn't mind three little California's though. I think everyone would be happier.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

I supposed. Stuck in the Bay Area like I am, I'm hosed regardless of whether we have three little states or one big state. San Francisco is too close to me. There's no escaping those idiots, short of moving far far away (a perpetual dream of mine).

Bad Voodoo
01-27-2009, 8:50 PM
Just out of curiosity, who runs this state, if not the citizens...maybe we need to remind Sacramento. Gun owners need to be more vocal, and let the politicians know that these issues are important to us.

It's not just the serious gun owner who needs to send that message (I define those of us serious about exercising our firearms and related rights in that context, btw - all others need not apply). It's anyone left in CA who values our various freedoms. At some point those of us who do must stand up as a collective to stamp out those among us who would abandon our rights for the "state's greater good."

We continue to be overrun by the welfare and entitlement class in this state (it's why the socialist movement has been gaining strength in CA), so I'm not all that confident in freedom's future here. Worse yet, we've somehow managed to export this apathy to our federal elections, and now we will be forced to watch whatever conservative representation we once had in WA wither to consensus surrender.

Hurray!

ohsmily
01-27-2009, 8:51 PM
Only a city ordnance - name a STATEWIDE restriction or ban that has been overturned (D.C. aside)

Ok, I'll play, it used to be a straight felony to possess an unreg'ed AW in CA. The PC was changed to make this offense a 'wobbler' and even something that could be resolved through a civil compromise where the weapon is declared a nuisance and destroyed potentially without a criminal conviction. What do I win?

wash
01-27-2009, 9:21 PM
What pieces? No ruling has yet maintained that the states can't enact "reasonable regulation" of firearms. In the eyes of the general populace, 10 rounds are reasonable.

Advocating for gun rights in CA is right up there with advocating for enough punishment for DUI already. No one can or will stand up for drinking and driving, or anything else that isn't politically expedient. Draw me up the wording for our campaign to brink back full capacity magazines so it doesn't sound like the kiss of death for the state legislator who brings it up.
A lot of white southerners thought it was reasonable to require literacy tests for black voters.

That was a majority opinion.

The federal government decided that it was not reasonable.

If the federal government decides that CA laws restrict our second amendment rights (which they do), those regulations will go out the window.

If the courts get it right I think the game plan is to first make all 50 states in to shall issue CCW, then get rid of AW bans, after that, who cares about magazine bans, I made sure I stocked up on all the magazines I need before the ban was put in place, but I'm hard on my magazines, I have to buy replacement parts all the time.

Dr. Peter Venkman
01-27-2009, 10:10 PM
DjandJ, I have heard stuff like what you said usually from non-calgunners. Say if we lose to the courts in CA and are able to take it all the way to SCOTUS and they rule in our favor, do you think that just because we live in CA nothing will change and business will go on as usual? CA cant escape the wrath of SCOTUS, like Sorensen said please do a search on heller

The SCotUS does not have the power to enforce any of its decisions. Worcester v. Georgia highlights that the best.

bulgron
01-27-2009, 10:41 PM
The SCotUS does not have the power to enforce any of its decisions. Worcester v. Georgia highlights that the best.

Yes, well, if what you suggest was how the states and courts really operate, then abortion would be illegal in much of the United States. It is not, and no young women are going to prison because of abortion, so I suspect that the state of California will also knuckle under when and if SCOTUS shows them the errors of their ways.

ETA: Actually, if memory serves, Brown v. Board of Education resulted in Federal Marshalls showing up at a school to explain to the governor of some state or another that he really did have to obey the law. Fears that California won't obey SCOTUS rulings on gun control cases are simply hogwash.

Dr. Peter Venkman
01-27-2009, 11:10 PM
Yes, well, if what you suggest was how the states and courts really operate, then abortion would be illegal in much of the United States. It is not, and no young women are going to prison because of abortion, so I suspect that the state of California will also knuckle under when and if SCOTUS shows them the errors of their ways.

ETA: Actually, if memory serves, Brown v. Board of Education resulted in Federal Marshalls showing up at a school to explain to the governor of some state or another that he really did have to obey the law. Fears that California won't obey SCOTUS rulings on gun control cases are simply hogwash.

I am not fearing that CA is not going to obey Federal gun laws. CA is more than happy to. I see 'reasonable restrictions' being the heyday for the Brady's. The 2nd Amendment means nothing if we are all subject to that. It's going to be a long, arduous fight.

bulgron
01-28-2009, 12:17 AM
It's going to be a long, arduous fight.

Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

If we get the right wins early on, "reasonable" is going to mean what you and I think it does. If not, the Brady's definition will apply and that will be a nightmare.

gunsmith
01-28-2009, 2:08 AM
A lot of white southerners thought it was reasonable to require literacy tests for black voters.

That was a majority opinion.

The federal government decided that it was not reasonable.

If the federal government decides that CA laws restrict our second amendment rights (which they do), those regulations will go out the window.

If the courts get it right I think the game plan is to first make all 50 states in to shall issue CCW, then get rid of AW bans, after that, who cares about magazine bans, I made sure I stocked up on all the magazines I need before the ban was put in place, but I'm hard on my magazines, I have to buy replacement parts all the time.

there were two pistol bans in SF, one was the one they voted for, the other ( more important ) was the ban in Fed subsidized housing, we won that one, paving the way for incorporation.

the Judges had a twinkle in their eye, I think we are gonna win big, real big

CAL.BAR
01-28-2009, 10:01 AM
Ok, I'll play, it used to be a straight felony to possess an unreg'ed AW in CA. The PC was changed to make this offense a 'wobbler' and even something that could be resolved through a civil compromise where the weapon is declared a nuisance and destroyed potentially without a criminal conviction. What do I win?

Great point. However, it's not a repeal of the existing law, merely a break for first time violators. A repeal would have dropped pc 12276 entirely.

Close, but no cigar.

CAL.BAR
01-28-2009, 10:12 AM
Incorrect. Incorporation is a federal case. The federal courts will tell California what gun laws it can and cannot have on the books, just like the federal government told the deep south to desegregate.

One of the many benefits of living in a republic is that there is no "majority rules" when in comes to basic rights, nor can one subdivision enact laws contrary to the laws of the land. The prop 8 people on both sides are still learning this.

You *do* want standard capacity magazines, right?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Yes swiss, I do want standard cap mags. I do understand that the Nordyke incorporation is a federal case, however, in order for the Feds to over rule state law, they would have to decide to "take over" the entire field (i.e. gun regulation). It's called Federal pre-emtion. For example things like interstate commerce or drug regulation etc. The Feds have decided to pre-empt state law and take over the regulation of drug approval and manufacture etc. That is why we have 1 FDA, not 50 separate FDA's.

You mention the anti-discrimination issue the feds took on in the 60's. You are right that the feds found separate but equal to violate the U.S. Constitution and they did tell states not to allow discrimination based upon race, color or creed. However, CA and likely most other states have additional constitutional and/or legislative protections for "fundamental rights" that go well beyond the federal mandates. So again, the fed sets the base line, but states can regulate above and beyond as long as it doesn't violate fed law. (i.e. if the feds say you can't do ab&c and CA says you can't to ABC and D, that's generally ok unless the feds pre-empt the entire field.

If what you are waiting for is a federal court to say we are hereby taking over the regulation of all firearms (and thus any restriction(s) upon them) you are in for a long wait. HELLER only said that the DC law (which wasn't state law as DC is a quasi state/federal area) in a total ban was violative of the 2nd amendment. Heller specifically left open the state's right to enact "reasonable regulation".

bwiese
01-28-2009, 10:37 AM
HELLER only said that the DC law (which wasn't state law as DC is a quasi state/federal area) in a total ban was violative of the 2nd amendment. Heller specifically left open the state's right to enact "reasonable regulation".

Heller indeed said that reasonable regulations of firearms that are not "dangerous and unusual" could be accomplished - i.e, today's firearms in common circulation throughout the several states will likely be quite secure. This prevents (1) gross restrictions in trade (2) ammo bans since ammo is a key component of an operational firearm, (3) what are called AWs in CA are normal semiauto rifles and are not bannable.

Most all of the firearms discussed here on CGN are indeed not dangerous and unusual

CAL.BAR
01-28-2009, 2:07 PM
Heller indeed said that reasonable regulations of firearms that are not "dangerous and unusual" could be accomplished - i.e, today's firearms in common circulation throughout the several states will likely be quite secure. This prevents (1) gross restrictions in trade (2) ammo bans since ammo is a key component of an operational firearm, (3) what are called AWs in CA are normal semiauto rifles and are not bannable.

Most all of the firearms discussed here on CGN are indeed not dangerous and unusual

"Dangerous and unusual" is just another mythological term like "reasonable person" or "reasonable restriction". Very much open to interpretation. I'm not holding my breath for the feds to come in and supplant CA law.