PDA

View Full Version : AB962 Is Signed by Schwarzenegger


coachola
10-12-2009, 9:31 AM
This pretty much clinches my decision to move to Texas. Goodbye everyone.

http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/2009bills/AB962_DeLeon_Signing_Message.pdf

I expect this to be immediately appealed by NRA. It will go to the 9th Circuit (our favorite people) where it will be upheld. Then it will go to the Supreme Court where our friend Sotomayor will be the deciding vote. Good luck to all.

bondmid003
10-12-2009, 9:57 AM
Man talk about taking a dump in my cereal bowl

bwiese
10-12-2009, 10:01 AM
This pretty much clinches my decision to move to Texas. Goodbye everyone.

http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/2009bills/AB962_DeLeon_Signing_Message.pdf

I expect this to be immediately appealed by NRA. It will go to the 9th Circuit (our favorite people) where it will be upheld. Then it will go to the Supreme Court where our friend Sotomayor will be the deciding vote. Good luck to all.

A fairly uninformed post.

Yes, this will immediately be challenged by CGF/Coalition lawyers. We'll win. This is not an RKBA case even.

Instead of a gun issue, this is a Fed commerce issue regulated by FAAAA 1994. The Supreme Court has already held unanimously in Rowe (case involved cigarrette transport restrictions, a nice parallel 'evil' product) that such restrictions by states can't occur.

Since this is settled law already it likely won't even make it up the chain, and if so, Sotomayor is irrelevant. And the 9th Circuit would easily support our claims as well: its supposed "liberal" positions are way overrated: it's just the biggest Ckt appeals court with the most caseload, and with the most interesting cases given the diverse interests of West coast (shipping, high tech, immigration, etc.)

bondmid003
10-12-2009, 10:04 AM
Well that's some good news at least

coachola
10-12-2009, 11:35 AM
A fairly uninformed post.

Yes, this will immediately be challenged by CGF/Coalition lawyers. We'll win. This is not an RKBA case even.

Instead of a gun issue, this is a Fed commerce issue regulated by FAAAA 1994. The Supreme Court has already held unanimously in Rowe (case involved cigarrette transport restrictions, a nice parallel 'evil' product) that such restrictions by states can't occur.

Since this is settled law already it likely won't even make it up the chain, and if so, Sotomayor is irrelevant. And the 9th Circuit would easily support our claims as well: its supposed "liberal" positions are way overrated: it's just the biggest Ckt appeals court with the most caseload, and with the most interesting cases given the diverse interests of West coast (shipping, high tech, immigration, etc.)

I hope you're right with that interpretation. However in Rowe, the issue relates to the transportation of regulated materials. Furthermore, it placed restrictions upon carriers. In our case, the law does not restrict carriers from delivering ammunition, nor does it impose any requirements upon them whatsoever. Instead the impetus is on the supplier and purchaser. The equivalent argument would be if I were to order an unregistered receiver from an out of state supplier. UPS would not be held responsible for the delivery, I would.

Regardless, we're on the same side. I'd like to see this get annihilated in appeals, but I think it's going to get further along that you do.

wildhawker
10-12-2009, 12:03 PM
Ok, so what are you going to do to help in the meantime?

Volunteer with the NRA, CRPA or CGN and help us get some work done. Time to let the legal arm run with the ball, it's out of our hands now. Let's go grab hold of another issue and do something productive.

I hope you're right with that interpretation. However in Rowe, the issue relates to the transportation of regulated materials. Furthermore, it placed restrictions upon carriers. In our case, the law does not restrict carriers from delivering ammunition, nor does it impose any requirements upon them whatsoever. Instead the impetus is on the supplier and purchaser. The equivalent argument would be if I were to order an unregistered receiver from an out of state supplier. UPS would not be held responsible for the delivery, I would.

Regardless, we're on the same side. I'd like to see this get annihilated in appeals, but I think it's going to get further along that you do.