PDA

View Full Version : AW Decision: People v. James


hoffmang
06-02-2009, 5:03 PM
People v. James (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C057995.PDF) was issued today by the California 3rd Appellate Court in Sacramento.

A person subject to a restraining order doesn't turn in all of his guns. He's charged with possessing both named and by feature AWs as well as an unregistered .50BMG.

He raises Heller. Citing no authority, the California appelate courts rule that AWs and .50BMGs are not in common use.

-Gene

racer_X_123
06-02-2009, 5:06 PM
Seems like a lot of well thought out plans are being ruined by a few uneducated people.

I hope this does not cause too much of a problem

Rivers
06-02-2009, 5:07 PM
Gee, you're just full of great news today, aren't you?

B Strong
06-02-2009, 5:07 PM
Ugh.

Bill - do you think this might go higher, or is the defendant out of gas?

hoffmang
06-02-2009, 5:07 PM
Gee, you're just full of great news today, aren't you?

Not every day of a war is a battle won.

-Gene

Glock22Fan
06-02-2009, 5:11 PM
Pretty cunning circular argument.

We're not allowed to have them because they are not in common use and
they are not in common use because we are not allowed to have them.

Rivers
06-02-2009, 5:16 PM
Not every day of a war is a battle won.

-Gene

I'll give you that one, with the understanding that you've done enough for today. I can only take so much of this cheery sh*t.

Seriously, good or bad, we do need to know. I thank you for being willing to bear whatever news. I'd thank you more if it was better so you need to settle for whatever gratitude you get today.

bwiese
06-02-2009, 5:21 PM
People v. James (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C057995.PDF) was issued today by the California 3rd Appellate Court in Sacramento.

A person subject to a restraining order doesn't turn in all of his guns. He's charged with possessing both named and by feature AWs as well as an unregistered .50BMG.

He raises Heller. Citing no authority, the California appelate courts rule that AWs and .50BMGs are not in common use.


This may not be a great case due to RO (unless it were a specious one). Heller may not play well with RO-type restrictions.

However this is why I DON'T want people to surrender reg'd AWs, and for them not to hide out and actually use them at the range!

elenius
06-02-2009, 5:26 PM
So this is now case law in the 9th circuit, right? AWs are not protected. So if we want protection for them it has to go to SCOTUS?

Edit: Oh, this is only state court. Didn't notice that at first.

GuyW
06-02-2009, 5:32 PM
Seems like a lot of well thought out plans are being ruined by a few uneducated people.


Well - they're JUDGES! Whaddaya expect??

.

bwiese
06-02-2009, 5:35 PM
Edit: Oh, this is only state court. Didn't notice that at first.

Yep. More road to go.

Gotta read, wonder about details of guns..

vf111
06-02-2009, 5:36 PM
Well, the definition of a true assault rifle is select fire chambering an intermediate round - all the semi-autos us civvies own are therefore not AR's since they're not SF.....

Glock22Fan
06-02-2009, 5:37 PM
Well, the definition of a true assault rifle is select fire chambering an intermediate round - all the semi-autos us civvies own are therefore not AR's since they're not SF.....

No, no, no.

The correct definition of an Assault Rifle is one . . . . .







that has a Shoulder thingie that goes up.

Hopi
06-02-2009, 5:40 PM
No, no, no.

The correct definition of an Assault Rifle is one . . . . .







that has a thingie that goes up.


Do you speak of the dreaded "shoulder thing", I hear that happens to go up......

GuyW
06-02-2009, 5:40 PM
The dumb#$%^ prevert had a illegal, unregistered, assault blowgun....

He's lucky to not get the death sentence on 12 planets...

...especially with all the anti-gun propaganda these people in robes packed into the decision.
.

Swiss
06-02-2009, 5:59 PM
This is going to sound stupid but doesn't Heller apply to the nation, where ARs are in common use? Wouldn't it be the court's burden to show that is not the case? And if the court is saying that Heller does not apply in CA, couldn't this case could be appealed in a step towards incorporation? Not the ideal candidate for such a case (the RO) but is the premise correct?

artherd
06-02-2009, 6:00 PM
Interesting that Incorporation stood. Looks at first blush like the court was correct on law but botched facts. New evidence would be interesting.

I hope this goes to the 9th.

GaryV
06-02-2009, 6:02 PM
This is precisely why, in any case addressing weapons bans of any kind, our side needs to argue not only that the specific weapon type is commonly used for lawful purposes, but that the "commonly used" test is invalid, and a misreading of Miller; that the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment gives special consideration to weapons most appropriate to the militia purpose, even if those firearms have been rendered less common through unconstitutional acts of government. Otherwise the courts are simply saying that any violation of the Constitution is allowed to stand as long as it has survived long enough.

Glock22Fan
06-02-2009, 6:04 PM
Do you speak of the dreaded "shoulder thing", I hear that happens to go up......

Thanks for reminding me. I've edited my post.

hoffmang
06-02-2009, 6:05 PM
This is precisely why, in any case addressing weapons bans of any kind, our side needs to argue not only that the specific weapon type is commonly used for lawful purposes, but that the "commonly used" test is invalid, and a misreading of Miller; that the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment gives special consideration to weapons most appropriate to the militia purpose, even if those firearms have been rendered less common through unconstitutional acts of government. Otherwise the courts are simply saying that any violation of the Constitution is allowed to stand as long as it has survived long enough.

That is an argument even more certain to lose than whatever argument was made in this case.

The test from Heller is "in common use" and its going to be the test for a long time. AR-15 variants are so common that even SCOTUS has held that ownership of them gives one no notice that the firearm is anything but common - see US v. Staples.

-Gene

goober
06-02-2009, 6:08 PM
Do you speak of the dreaded "shoulder thing", I hear that happens to go up......


of course.... everyone should know what a BARREL SHROUD is!!! just ask Carolyn McCarthy:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ospNRk2uM3U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ospNRk2uM3U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

GaryV
06-02-2009, 6:13 PM
That is an argument even more certain to lose than whatever argument was made in this case.

I agree, but making it doesn't preclude making the "Common Use" argument as well. If our side doesn't keep this concept in contention, the argument will become radicalized as having no historical basis at all.

bwiese
06-02-2009, 6:15 PM
I agree, but making it doesn't preclude making the "Common Use" argument as well. If our side doesn't keep this concept in contention, the argument will become radicalized as having no historical basis at all.

We need to go with what we have and not fight side issues.

Heller affirmed right to guns that are not "dangerous and unusual".
That's the ball we need to run with because it's there and it'll work.

M1A Rifleman
06-02-2009, 6:38 PM
Sort of seems the first paragraph is the issue in that I don't recall Heller making the statement that AW's were exempted or not protected.

As others have said, Heller made it clear that weapons considered dangerous and unusual are not protected. However, the preamble of the States AW ban says somthing to the effect that the State finds AW's to be inherently dangerous. Isn't this a big problem for our side as the State has all sorts of "experts" that will claim anything more than a muzzel loader is dangerous??

GaryV
06-02-2009, 6:45 PM
We need to go with what we have and not fight side issues.

Heller affirmed right to guns that are not "dangerous and unusual".
That's the ball we need to run with because it's there and it'll work.

And as I said about the "common use" argument, we're not precluded from arguing both that the weapon in question is not "dangerous and unusual" either, and still argue that the "common use" test is invalid. You can argue the test is invalid, and that the weapon in question passes the test anyway, all at the same time. Including the argument against the test does not weaken the case. What it does is keep the question in play.

As has been noted, we need to follow the successful strategies of other groups that have dealt with winning back rights through the courts. This was the strategy used by the ACLU. It lost nearly every case it argued for the first couple of decades of its existence, as had others who had gone before them, particularly in arguing 1st Amendment rights. But by continuing to make the same arguments over time, they helped change the way the courts came to view those rights, instead of conceding that the "historical" court position was a barrier best not challenged.

As I (and others) have pointed out, the "common use" test is a dangerous precedent because it is essentially just a method of validating past violations of constitutional rights through circular logic. That argument is easy to make and difficult to defend against. If we keep making it, it'll be hard for anyone but the pathologically anti-gun to deny that we're right.

Telperion
06-02-2009, 6:46 PM
That is an argument even more certain to lose than whatever argument was made in this case.

The test from Heller is "in common use" and its going to be the test for a long time. AR-15 variants are so common that even SCOTUS has held that ownership of them gives one no notice that the firearm is anything but common - see US v. Staples.

-Gene

Irrespective of whether it is sufficient for our purposes, "in common use" is still circular reasoning. The NFA originally included handguns. How common would handguns be today if the NFA were not amended?

7x57
06-02-2009, 6:52 PM
That is an argument even more certain to lose than whatever argument was made in this case.


Given that we have the results of that case, the certainty of those arguments losing is now known to be 1.0. I'm curious what sort of arguments you know to have a > 1.0 certainty of losing? :eek:


The test from Heller is "in common use" and its going to be the test for a long time. AR-15 variants are so common that even SCOTUS has held that ownership of them gives one no notice that the firearm is anything but common - see US v. Staples.


I agree with the previous poster on what the founders would have said about "grandfathering" unconstitutional laws, but I have no actual hope of winning that in my lifetime.

The best route would, I think, be to establish the point on cases unrelated to G U N S, I am quite sure we have other segregationist laws on the books that are basically grandfathered as well.

Hmm. Wasn't there some such issue at stake with the recent sodomy law litigation?

7x57

calixt0
06-02-2009, 7:14 PM
maybe someone with a finer tuned intellect than myself can explain to me how this all works... when the constitution was writen there were cannon's muskets, kentucky rifles, and blunderbusts and various pistols. With this being the case it would have been so easy to say you can have guns but no cannon's as cannon's are clearly an instrument of war that right is reserved to the state and federal governments. However it didn't say that.. its said teh right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... in order to protect against tyranical rule. In the day it was written it seems clear that the people had the right to keep arms so that if the government decides to act up against the people, the people as a whole can stop the crazy leaders and restore the government stated in the Constitution (note we are not talking about a military cout here). If that is not the idea of the founding fathers please someone correct me or share with me how some of the federal rights can be set aside in a peticular state?

I understand our best chance of success is with the rulings we have in place... but dangerous and odd weaponry. who cares if the government can have it I should be able to have it (given I can actually afford it).


some one help me understand?

hoffmang
06-02-2009, 7:31 PM
Let me be crass.

If we try to defeat the Heller modified Miller test (in common use at this time) in the short run, one of our 5 SCOTUS votes will not support us.

That would be... bad.

-Gene

GaryV
06-02-2009, 7:49 PM
Let me be crass.

If we try to defeat the Heller modified Miller test (in common use at this time) in the short run, one of our 5 SCOTUS votes will not support us.

That would be... bad.

-Gene

How? Unless you're implying that it would also unduly prejudice them against the other arguments in a given case, how does it put us in any worse situation than we already are with the existing modified Miller test? So the court rules that we're wrong on the validity of the test (which they've essentially already done), but accept that a weapon in question passes the test. We still win the case. But we also start forcing them to consider whether their logic on the the validity of the test is consistent with their views on constitutional rights, instead of simply allowing their current way of thinking to also become enshrined through long unchallenged use.

DDT
06-02-2009, 7:51 PM
I understand our best chance of success is with the rulings we have in place... but dangerous and odd weaponry. who cares if the government can have it I should be able to have it (given I can actually afford it).


some one help me understand?

Because Scalia said so and he's the dad.

ojisan
06-02-2009, 7:51 PM
some one help me understand?

Somewhere there is additional writing in reference to "arms that were normally carried about themselves" or similar wording meaning "small arms" as they are known today. Maybe in the "Notes on the Constitution" or something like that. Not sure how these supporting docs are added to or legally affect the words of the 2A . I can't remember...brain fade...aaaargh!
:confused:

Cannons were to be supplied and fed by the States or Fed gov'ts as these were too expensive for the common man.
States were supposed to have their own well-stocked armories to fight the Fed Gov't if needed.
:eek:

Note, however,that they used the word "arms", not "flintlocks, muskets, blunderbusses" etc. Many were avid firearms users and enthusiasts, they knew there would be progress and new weapons in the future, so they used the correct word "arms" so the concept would apply forever, regardless of weapons technology changes. Smart old men! ;)

I'm gonna get me one of those 40megawatt Blasters when they come out.
:57:

hoffmang
06-02-2009, 7:57 PM
How? Unless you're implying that it would also unduly prejudice them against the other arguments in a given case, how does it put us in any worse situation than we already are with the existing modified Miller test? So the court rules that we're wrong on the validity of the test (which they've essentially already done), but accept that a weapon in question passes the test. We still win the case. But we also start forcing them to consider whether their logic on the the validity of the test is consistent with their views on constitutional rights, instead of simply allowing their current way of thinking to also become enshrined through long unchallenged use.

Kennedy understands that the argument your making leads to machine guns. His simple logic is this and I suggest you ignore it at the peril of the Second Amendment. The citizens can have a broad right to everything but machine guns or no right to arms at all.

Thank Mr. Bush's Solicitor General for bringing machine guns up. Statist Republicans (like the panel in Chicago) FTW!

-Gene

GaryV
06-02-2009, 8:25 PM
Kennedy understands that the argument your making leads to machine guns. His simple logic is this and I suggest you ignore it at the peril of the Second Amendment. The citizens can have a broad right to everything but machine guns or no right to arms at all.

Thank Mr. Bush's Solicitor General for bringing machine guns up. Statist Republicans (like the panel in Chicago) FTW!

-Gene

Yes, I agree, he does definitely understand this (it's explicitly clear in Heller), but I don't see how challenging him on it would do anything more than to lead him to the same kind of decision we got in Heller.

If we argue 1) The test is invalid (for the reasons I've stated); 2) Even IF the test is valid, firearm X still passes the test (as he ruled handguns do); Kennedy counters that we're wrong on 1 and right on 2. We don't gain as much as we'd like, but we gain nonetheless.

I seriously doubt that he'd reverse his position in Heller just because he finds it harder to justify the modified Miller test when confronted with its inevitable implications for removal of rights by using circular logic to justify unconstitutional laws. Unless firearm X is actually an NFA weapon, there are plenty of ways he could sidestep the issue. And there are a lot of other types of firearms that could serve as vehicles for this argument, such as non-922r compliant guns or 50BMG rifles.

DDT
06-02-2009, 8:30 PM
Yes, I agree, he does definitely understand this (it's explicitly clear in Heller), but I don't see how challenging him on it would do anything more than to lead him to the same kind of decision we got in Heller.

If we argue 1) The test is invalid (for the reasons I've stated); 2) Even IF the test is valid, firearm X still passes the test (as he ruled handguns do); Kennedy counters that we're wrong on 1 and right on 2. We don't gain as much as we'd like, but we gain nonetheless.

I seriously doubt that he'd reverse his position in Heller just because he finds it harder to justify the modified Miller test when confronted with its inevitable implications for removal of rights by using circular logic to justify unconstitutional laws. Unless firearm X is actually an NFA weapon, there are plenty of ways he could sidestep the issue. And there are a lot of other types of firearms that could serve as vehicles for this argument, such as non-922r compliant guns or 50BMG rifles.

It's bad because once you have precedence from SCOTUS it's hard to get it changed. Look at Presser and Cruikshank! These are terrible, racist decisions that are still out there haunting us almost 150 years later. Do you really want to set an upper bound on the RKBA? It is much better to keep pushing the bar up with no upper bound so don't go where you know you are going to get a bad decision.

SCOTUS will change and we must look out 10 or 20 years to recover the rights it's taken 150 years to lose.

GaryV
06-02-2009, 8:52 PM
It's bad because once you have precedence from SCOTUS it's hard to get it changed. Look at Presser and Cruikshank! These are terrible, racist decisions that are still out there haunting us almost 150 years later. Do you really want to set an upper bound on the RKBA? It is much better to keep pushing the bar up with no upper bound so don't go where you know you are going to get a bad decision.

SCOTUS will change and we must look out 10 or 20 years to recover the rights it's taken 150 years to lose.

But we already have the precedent: Heller. The fact that Presser, Cruikshank, and Miller all three serve as precedent against incorporation doesn't make our case for it any weaker now than if there were only one case instead of three. Because the general view on incorporation itself has changed, it wouldn't matter now if there was only one precedent against it or a dozen.

And that's part of my point - losing this argument once or twice more doesn't put us in any worse position than we already are. We already have a SCOTUS decision that validates the modified Miller test. But making the argument, even if we lose, puts an alternate theory forward to be debated, rather than allowing the modified Miller test to become unquestioned truth, and gives us traction to start changing opinions within the courts and academia about its validity.

If the ACLU had worried about racking up a few negative precedents early on, we'd probably still be in the same situation with the First Amendment that we are with the Second. They knew they were going to lose at first because there was already a lot of precedent against them, but their arguments started changing the views of the legal profession, and within 20 years of their first efforts, they were winning on the same questions.

Solidmch
06-03-2009, 12:34 AM
.50 cal is a common rifle. The ammo just isnt!

N6ATF
06-03-2009, 1:23 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_m4FI1xplsaE/Rh8ug4LTXiI/AAAAAAAAAKA/yDBcZ6Z2Os4/s320/Statler%2BWaldorf.jpg

BOOOOO!!!

TheBundo
06-03-2009, 1:38 AM
Pretty cunning circular argument.

We're not allowed to have them because they are not in common use and
they are not in common use because we are not allowed to have them.

Actually, you can walk into a gun store in AMERICA and walk out with one in about 15 minutes

Lex Arma
06-03-2009, 3:53 AM
This defendant was a Pee Wee little league batter up against a Major League pitcher (the government, which includes judges), who not only struck the little guy out, but beaned him in the head with a fast ball for good measure, just to let him know who was in charge.

These cases need to be handled by lawyers who know what the f*** they are doing.

ryno066
06-03-2009, 7:42 AM
Can anyone tell me why the hell blowguns are illegal? Can anyone tell me why the hell blowguns are illegal?:shrug:

Bugei
06-03-2009, 8:33 AM
Because Scalia said so and he's the dad.

Yeah, and that's about all the justification he had for so ruling.

I like Scalia in general. But in the horse-trading that went on in order to get the majority decision, he tossed out some pretty big chunks of original intent. I'll say it again: the Second Amendment has no exemptions in it because the Founding Fathers didn't want any.

Bugei
06-03-2009, 8:38 AM
Can anyone tell me why the hell blowguns are illegal? Can anyone tell me why the hell blowguns are illegal?:shrug:

Because back in the 70's a recent influx of illegal immigrants from the Amazon Basin had formed a gang called the Jivaro Death Squad. The papers were filled with stories of drive-by dartings. Paralyzed citizens littered the streets or were carried away, their hands and feet tied to long sticks.

Just kidding on that. But like so much legislation, it doesn't have to make sense; it just has to get media attention and thus votes.

7x57
06-03-2009, 8:52 AM
Let me be crass.

If we try to defeat the Heller modified Miller test (in common use at this time) in the short run, one of our 5 SCOTUS votes will not support us.

That would be... bad.


That's consistent with what I can make out of how the sausage factory actually works. We'd better get everything we can firmly established with what SCOTUS gave us before we start whining for more.

Of course, this is why I have many more opinions about the original meaning than about what the courts will actually do.

Another thing people should consider is that down the line at some point we're going to have a hostile court. If we're in the middle of trying to change the rules, I strongly suspect it would be much easier at that point for the court to change them so as to take away what we have. OTOH, the "either non-dangerous or non-unusual" test gives us a lot--I would imagine all revolvers and semiautomatic handguns, all single-shot and double guns, probably all manual actions. Pretty certainly ARs, probably also military-styled semiautomatic carbines. That's a lot on our plate to establish, and the better we establish it the harder it will be for some future hostile court to try to reverse those.

As for how to get more, my guess is that we'll be in a better position to attack "dangerous and unusual" later than now, if for no other reason than cultural factors. If the sky turns out to evidently not to fall if the courts obey the law that far, I imagine it will be easier for them to accept the idea of going further.

In any case, it doesn't *really* matter, because we have to "dance with the one what brung us" and not get greedy.

7x57

7x57
06-03-2009, 9:09 AM
Cannons were to be supplied and fed by the States or Fed gov'ts as these were too expensive for the common man.


This is not true. Gentlemen buying up cannon privately for the use of the local militia (which, in all likelihood they commanded, because this stuff seems to have often followed the playground rule that the boy who owns the bat and ball is a team captain) is well-documented and seems not to have been worthy of much comment at the time.

Whether the 2A actually protects arms not normally "borne," such as cannon, is a different and very interesting question, but it certainly isn't true that they were too expensive for civilians. If by "common man" you mean shopkeepers and yeoman farmers, perhaps, but the founders were a bunch of rich civilians who led a successful revolt. They *were* admirably concerned to protect the arms of the yeomanry, but it seems a priori unlikely to me that they would have been less concerned to protect the arms of gentlemen.

Don't forget--they lived before Marx changed the public consciousness about rich vs. poor. Their background was more influenced by aristocratic patronage as a *good* thing than by the worker's struggle against the capitalists.


States were supposed to have their own well-stocked armories to fight the Fed Gov't if needed.
:eek:


This is quite true, but we don't have a militia system any more. :(

7x57

383green
06-03-2009, 9:10 AM
I wonder if Montana's recent declaration that firearms made, sold and possessed only on Montana are not subject to Federal firearms laws may eventually result in lots of FA guns in Montana? I would expect that if and when enough folks there manage to act upon this declaration without receiving Federal spanking, Montana would erupt in a frenzy of MontanaSTEN fabrication much like the OLL floodgates burst open once the first few daring souls blazed the trail.

This is all well and good for folks in Montana, but I wonder whether it might provide supporting evidence for "dangerous and unusual" claims in the rest of the country? Perhaps it would support our theorem that FA guns are unusual only because they were restricted by an arguably unconstitutional law long before the "dangerous and unusual" guideline was established, and that in an environment where that restriction is removed they immediately become commonplace.

Furthermore, a lack of blood flowing in the streets might show that they're not even especially dangerous.

7x57
06-03-2009, 9:21 AM
I seriously doubt that he'd reverse his position in Heller just because he finds it harder to justify the modified Miller test when confronted with its inevitable implications for removal of rights by using circular logic to justify unconstitutional laws.

Don't you see that nothing is inevitable? "No machine guns" is a premise, an axiom whose validity is considered self-evident. Consider the real predicate logic of what I take to be Kennedy's (and many, many other judges') position.

You seem to believe that a chain of reasoning from other axioms which contradicts "no machine guns" would therefore be taken as disproving the axiom. In fact, all it actually does is prove the inconsistency of assuming both "no machine guns" and the other axioms (such as "the 2A is an individual right). Where inconsistency exists, you are right that one or more axioms must be modified, but unfortunately we cannot force Kennedy to choose "the right one" (which would be dropping "no machine guns"). What Gene is saying is that he'll instead drop something like "the RKBA is an individual right" or "the 2A is an enumerated right and must receive something stronger than "rational basis." Do you have any idea how catastrophic a SCOTUS precedent allowing "rational basis" for firearms laws would be? It would essentially mean that there is no 2A and no legal protection for the RKBA at all, Heller or no.

It seems that any revisiting of the logical grounds of Heller at this time (or for decades or longer) will lose Kennedy, probably because Heller is what it is precisely because it is as much as Kennedy could accept. And if we lose Kennedy, he plus the anti-Heller four have more than enough legal tools to nullify the 2A even without explicitly reversing Heller.

Besides, we need to be trying to solidify our gains to withstand an anti-Heller, anti-gun majority, because there is a fairly good chance that Obama will eventually get to nominate a replacement for at least one of the Heller five. I hope that sends chills down your spine.

Gee, I'm almost tempted to see if I can find enough data to do a crude actuarial analysis of the probability of at least one of them being replaced this term and the probability of at least one of them being replaced in this term or the next, but that sounds like work.

7x57

7x57
06-03-2009, 9:28 AM
[QUOTE=Lex Arma;2575070
These cases need to be handled by lawyers who know what the f*** they are doing.[/QUOTE]

I'm just grateful that gunnies are organized, disciplined, and willing to take expert advice and follow a strategy devised by experts to best approximate our goals. :thumbsup: Think how bad it would be if they were a die-hard bunch of individualists who think for themselves so much that they would rather follow a strategy of their own devising. :eek:

Oh, wait, what kind of people is it again that have the personality to persist in an activity that is loathed and demonized in the media? That were willing to assert that the 2A means something different than what the unanimous consensus of liberal experts said it meant? A bunch of die-hard individualists who think for themselves and are willing to ignore experts, I guess, or we wouldn't be here. :43:

But wait, when we do have a strategy, that means...disciplined....take advice....fudge. :shock:

Said more simply, our strength is our weakness, and the traits that kept us alive against all odds when our counterparts everywhere else were crushed beneath the wheel are also the traits that can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

We all have to be individualists together. :rolleyes:

7x57

7x57
06-03-2009, 9:31 AM
Just kidding on that. But like so much legislation, it doesn't have to make sense; it just has to get media attention and thus votes.

The goal of incremental bans is to ban whatever is vulnerable. It doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter what it does, it doesn't even matter if there is a single example in the state of California. You takes each inch as the slack comes to you.

7x57

HotRails
06-03-2009, 9:42 AM
We should be able to own MG's :28::13:

fairfaxjim
06-03-2009, 9:43 AM
The goal of incremental bans is to ban whatever is vulnerable. It doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter what it does, it doesn't even matter if there is a single example in the state of California. You takes each inch as the slack comes to you.

7x57

:thumbsup:And the more inches they get, the more acceptable it becomes to the average citizen. It is also much harder to regain those inches than it was to lose them, and the banners are free to work on the next increments.

N6ATF
06-03-2009, 9:47 AM
Can anyone tell me why the hell blowguns are illegal? Can anyone tell me why the hell blowguns are illegal?:shrug:

Because traitors are in power. As simple as that.

phamkl
06-03-2009, 9:51 AM
IIRC, the Montana law does not allow full automatics to be manufactured. It's something like, FA guns, 1.5 caliber smokeless powder guns, crew served guns, that doesn't apply to the law.

calixt0
06-03-2009, 9:54 AM
so maybe the answer to all of this is to create a calguns california militia???? what do you say lets do it and get bunch of full autos and rocket launchers, and jet planes.. and and and... whos with me... :)

this is a joke by the way

Calguns2000
06-03-2009, 11:54 AM
Here is the core 2A ruling and reasoning (or lack thereof):

As the court’s discussion makes clear, the Second Amendment
right does not protect possession of a military M-16 rifle.
(Heller, supra, 554 U. S. ___ [171 L.Ed.2d at p. 579].)
Likewise, it does not protect the right to possess assault
weapons or .50 caliber BMG rifles. As we have already
indicated, in enacting the Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989
and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004, the Legislature
was specifically concerned with the unusual and dangerous nature
of these weapons. An assault weapon “has such a high rate of
fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a
legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially
outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure
human beings.” (§ 12275.5, subd. (a).) The .50 caliber BMG
rifle has the capacity to destroy or seriously damage “vital
public and private buildings, civilian, police and military
vehicles, power generation and transmission facilities,
petrochemical production and storage facilities, and
transportation infrastructure.” (§ 12275.5, subd. (b).) These
are not the types of weapons that are typically possessed by
law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as sport hunting
or self-defense; rather, these are weapons of war.
Our conclusion that Heller does not extend Second Amendment
protection to assault weapons and .50 caliber BMG rifles is
supported by post-Heller federal precedent. In U. S. v. Fincher
(8th Cir. 2008) 538 F.3d 868 (Fincher), the Eighth Circuit Court

35

of Appeals held that Fincher’s possession of a machine gun was
“not protected by the Second Amendment” because “[m]achine guns
are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and
unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual
use.” (Fincher, supra, 538 F.3d at p. 874; U. S. v. Gilbert
(9th Cir. 2008) 286 Fed.Appx. 383, 386, 2008 WL 2740453 [“Under
Heller, individuals still do not have the right to possess
machineguns or short-barreled rifles”]; Hamblen v. United States
(M.D.Tenn. 2008) 2008 WL 5136586 [also holding that Heller did
not extend Second Amendment protection to machine guns].) While
the fully-automatic nature of a machine gun renders such a
weapon arguably more dangerous and unusual than a semiautomatic
assault weapon, that observation does not negate the fact that
assault weapons, like machine guns, are not in common use by
law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and likewise fall
within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the
government can prohibit for individual use. Moreover, the .50
caliber BMG rifle has the capacity to take down an aircraft, a
fact which arguably makes such a weapon more dangerous and
unusual than the average machine gun. In any event, assault
weapons and .50 caliber BMG rifles are at least as dangerous and
unusual as the short-barreled shotgun at issue in United States
v. Miller, supra, 83 L.Ed. 1206.
We conclude that section 12280, subdivisions (b) and (c),
does not prohibit conduct protected by the Second Amendment to

36

the United States Constitution as defined in Heller, supra, 554
U.S. ___ [171 L.Ed.2d 637].

bwiese
06-03-2009, 12:16 PM
This defendant was a Pee Wee little league batter up against a Major League pitcher (the government, which includes judges), who not only struck the little guy out, but beaned him in the head with a fast ball for good measure, just to let him know who was in charge.

These cases need to be handled by lawyers who know what the f*** they are doing.


This is why it's even MORE important now to do good 'surveillance' of what gun cases are out there. Perhaps if we'd known of this case sooner we could have offered assistance.

Bugei
06-03-2009, 12:39 PM
The goal of incremental bans is to ban whatever is vulnerable. It doesn't matter what it is, it doesn't matter what it does, it doesn't even matter if there is a single example in the state of California. You takes each inch as the slack comes to you.

7x57

This strategy has proven successful for our friends, who might as well call themselves the Sons of Fabian. We're going to have to adopt the same strategy. Small steps in legislation and small steps in ajudication. If we are gifted with another lightning bolt like Heller, I imagine we'll take it, celebrate and move on to the next item.

It seems like such a shame to have to go through so much trouble for something so self-evidently good for society.

Sobriquet
06-03-2009, 12:46 PM
This is why it's even MORE important now to do good 'surveillance' of what gun cases are out there. Perhaps if we'd known of this case sooner we could have offered assistance.

Perhaps CGF should reach out to criminal defense attorneys and let them know that expert assistance with 2A issues is available. It's easier to be proactive than reactive, isn't it?

7x57
06-03-2009, 12:57 PM
This strategy has proven successful for our friends, who might as well call themselves the Sons of Fabian. We're going to have to adopt the same strategy. Small steps in legislation and small steps in ajudication. If we are gifted with another lightning bolt like Heller, I imagine we'll take it, celebrate and move on to the next item.


Yep. Here's a question for non-sailors: suppose I need to bring a twenty-ton boat in to a dock with a breeze or current trying to push it off and some swells running. Can I do it alone, by hand?

The surprising answer is very probably yes, because the pull isn't steady, it comes and goes with the swell and "bounce" on the line. So I will keep the line fast when the boat pulls, and bring in inches when the line goes slack. Within limits (I must have time to get enough turns on and off the cleat, for example), it doesn't matter how much average tension is on the line, as long as I can use the cleat to hold against the pull and bring in some line when it goes slack. The main problem is simply that this is a fine way to lose fingers if you don't have good line-handling skills.

That's more or less how gun control seems to work in court, and more or less how I think we have to work for gun rights. Incrementally, you can keep making gains. Those who want to just cast off the line and haul away for victory will have the line off the cleat when the big surge comes and get pulled into the sea.

Odd metaphor, granted, but still better than the one I made last night about marrying Nell, the pretty daughter of the richest cattle barron in the county. :eek:

7x57

hoffmang
06-03-2009, 1:44 PM
Perhaps CGF should reach out to criminal defense attorneys and let them know that expert assistance with 2A issues is available. It's easier to be proactive than reactive, isn't it?

Already underway.

-Gene

383green
06-03-2009, 1:59 PM
That's more or less how gun control seems to work in court, and more or less how I think we have to work for gun rights. Incrementally, you can keep making gains. Those who want to just cast off the line and haul away for victory will have the line off the cleat when the big surge comes and get pulled into the sea.

Were you the poster who introduced the concept of "rail meat" to us land-lubbers? That one stuck with me, and made me feel even better about my admittedly small individual contributions towards our cause.


Odd metaphor, granted, but still better than the one I made last night about marrying Nell, the pretty daughter of the richest cattle barron in the county. :eek:

I think that both metaphors are perfectly cromulent. I like to imagine that Nell looks a lot like Kristen Bell, but that's just my personal taste.

7x57
06-03-2009, 2:49 PM
Were you the poster who introduced the concept of "rail meat" to us land-lubbers? That one stuck with me, and made me feel even better about my admittedly small individual contributions towards our cause.


That sounds like me. Probably about going up to be in the audience at the Nordyke orals, which I do think is quite like being rail meat while Don Kilmer mans the helm, Don Kates does navigation down in the charthouse, and people like Gene run the deck or something. It isn't a big job, but the boat goes faster with more weight on the weather rail so she stands up to her sails better.

It comforts me too, especially since I'm not currently in a position to be sending around anything like the donations I think I should be. The freakin' mandatory spay-neuter bill just passed the Senate, and I didn't put in my dollar there either. :eek:

I can't talk about California today without running afoul of the filters, so I just won't. :mad:


I think that both metaphors are perfectly cromulent. I like to imagine that Nell looks a lot like Kristen Bell, but that's just my personal taste.

Nell looks like whoever motivates you the most to stay in the fight. She always does--that's why she's Nell, the princess of Liberty Gulch. :thumbsup:

7x57

N6ATF
06-03-2009, 2:58 PM
LOL @ mandatory spay-neuter bill. I heard on the news that all cats outdoors must be fixed. Good frakking luck. I step within 50 feet of this seemingly stray cat that craps next to the pool and it bolts. It wasn't stupid enough to get trapped either.

Cats are not to be trifled with.

7x57
06-03-2009, 3:25 PM
LOL @ mandatory spay-neuter bill. I heard on the news that all cats outdoors must be fixed. Good frakking luck.


It is no more about controlling feral cats than gun control is about controlling crime. It is about controlling pet owners. And it is no more about controlling the irresponsible pet owners than gun control is about controlling the irresponsible gun owners only. It is about one little step towards eliminating slave species pets altogether.

The difference is that pet owners have the numbers to be an irresistible force, dwarfing even gun owners, and that they are innocent sheep content to be sheared and who don't know they are in someone's crosshairs, the opposite of gun owners. You can measure the difference by the fact that the trojan horse American Hunters and Shooters Association is widely known to be what it is, while the equally trojan Humane Society of the United States easily gets money from the people they despise.

Probably no group gets less for the size of their vote than pet owners, because so far they simply will not wake up. Worse, many are collaborators--pet owners like animals and will fall for any scheme that "saves animals."


Cats are not to be trifled with.

Ain't that the truth!

7x57

gose
06-03-2009, 3:32 PM
Can't say I'm too surprised.
Time spent waiting for "the right case" will only mean that morons will bring forward cases like this first.
Next one up, a moron with a CCW case.

Tankhatch
06-03-2009, 3:59 PM
There are 50 to 60 K assault weapons (of all types) registered in California. Most likely 50 K un-registered, as well. Thats a 100 K of assault weapons. Americans do not buy stuff, just to hide it away,,,, we buy items to use LEGALLY. To find assault weapons being said not to be in "common use", only because they MAY be used for bad, is un-American. Same court in 1776 might have found / said,,, ""Black Powder,,, although useful for sporting,,, has the potential for great destruction to the pillers of society. There for we find, black powder to not be in "common use"".

I guess the courts are becoming Un-American in nature,,, In that,,,,
Belief in the possible negative, overwhelms, the truly documented positives.
Belief that 1% of bad use, shows tendany for the collaspe of society.

If AW were not in "common use",,, the numbers of AW's would be small.

elenius
06-03-2009, 4:28 PM
Can't say I'm too surprised.
Time spent waiting for "the right case" will only mean that morons will bring forward cases like this first.
Next one up, a moron with a CCW case.

We already have that. Didn't you read the 85 page Gorski thread?

GuyW
06-03-2009, 4:43 PM
but unfortunately we cannot force Kennedy to choose "the right one" (which would be dropping "no machine guns"). What Gene is saying is that he'll instead drop something like "the RKBA is an individual right" or "the 2A is an enumerated right and must receive something stronger than "rational basis." Do you have any idea how catastrophic a SCOTUS precedent allowing "rational basis" for firearms laws would be? It would essentially mean that there is no 2A and no legal protection for the RKBA at all, Heller or no.

It seems that any revisiting of the logical grounds of Heller at this time (or for decades or longer) will lose Kennedy, probably because Heller is what it is precisely because it is as much as Kennedy could accept. And if we lose Kennedy, he plus the anti-Heller four have more than enough legal tools to nullify the 2A even without explicitly reversing Heller.


IMHO, Kennedy and the rest of the Judges on both sides have already settled on 95% of their biases re details of the RKBA.

The $64k questions are:

Can RKBA-positive cases be set up that thread through the biases to move us forward?

And more difficultly, can we conjure up arguments, facts, questions, hypotheticals, and conflicts, that cause said Judges to rethink their biases...this I think is partially the province of law journal articles...

.

GuyW
06-03-2009, 4:46 PM
Can anyone tell me why the hell blowguns are illegal? Can anyone tell me why the hell blowguns are illegal?:shrug:

Because politicians believe in the awesome power of hot air??

.

7x57
06-03-2009, 5:39 PM
Because politicians believe in the awesome power of hot air??

.

:rofl:

7x57

jamesob
06-03-2009, 5:56 PM
People v. James (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C057995.PDF) was issued today by the California 3rd Appellate Court in Sacramento.

A person subject to a restraining order doesn't turn in all of his guns. He's charged with possessing both named and by feature AWs as well as an unregistered .50BMG.

He raises Heller. Citing no authority, the California appelate courts rule that AWs and .50BMGs are not in common use.

-Genelets see, if they are not in common use why are they wanting to ban them? the answer is because they are in common use and because almost everyone has one.

Bugei
06-04-2009, 9:57 AM
Odd metaphor, granted, but still better than the one I made last night about marrying Nell, the pretty daughter of the richest cattle barron in the county. :eek:

7x57
Oh, that Nell. I thought you were getting Dudley Doright's girlfriend to two-time him.

Calguns2000
06-04-2009, 10:05 AM
Interesting thread about this on Volokh conspiracy:

http://volokh.com/posts/1244002752.shtml

CAL.BAR
06-04-2009, 11:08 AM
People v. James (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C057995.PDF) was issued today by the California 3rd Appellate Court in Sacramento.

A person subject to a restraining order doesn't turn in all of his guns. He's charged with possessing both named and by feature AWs as well as an unregistered .50BMG.

He raises Heller. Citing no authority, the California appelate courts rule that AWs and .50BMGs are not in common use.

-Gene


Gene - you can't tell me more than a tiny fraction of shooters (which are a minority in the state anyway) shoot .50 (bmg or otherwise) And you can't really tell me that .50 is a great home defense caliber (again even if it were, not widely used as such)

I don't like the law, but given the Heller holding, I think they made the right call on this one.

bwiese
06-04-2009, 11:38 AM
Gene - you can't tell me more than a tiny fraction of shooters (which are a minority in the state anyway) shoot .50 (bmg or otherwise) And you can't really tell me that .50 is a great home defense caliber (again even if it were, not widely used as such)

I don't like the law, but given the Heller holding, I think they made the right call on this one.

50BMG bans are arbitrary and capricious.

They're not any more "dangerous and unusual" than 510DTCs, 338 Lapuas, etc. They apparently picked out a number they didn't like.
Their legality as non-rifles too also plays into this.

I'm just as dead from a 300 Win Mag as a 50BMG.

M1A Rifleman
06-04-2009, 11:44 AM
Bill nailed it when he says its arbitrary. The 50 BMG was an easy first target for the anti's. Once that one sticks, then its easier to go after the 510, 338, etc because they also are not as mainstream as say an 06. It needs to be realized their goal is to eliminate them all including the 3006, and once this is understood then it is obvious about how they are going about it.

demnogis
06-04-2009, 12:21 PM
Ban something mainstream because it "has the capacity for taking human life and rapid fire".

Said something becomes non-available.

Using precedence for said banned something as disqualification of right to own it and similar somethings, because it's not common.

Circular logic ftw!