PDA

View Full Version : What "realistically" does CA gun laws look like in 10 years?


Cobrafreak
11-18-2009, 6:25 PM
I know there is a lot of hope with the SCOTUS decision next year. If you were a bookie, what odds would you put on CCW, Open carry, Still being able to mail order ammo, Getting the AWB in CA gone, Ten round magazine limits and bullet buttons working out for US? I am an eternal optimist, but there are others a lot more knowledgeable about this than I. What do you really think CA gun laws will look like in ten years? I know this is just speculation, but I would really like to think that we would become more free than less free.

bwiese
11-18-2009, 6:36 PM
CA AWB will be gone (at worst: it'll be a shall-issue permit a la pistol vs rifle differentiation in CA).

Handgun Roster will be gone. (It's already gone in DC.) With a dead Roster there's no microstamping issues.

CCW = not-quite shall issue, will be "fairly reasonable issue" - i.e, at worst, some fear needs to be asserted on a standardized form, and the applicant doesn't have record of instability (DUI, fights, excessive PD calls to house due to occupants, etc.)

Waiting period reduction for those already owning guns. I own 40some guns - WTF good does it do for me to wait for 10 days on my next DROS?

Mag cap issues will be harder to fight but we have ways around those.

spyderco monkey
11-18-2009, 7:09 PM
PD calls to house due to occupants, etc.)

Waiting period reduction for those already owning guns. I own 40some guns - WTF good does it do for me to wait for 10 days on my next DROS?



+P+ That one always irks me. I'm totally cool with cooling off for your first handgun purchase, but after I have a couple or forty, it goes from being reasonable to asinine IMO.

We Are Apocalypse
11-18-2009, 7:14 PM
Do you really see the AWB being gone? I always saw the AWB and the magazine limits as an impossible mountain to climb in this state. I never understood why they just don't sell registrations for them. They could generate a whole bunch of revenue. I'd gladly pay up to $100 to have a registered assault weapon (even though I should be able to have one anyway) just to get rid of the bullet button.

jamesob
11-18-2009, 7:25 PM
Do you really see the AWB being gone? I always saw the AWB and the magazine limits as an impossible mountain to climb in this state. I never understood why they just don't sell registrations for them. They could generate a whole bunch of revenue. I'd gladly pay up to $100 to have a registered assault weapon (even though I should be able to have one anyway) just to get rid of the bullet button.
today i thought about aw registrations and our financial woes. i would gladly pay 1-200 for aw registration and at the same time give this state some money so they could blow recklessly.

Legasat
11-18-2009, 7:25 PM
CA AWB will be gone (at worst: it'll be a shall-issue permit a la pistol vs rifle differentiation in CA).

Handgun Roster will be gone. (It's already gone in DC.) With a dead Roster there's no microstamping issues.

CCW = not-quite shall issue, will be "fairly reasonable issue" - i.e, at worst, some fear needs to be asserted on a standardized form, and the applicant doesn't have record of instability (DUI, fights, excessive PD calls to house due to occupants, etc.)

Waiting period reduction for those already owning guns. I own 40some guns - WTF good does it do for me to wait for 10 days on my next DROS?

Mag cap issues will be harder to fight but we have ways around those.

I sure hope you're right!!!

Quser.619
11-18-2009, 7:26 PM
What would be the timing on a more laxed approach to CCW & hi-cap magazines? Couple of years or longer?

mousegun
11-18-2009, 7:28 PM
Optimistic? The Second will be incorporated. There will be "strict liability" (a la U.K.) UOC restrictions statewide. CCW will be state preempted and be shall issue with specific qualifications to carry listed firearms. Metro areas will be restricted to locked container with personal firearms card required to transport. Ammunition will require a personal firearms card and each purchase will be recorded and accountable. Every firearm will be registered by a certain deadline. Carrying an unregistered firearm will be a felony. Prohibited persons will be banned effectively for life. Every qualified citizen will have the right to own a registered personal firearm used, carried and kept as prescribed by law. Every use of a firearm (hunting, target, plinking) will be logged and the log kept for a prescribed period.

Sound good?

Geo
11-18-2009, 7:29 PM
What would be the timing on a more laxed approach to CCW & hi-cap magazines? Couple of years or longer?


Read for content... 10+ years to never.

bodger
11-18-2009, 7:31 PM
I'd be curious to see what we will have to fight along the way in the form of new proposed gun control legislation.

Hopefully, incorporation if it does come to pass will change how these antis try to come at us.
But they will continue to come at us.

Ding126
11-18-2009, 7:35 PM
CA AWB will be gone (at worst: it'll be a shall-issue permit a la pistol vs rifle differentiation in CA).

Handgun Roster will be gone. (It's already gone in DC.) With a dead Roster there's no microstamping issues.

CCW = not-quite shall issue, will be "fairly reasonable issue" - i.e, at worst, some fear needs to be asserted on a standardized form, and the applicant doesn't have record of instability (DUI, fights, excessive PD calls to house due to occupants, etc.)

Waiting period reduction for those already owning guns. I own 40some guns - WTF good does it do for me to wait for 10 days on my next DROS?

Mag cap issues will be harder to fight but we have ways around those.


That brings a smile...thanks Bill

Casual_Shooter
11-18-2009, 7:49 PM
More regulation, more restriction.

hollabillz
11-18-2009, 8:03 PM
Vermont status. :cool2:

OHOD
11-18-2009, 9:09 PM
We are doomed I tell ya, doomed.:willy_nilly::willy_nilly:

bulgron
11-18-2009, 10:06 PM
CCW = not-quite shall issue, will be "fairly reasonable issue" - i.e, at worst, some fear needs to be asserted on a standardized form, and the applicant doesn't have record of instability (DUI, fights, excessive PD calls to house due to occupants, etc.)

Some fear as in, "I sometimes leave my house and the world is a dangerous place," or as in, "I carry a lot of cash so someone might want to rob me"?

hoffmang
11-18-2009, 10:08 PM
I mildly disagree with Bill.

Carry permits will be shall issue.

I also think we may have a way to at least moot magazines capacity bans in California.

Otherwise, what Bill said. Possibly add shall issue SBR permits.

-Gene

blackrifle242
11-18-2009, 10:10 PM
I don't like to assume or invision what the future holds. We can all say that things will get better but for me, I keep my expectations low so I am never dissapointed ( I do this with girls too). We all know what we are dealing with. We have seen what the last ten years have brought. With that said, I could see that the roster would dissapear, the AWB would go to a shall issue permit with a fee (please so all my babies can come home) and CCW's will also be shall issue w/ strick restrictions and training. I would say that the state would end up making ALLOT of money in the first few years.

HotRails
11-18-2009, 10:29 PM
I think AB962 represented another avenue to infringement on the 2nd. This will serve to establish habits between vendor and consumer of ammunition and also allow time for tracking infrastructure to come into place. The fights of the future may center around this approach. Having said that, I think it bodes well for our past accomplishments since they have basically admitted that their past tactics (AWB,roster,etc) to limit firearm ownership have been essentially rendered ineffective.

wildhawker
11-18-2009, 10:36 PM
I think AB962 represented another avenue to infringement on the 2nd. This will serve to establish habits between vendor and consumer of ammunition and also allow time for tracking infrastructure to come into place. The fights of the future may center around this approach. Having said that, I think it bodes well for our past accomplishments since they have basically admitted that their past tactics (AWB,roster,etc) to limit firearm ownership have been essentially rendered ineffective.

What's amusing is that AB962 may very well make ammunition procurement by mail order the path of least resistance.

bondmid003
11-18-2009, 11:11 PM
CA AWB will be gone (at worst: it'll be a shall-issue permit a la pistol vs rifle differentiation in CA).

Handgun Roster will be gone. (It's already gone in DC.) With a dead Roster there's no microstamping issues.

CCW = not-quite shall issue, will be "fairly reasonable issue" - i.e, at worst, some fear needs to be asserted on a standardized form, and the applicant doesn't have record of instability (DUI, fights, excessive PD calls to house due to occupants, etc.)

Waiting period reduction for those already owning guns. I own 40some guns - WTF good does it do for me to wait for 10 days on my next DROS?

Mag cap issues will be harder to fight but we have ways around those.

Because everyone knows its always the 41st gun you're going to use on your rampage. Duh! :D

bwiese
11-18-2009, 11:17 PM
I mildly disagree with Bill.

Carry permits will be shall issue.

I also think we may have a way to at least moot magazines capacity bans in California.

Otherwise, what Bill said. Possibly add shall issue SBR permits.

-Gene

Gene's probably right.

I was writing of 'worst case' where it's the happy result without further litigation.

gose
11-18-2009, 11:47 PM
My guess, if we get incorporation, it might be slightly better than it is today, if we dont, it will be slightly worse.
Either way, it wont change much.

Seesm
11-19-2009, 12:43 AM
Listening to Bill and Gene I smile and think "Maybe I CAN stay in CA" :) YOu two and a few others on here rock!! Thanks!!

hollabillz
11-19-2009, 1:14 AM
I don't like to assume or invision what the future holds. We can all say that things will get better but for me, I keep my expectations low so I am never dissapointed ( I do this with girls too).

lol, how's that working out for you? :p how can u be aware of such a defeatist attitude and accept it!? if you want something go get it! don't sit back and pretend like you want less!

don't pay any attention, just passin through :o

leelaw
11-19-2009, 1:45 AM
AR without a BB, SBR, with a silencer (the last two via shall-issue permit). That would rock. :D

E Pluribus Unum
11-19-2009, 4:23 AM
Well.... for me... in 10 years... I guarantee you that I will be more free.


Either:

A) California will get right and repea some of this crap

or

B) I will be living in a free state.

cbn620
11-19-2009, 5:27 AM
Don't mean to play devil's advocate and am certainly not doubting, but to bwiese and hoffmang, would you guys be willing to elaborate more on your reasoning as to these precise predictions? I have been following the court cases and can clearly see a trend, but these predictions seem awfully specific.

ilbob
11-19-2009, 6:24 AM
Well.... for me... in 10 years... I guarantee you that I will be more free.


Either:

A) California will get right and repea some of this crap

or

B) I will be living in a free state.

I would plan on moving.
I think there is a good chance that you will have some additional liberty on the RTKBA front, but the rest of your liberties will take a big dive.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-19-2009, 6:30 AM
I know there is a lot of hope with the SCOTUS decision next year. If you were a bookie, what odds would you put on CCW, Open carry, Still being able to mail order ammo, Getting the AWB in CA gone, Ten round magazine limits and bullet buttons working out for US? I am an eternal optimist, but there are others a lot more knowledgeable about this than I. What do you really think CA gun laws will look like in ten years? I know this is just speculation, but I would really like to think that we would become more free than less free.


I am a severe optimist. ALL of the gun "control" schemes in this state are based on the fact that the 2A doesn't apply here. IE, they do so because they CAN. That won't be the case after Incorporation, ESPECIALLY if we get P/I Incorporation.

So, ALL gun "control" schemes will then have to be justified in court. And that's FEDERAL court, not the state courts. So, all "California only" things like the AWB, 962, bullet buttons, "safe handgun list," will go bye-bye at the first challenge.

Unrestricted LOC might come as early as June. If not, not long after. There's 25 states that have this already & it doesn't cause a problem there. I see no chance of the PRK justifying the prohibition in front of a Federal court.

CCW will be Shall Issue. "Separate but Equal" doesn't fly in regard to anything else, it won't fly for CCW either.

Further, it won't take ten years for all of this to happen. A properly crafted criminal defense of a defendant we like (or can least tolerate) will overturn this nonsense real quick.

Which leads me to 626.9. The illogic & stupidity inherent in this law we already know. But, just because they can, they did. The good news is that we already have a "pure" defendant to use to strike this down. Theseus isn't a drug dealer. His charge isn't connected to anything but the basic charge. We'll have Incorporation before his case hits the state Supreme Court. That being our Supreme Court, that doesn't bode well for him, but they might follow the Law of the Land. If not, next step is the Federal Courts, where I'm confident that following the Law of the Land will be done. Which means we'll have "sensitive" defined as being on the far side of the metal detectors in a year or two.

The biggest wild card in the deck is our beloved AG, Jerry Brown, who favors Incorporation. If (and that's a big IF), he intends to follow that to its logical conclusion, he won't oppose us on any of this. True, he'll be gone at the end of next year, but he can kill (or by inaction allow to die) most of the unconstitutional nonsense before then. Whether he will or not takes a crystal ball better than what I've got at present. But, I am confident. Even if he's not all that strong for us, he's bright enough to know not to play with a losing hand. So, he might just fold as soon as Incorporation comes our way.

In any event, none of this will take long. We'll be a free state much sooner than ten years.

The Raisuli

MudCamper
11-19-2009, 8:42 AM
CA AWB will be gone (at worst: it'll be a shall-issue permit a la pistol vs rifle differentiation in CA).

Handgun Roster will be gone. (It's already gone in DC.) With a dead Roster there's no microstamping issues.

CCW = not-quite shall issue, will be "fairly reasonable issue" - i.e, at worst, some fear needs to be asserted on a standardized form, and the applicant doesn't have record of instability (DUI, fights, excessive PD calls to house due to occupants, etc.)

Waiting period reduction for those already owning guns. I own 40some guns - WTF good does it do for me to wait for 10 days on my next DROS?

Mag cap issues will be harder to fight but we have ways around those

I mildly disagree with Bill.

Carry permits will be shall issue.

I also think we may have a way to at least moot magazines capacity bans in California.

Otherwise, what Bill said. Possibly add shall issue SBR permits.

OK, guys. I'm going to save this post, and on November 19, 2020, I'm gonna resurrect it and see how right you were! :)

wash
11-19-2009, 8:59 AM
I am a severe optimist. ALL of the gun "control" schemes in this state are based on the fact that the 2A doesn't apply here. IE, they do so because they CAN. That won't be the case after Incorporation, ESPECIALLY if we get P/I Incorporation.

So, ALL gun "control" schemes will then have to be justified in court. And that's FEDERAL court, not the state courts. So, all "California only" things like the AWB, 962, bullet buttons, "safe handgun list," will go bye-bye at the first challenge.

Unrestricted LOC might come as early as June. If not, not long after. There's 25 states that have this already & it doesn't cause a problem there. I see no chance of the PRK justifying the prohibition in front of a Federal court.

CCW will be Shall Issue. "Separate but Equal" doesn't fly in regard to anything else, it won't fly for CCW either.

Further, it won't take ten years for all of this to happen. A properly crafted criminal defense of a defendant we like (or can least tolerate) will overturn this nonsense real quick.

Which leads me to 626.9. The illogic & stupidity inherent in this law we already know. But, just because they can, they did. The good news is that we already have a "pure" defendant to use to strike this down. Theseus isn't a drug dealer. His charge isn't connected to anything but the basic charge. We'll have Incorporation before his case hits the state Supreme Court. That being our Supreme Court, that doesn't bode well for him, but they might follow the Law of the Land. If not, next step is the Federal Courts, where I'm confident that following the Law of the Land will be done. Which means we'll have "sensitive" defined as being on the far side of the metal detectors in a year or two.

The biggest wild card in the deck is our beloved AG, Jerry Brown, who favors Incorporation. If (and that's a big IF), he intends to follow that to its logical conclusion, he won't oppose us on any of this. True, he'll be gone at the end of next year, but he can kill (or by inaction allow to die) most of the unconstitutional nonsense before then. Whether he will or not takes a crystal ball better than what I've got at present. But, I am confident. Even if he's not all that strong for us, he's bright enough to know not to play with a losing hand. So, he might just fold as soon as Incorporation comes our way.

In any event, none of this will take long. We'll be a free state much sooner than ten years.

The Raisuli
That's a little too optimistic. CA laws will stay in force until they are challenged, and they will be challenged in CA courts before they can be appealed up the ladder.

The good news is that lower courts don't like to be overturned on appeal so once they know how the higher courts will likely rule, they should fall in line.

I don't expect unrestricted LOC until at least 2011, we might only get shall issue CCW and UOC.

The awb will need a lawsuit and probably won't be filed until the not un-safe handgun roster is gone. If we are lucky I can see the awb go away by 2011, appeals might drag it out another year or two.

AB 962 will be struck down before it goes in to effect.

The gun free school zones will be eliminated or shrunk greatly. I don't have any idea how long that will take.

MudCamper
11-19-2009, 9:18 AM
...Unrestricted LOC might come as early as June. If not, not long after...

...Which leads me to 626.9...

That's a little too optimistic...
I don't expect unrestricted LOC until at least 2011...

I think both of you guys are insanely overly optimistic. I don't ever see 12031 or 626.9 going away, ever. I think they will be limited, a little, by court president. But that's it. And it will take years.

ilbob
11-19-2009, 9:26 AM
The biggest wild card in the deck is our beloved AG, Jerry Brown, who favors Incorporation.
Jerry Brown is an astute politician who does not want to waste his time on losing. Its doubtful he will push for any additional liberties, he is after all a big government kind of guy. He will not waste his energy as governor on losing causes that he really has no stake in.

In reality, the governor has very little say in the whole RTKBA issue. I predict he will let it play out in the courts and the legislature. He will just sign whatever bills the legislature can pass.

My guess is somewhere along the way the federal courts are going to tell the sheriffs that they are going to have to rethink their CC issuing practices to be more equitable due to that pesky 14thA, regardless of what the 2A has to say about it. Once the floodgates open, it will become de facto shall-issue, or at least close to it.

I think there is a chance that SCOTUS will decide that LOC is a protected right, but allow CC to be heavily regulated or even prohibited. I think there is an equal chance that they will decide both modes of carry are protected. I also think there is some chance that they will come up with some weasel words that allows states to prevent the actual expression of the right to bear arms in any meaningful way. The template for that is WI where LOC is lawful except inside cars and in school zones, which seems somewhat reasonable to the average on looker who does not carry anyway, until you realize that it completely eliminates any utility in LOC.

CAL.BAR
11-19-2009, 9:31 AM
I'm afraid that I have to agree with the doubters here. Bwise and HoffmanG - There is nothing in any current case law which would force the state to roll back the AWB. (unless we've got specific litigation pending over the DOJ's ability to issue an AW license which is now completely discretionary). Incorporation is nice, but it will only allow for Federal cases to be applied to CA and there are no Federal cases which say a state can't regulate AW's (or whatever they claim are AW's)

You also may not be taking into account the massive population growth in CA. Given projected estimates, our 32 million population is expected to surge to over 45 million (http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/hrc/rtr/ex5.pdf) by 2020. (not counting millions of illegals who don't get counted)

Combined with ever growing urban sprawl, you are talking about trying to get AW's back in the hands of pure urbanites (most of whom have never seen a real AW in person, ever dreamed of owning one) (i.e will never fight for the right to own one) and would have to drive for hours just to find open space to shoot the damn thing even if they wanted to. (The number of outdoor ranges for some 20 MILLION people living in LA, OC, Riverside etc. is less than a half dozen)

I wish you were right, but never in the history of CA have "we" ever been successful in overturning state-wide gun control measures once enacted. Roberti-Roos is over twenty years old now, and I don't see any serious challenges to it yet.

Nodda Duma
11-19-2009, 9:49 AM
Incorporation is nice, but it will only allow for Federal cases to be applied to CA and there are no Federal cases which say a state can't regulate AW's (or whatever they claim are AW's)


Heller decision's "dangerous and unusual" statement says they can't. What the state calls AW are some of the most usual firearms in the nation.

I wish you were right, but never in the history of CA have "we" ever been successful in overturning state-wide gun control measures once enacted. Roberti-Roos is over twenty years old now, and I don't see any serious challenges to it yet.

We have the ability to purchase and own new, legal, AR and AK - type firearms. Just 4 years ago this was not the case. If that isn't a setback for gun grabbers and a victory for gun owners, I don't know what is.

-Jason

wash
11-19-2009, 10:25 AM
DC had a handgun ban. Chicago has a handgun ban. We've got an "assault weapon" ban.

The point is that blanket bans are unconstitutional for arms that are not dangerous and unusual. "Unsafe" isn't even enough to justify a ban.

Our AWB is unconstitutional and will fall after incorporation. That might mean shall issue AWB permits and open registration, but either way we'll be able to have all of the evil features we want.

Dirtbozz
11-19-2009, 11:01 AM
I would plan on moving.
I think there is a good chance that you will have some additional liberty on the RTKBA front, but the rest of your liberties will take a big dive.

If, in the next 3 - 4 years the coming financial catastrophe that this state is headed for occurs, and a free state rises from the ashes, I will stay.

Gun rights are one of my primary issues, but not the only one.

timmyb21
11-19-2009, 12:19 PM
:clap::patriot::punk: (writes check to CalGuns Foundation!!)CA AWB will be gone (at worst: it'll be a shall-issue permit a la pistol vs rifle differentiation in CA).

Handgun Roster will be gone. (It's already gone in DC.) With a dead Roster there's no microstamping issues.

CCW = not-quite shall issue, will be "fairly reasonable issue" - i.e, at worst, some fear needs to be asserted on a standardized form, and the applicant doesn't have record of instability (DUI, fights, excessive PD calls to house due to occupants, etc.)

Waiting period reduction for those already owning guns. I own 40some guns - WTF good does it do for me to wait for 10 days on my next DROS?

Mag cap issues will be harder to fight but we have ways around those.

Quser.619
11-19-2009, 12:31 PM
The thing that is scary is how is the state legislature going to respond to McDonald if it ruled in favor of incorporation. I can see a whole slough of laws passed & even being popular statewide that will eventually be overturned. Since when has the CA government been afraid to pass laws that in a couple of years will overturned, especially if it meets their short-term goals? Gun ownership in DC hasn't gotten any easier from what I've read, it is more expensive

The 2nd thing is Obama administration's study inking gun ownership/use to health-care issues & that while they cannot prevent us from owning, they can make health-care costs selectively so expensive that legal/registered ownership will be so expensive that many will forgo altogether.

Many may scoff, but that was the aim of DC & Chicago laws. Again, if passed will take many years to fight & who knows what the Supreme Court's makeup will be then.

CAL.BAR
11-19-2009, 12:46 PM
Heller decision's "dangerous and unusual" statement says they can't. What the state calls AW are some of the most usual firearms in the nation.

We have the ability to purchase and own new, legal, AR and AK - type firearms. Just 4 years ago this was not the case. If that isn't a setback for gun grabbers and a victory for gun owners, I don't know what is.

-Jason


First, Heller had nothing to do with AW's (only pistols). The very fact we are debating what "dangerous and unusual" is means that there is discretion and interpretation on the part of the state and we know where KA will fall on that question. Heller still allows the state to decide what "dangerous and unusual is". The preamble to Robert-Roos set forth exactly how the state feels about AW's. (they said they were dangerous weapons suitable only for the battlefield)

Second, don't let the fact that we can buy this stuff affect your legal crystal ball. No court, agency or other rule of law has commented on these things, and we live in constant fear that the whim of those in power may change and they will all be rounded up (or at least we get arresting for shooting them at the range). OLL's were merely private enterprise circumventing poor drafting on the part of the legislature. Nothing more. As was seen with the ammo ban, they can (and do) push through anti-gun measures with relative ease. For all we know De Leon is already working out a BB ban or other such measure. I can assure you that no member of the KA legislature is actively working to release Roberti-Roos.

bwiese
11-19-2009, 1:11 PM
Heller still allows the state to decide what "dangerous and unusual is".

The word "and" in "dangerous and unusual" was not used casually.

"AWs" are more common than Dick Heller's gun, which is the bottom threshold for usualness.

And a comparison on video of a Mini14 rifle with a Mini14 with folder stock and pistol grip will show that "AWness" only revolves around cosmetic features.

SteveH
11-19-2009, 1:52 PM
Worse, not better than now. We have had some big loses the last few years. .50 Caliber rifle ban, Mail order handgun sales ban, gun ranges closing, CCW permits becomming more restrictive in OC.

chris
11-19-2009, 2:03 PM
i would like to see the AWB go away along with anything that has to do with magazine limits and so on. and that all previous registrations of AW's be destroyed immediately.

bulgron
11-19-2009, 2:04 PM
I wish you were right, but never in the history of CA have "we" ever been successful in overturning state-wide gun control measures once enacted. Roberti-Roos is over twenty years old now, and I don't see any serious challenges to it yet.

Never in the history of CA have we had a legally-accessible right to arms in this state. Once McDonald is decided, we ARE going to have a legally-accessible right to arms in this state. That makes it a civil rights issue.

And that changes the entire ballgame.

I share the optimism expressed by Gene and Bill, but I'm not sure that California is going to remain a livable state even with the gun laws fixed. The idea of millions more people flooding into this state even as it goes broke makes me want to crawl into a hole and hide.

Midian
11-19-2009, 2:14 PM
If, in the next 3 - 4 years the coming financial catastrophe that this state is headed for occurs, and a free state rises from the ashes, I will stay.
.

Testify.

CAL.BAR
11-19-2009, 2:27 PM
The word "and" in "dangerous and unusual" was not used casually.

"AWs" are more common than Dick Heller's gun, which is the bottom threshold for usualness.

And a comparison on video of a Mini14 rifle with a Mini14 with folder stock and pistol grip will show that "AWness" only revolves around cosmetic features.

Yes, and the CA legislature is already on record as saying that AW's are "dangerous" and fit only for the battlefield. I doubt any court would interpret this holding as requiring both "dangerous" and unusual" in order for 2A to prevent it from being banned. Hell, full auto MG's can be called somewhat common in some free states, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous and the Feds are rather unlikely to overturn the 1934 NFA.

hoffmang
11-19-2009, 2:42 PM
Sigh...

A government can claim that all anti Union speech is libel, but that doesn't make it so under First Amendment jurisprudence. So too, the old statements of state legislatures don't matter if they can't actually back it up with facts. The facts are that there are very few unjust homocides where an "AW" was used, crime has fallen in the years after the expiration of the AWB, and the lower limit of "in common use" is Dick Heller's revolver. The AWB doesn't have much chance in the next couple of years.

Remember that California's defense of the Handgun Roster is "well, we can certainly ban half of the arms protected by the 2A." I'm confident that argument will be laughed at at the appropriate appellate level.

McDonald is the end of the beginning. Much of what Bill and I are predicting is already underway. On the hopolophobe side, the only thing left that actually matters is carry. Between Sykes and Palmer, that too shall be won. AWs are a last gasp on the other side. It's awfully handy that SB-23 doesn't even pass rational basis in California.

-Gene

wash
11-19-2009, 2:45 PM
SCOTUS said dangerous and unusual. Who cares what the legislature says? When they make an unconstitutional law, it's the court's job to set things right.

Kharn
11-19-2009, 3:02 PM
Yes, and the CA legislature is already on record as saying that AW's are "dangerous" and fit only for the battlefield. I doubt any court would interpret this holding as requiring both "dangerous" and unusual" in order for 2A to prevent it from being banned. Hell, full auto MG's can be called somewhat common in some free states, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous and the Feds are rather unlikely to overturn the 1934 NFA.See Heller:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”The Supreme Court does not use 'and' or quotation marks lightly. They've established a test, a weapon must be both 'dangerous' and 'unusual' to be unprotected, and then explains that machine guns are not protected. The positive mention of Miller shows that SBSs are also unprotected. AWs? The latest ATF report (2006) shows approximately (quick scan of it, noting only the manufacturers I recognize), 248k rifles were made by companies that specialize in black rifles (Colt, Bushmaster, RRA, Barrett, Noveske, Sabre, Armalite, etc). For comparison, Sturm Ruger made 196k rifles and Remington made 300k rifles that year. I'd say black rifles are not unusual.

HunterJim
11-19-2009, 3:26 PM
I know there is a lot of hope with the SCOTUS decision next year. If you were a bookie, what odds would you put on CCW, Open carry, Still being able to mail order ammo, Getting the AWB in CA gone, Ten round magazine limits and bullet buttons working out for US? I am an eternal optimist, but there are others a lot more knowledgeable about this than I. What do you really think CA gun laws will look like in ten years? I know this is just speculation, but I would really like to think that we would become more free than less free.

I will be ignoring California's laws as I will be living in another state. ;)

...jim

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
11-19-2009, 3:26 PM
The Supreme Court does not use 'and' or quotation marks lightly. They've established a test, a weapon must be both 'dangerous' and 'unusual' to be unprotected....

You realize that "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons" can be read as "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous weapons and unusual weapons" and that Blackstone and 3 of the 4 cases cited after this sentence from Heller say dangerous or unusual? "Dangerous and unusual" isn't a done deal.

Anyways, I wish the "Heller's Buntline revolver is the lower limit or threshold of in common use" argument would go away. There was no evidence or finding of fact in Heller that the particular revolver was in common use. Heller is all about classes or types of arms and you have to dig really deeply to figure out what specific handgun Heller actually applied to register; it's not mentioned anywhere in the trial court's, appeals court's or supreme court's opinions. This is one of those cutesy arguments that detracts from the better arguments and is ultimately useless. No court is ever going to adopt any standard that says a firearm is protected by the 2nd amendment if it as commonly used or more commonly used than Heller's particular revolver.

wash
11-19-2009, 3:34 PM
Well, Heller's pistol is a revolver which is a big class and it has ~unusual features like a very long barrel and a 9 shot cylinder (I think).

An AR15 would fall in to the big class of semi-automatic rifles and it has the not so unusual features of a pistol grip, a flash hider and a telescoping stock.

I wonder what banned feature of an "assault weapon" is unusual? Maybe a grenade launcher, oh wait, SKS's all over the country have them...

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
11-19-2009, 3:42 PM
Others are using "unusual" in the sense of not in common use, and that's the way I'm reading it too (not that the firearm's particular features are unusual in some cosmetic or mechanical sense).

I don't see there being a lot of litigation about which classes of arms are in common use, but about what regulation within those classes is permitted.

tiko
11-19-2009, 9:01 PM
I love this thread and am very optimistic now, thanx.

hardrivr
11-19-2009, 9:50 PM
me too

hoffmang
11-19-2009, 10:03 PM
Anyways, I wish the "Heller's Buntline revolver is the lower limit or threshold of in common use" argument would go away.

You and every anti-gun Federal judge. Dicta is a two way street. At worst, the answer could not be "a High Standard Buntline Style Revolver" but instead is "Handguns." If that's the rule then I'm comfortable that "Semi Automatic Rifles" are as common as "Handguns."

You continue to remind me that you don't have a lot of litigation experience.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
11-20-2009, 6:37 AM
Jerry Brown is an astute politician who does not want to waste his time on losing. Its doubtful he will push for any additional liberties, he is after all a big government kind of guy. He will not waste his energy as governor on losing causes that he really has no stake in.

In reality, the governor has very little say in the whole RTKBA issue. I predict he will let it play out in the courts and the legislature. He will just sign whatever bills the legislature can pass.


Maybe, but that makes the need for speed all the stronger. Whatever we're going to do has to be done before he stops being the AG. Unless, of course, the next AG is just as practical. Getting a pro-gun AG would be wonderful, but I don't expect that. :)



My guess is somewhere along the way the federal courts are going to tell the sheriffs that they are going to have to rethink their CC issuing practices to be more equitable due to that pesky 14thA, regardless of what the 2A has to say about it. Once the floodgates open, it will become de facto shall-issue, or at least close to it.


It isn't going to be "somewhere along the way." The case has already been filed against Sac'to County. Its on hold pending McDonald, which means it won't take long to get a result once McDonald is final.



I think there is a chance that SCOTUS will decide that LOC is a protected right, but allow CC to be heavily regulated or even prohibited. I think there is an equal chance that they will decide both modes of carry are protected. I also think there is some chance that they will come up with some weasel words that allows states to prevent the actual expression of the right to bear arms in any meaningful way. The template for that is WI where LOC is lawful except inside cars and in school zones, which seems somewhat reasonable to the average on looker who does not carry anyway, until you realize that it completely eliminates any utility in LOC.


I also think that LOC will be defined by SCOTUS as the protected Right (the Minimum Constitutional Standard, as Gene defined it) & that restrictions will be allowed on CCW. But, "separate but equal" won't be allowable post-Incorporation. So, if CCW is allowed at all, issuance will have to be fair. IE; if buddies of the bosses can get a CCW, so will Joe Average.

The situation in WI is a little odd, but keep in mind that what the "average on looker" thinks isn't going to matter. What will matter is what does it look like to a Federal judge (and later, the Circuit Courts)? Since this is now defined as a Civil Right, our model is the 60s. As examples, 'grandfather clauses' & 'literacy tests' were though to be just fine by the crackers Down South (the "average on looker" then). How long did those things last after they were examined by the Federal courts? So, while I've no doubt that the urge to impose limits on LOC (like barring LOC while driving, THE most popular way of getting around) exists, those limits just won't fly.

The same thing applies to acts of the legislature. DC is trying like mad to work around Heller. They're getting shot down at every step. Aside from enriching Gura, they're not accomplishing anything. PRK politicians may not be astute, but they don't like wasting their time either. Once its clear that passing stupid, useless laws only puts money into the pockets of Gura & the like, they'll stop. Which means that JB (if he becomes Gov) just might veto those stupid laws. His practicality will compel him to.

As for how long, I see no reason it should take ten years. The pattern to follow has already been shown to us (back in the 60s). The runners in re where & how to "and bear" have already left the starting gate (Sykes), or are on the back back stretch (Nordyke). All of the Black Rifle stuff will take a little longer, but not all that much longer. Illogical nonsense doesn't fare well when Civil Rights are the subject. Not in the Federal courts it doesn't.

The Raisuli

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
11-20-2009, 7:03 AM
At worst, the answer could not be "a High Standard Buntline Style Revolver" but instead is "Handguns."

Well, that's a little different, isn't it? You don't have to be an anti-gun federal judge or a genius to realize that Heller didn't say it was protecting that specific handgun, it was protecting "handguns."

You continue to remind me that you don't have a lot of litigation experience.

Enough to realize that your last lawsuit was "without legal merit" lol. Must have been another "anti-gun" judge!

What I'm most concerned about is the "I want two-tone" argument in the Pena v Cid case. It's insane to me that 10 days after Nordyke ("Rather than insist on a standard of review at the outset, the Heller court evaluated the regulation at issue against the kind of conduct the Second Amendment protected from infringement," "It does not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-defense in the home," "[T]he Ordinance does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms, the core of the right as Heller analyzed it), that someone would claim a second amendment violation because she wanted two-tone instead of the mechanically identical handgun in black. I can't imagine a worse fact pattern or example why elevated scrutiny should apply.

wash
11-20-2009, 8:41 AM
The argument isn't "I want two-tone" it's "I want this handgun, why can't I have it?"

The fact that a nearly identical and 100% functionally identical handgun is legal only goes to point out the arbitrary nature of our roster of "not unsafe" handguns.

She's being prohibited from owning the handgun she wants, just like Dick Heller was.

ilbob
11-20-2009, 8:58 AM
I also think that LOC will be defined by SCOTUS as the protected Right (the Minimum Constitutional Standard, as Gene defined it) & that restrictions will be allowed on CCW.
I suspect that some of the more liberal judges might prefer guns be hidden out of sight, and so might go for the idea that CC is preferable to OC, and go for both, hoping the average Joe with a gun keeps it under his shirt. Which is probably the way it would shake out if it goes that way.

But, "separate but equal" won't be allowable post-Incorporation. So, if CCW is allowed at all, issuance will have to be fair. IE; if buddies of the bosses can get a CCW, so will Joe Average.
I think it is a much easier case to make that CA CC issuing is in violation of the equal protection clause, than that it is in violation of the 2A. It would not surprise me if a court declined to rule on the 2A side of such a thing and went for the EP argument, since it is so much simpler, and there is no need to deal with whether CC is a protected right or not.

The situation in WI is a little odd, but keep in mind that what the "average on looker" thinks isn't going to matter. What will matter is what does it look like to a Federal judge (and later, the Circuit Courts)? Since this is now defined as a Civil Right, our model is the 60s. As examples, 'grandfather clauses' & 'literacy tests' were though to be just fine by the crackers Down South (the "average on looker" then). How long did those things last after they were examined by the Federal courts? So, while I've no doubt that the urge to impose limits on LOC (like barring LOC while driving, THE most popular way of getting around) exists, those limits just won't fly.
However, the average on looker knew that the purpose of the literacy tests and such was specifically to discriminate against blacks, and the courts have taken a dim view of racial discrimination. Discriminating against everyone OTOH, is something the courts have often tolerated. Look at the unconstitutional practices the courts have allowed such as mass drug tests, drunk driving checkpoints, and the like.

jdogg2000
11-20-2009, 9:50 AM
I hope you guys are right, you know much more than me about these issues and its nice to see so many people optimistic about the future here.

I feel like so many people here in Cali are "anti-gun" because that's how they were raised. Its probably worse here than in many parts of the country because so many of the legitimate shooting sports have been stigmatized here, ranges closed, etc., that thousands of people grow up thinking guns are just for bad guys and police. I've introduced so many new people to shooting and responsible firearms ownership, but I also have a group of people who I just don't talk to about it because the 30 years of FUD is too much for me to tackle. All we need is somebody in California (or not even here) to do something stupid with an AR or AK and the politicians here could use that to destroy any anti-AWB legislation. Still, I remain hopeful about our future...

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
11-20-2009, 10:03 AM
The fact that a nearly identical and 100% functionally identical handgun is legal only goes to point out the arbitrary nature of our roster of "not unsafe" handguns.

Unfortunately, we've already seen one analytical framework for second amendment cases, from the "pro-gun" Nordyke panel, that goes about it a different way. Yes it's arbitrary that you can buy a mechanically identical black handgun, but the restricted choice does not meaningfully impede the ability of individuals to defend themselves in their homes with usable firearms. There's not even the remotest argument that not being able to purchase the two-tone version of a rostered handgun impedes the efficacy of self-defense in this plaintiff's or anyone else's home, her entire argument really boils down to "I want two-tone." It doesn't get more arbitrary than that. IMO this is an exceptionally weak fact pattern on which to base a second amendment argument. We're are going to see court decisions distinguishing the nature of the right from others such as freedom of speech, privacy, etc., and analyzing regulations in terms of how significantly they burden the exercise of the right. The second amendment doesn't mean you get your preferred color choice, and it remains to be seen what we will end up with when this particular argument is rejected.

She's being prohibited from owning the handgun she wants, just like Dick Heller was.

The difference is that Heller was prohibited from owning a usable handgun for self defense. The make, model, color, were never mentioned in any of the decisions from the trial court to the Supreme Court. Not even Gura framed the argument as one about an individual having an unrestricted choice to pick whatever make, model, or color handgun he or she wants.

Nodda Duma
11-20-2009, 10:31 AM
FABIO,

What compelling reason is there to prohibit a two-tone handgun when it is entirely identical to a non-prohibited handgun except in choice of finish?

Why prohibit one when the other is allowed?
Why allow one when the other is prohibited?

When the differences are entirely cosmetic, either allow them all (our choice) or prohibit them all (not our choice). What rational people everywhere want is for the government to base the decisions on some sort of sound logical reasoning, not simply on looks and FUD. The rationale being used now is simply not justifiable, and will be particularly so after the 2nd Amendment is Incorporated.

-Jason

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
11-20-2009, 10:53 AM
No doubt it's irrational and illogical. Whether that makes any difference depends on which analytical standard you're using. If it's "does not meaningfully impede the ability of an individual to defend himself or herself in the home," it isn't going to matter, and you could not have picked a stronger fact pattern to allow a court to go down that road than a plaintiff who wants a gun for no other reason than its color scheme.

ilbob
11-20-2009, 2:30 PM
No doubt it's irrational and illogical. Whether that makes any difference depends on which analytical standard you're using. If it's "does not meaningfully impede the ability of an individual to defend himself or herself in the home," it isn't going to matter, and you could not have picked a stronger fact pattern to allow a court to go down that road than a plaintiff who wants a gun for no other reason than its color scheme.

If a reasonable level of scrutiny is applied (maybe strict or intermediate) government is precluded from restricting your rights unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The color of a gun cannot possibly be considered a compelling reason to ban it.

hill billy
11-20-2009, 2:44 PM
Well.... for me... in 10 years... I guarantee you that I will be more free.


Either:

A) California will get right and repea some of this crap

or

B) I will be living in a free state.
Sadly, this.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
11-20-2009, 3:32 PM
If a reasonable level of scrutiny is applied (maybe strict or intermediate) government is precluded from restricting your rights unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The color of a gun cannot possibly be considered a compelling reason to ban it.

It sounds like you're saying the courts should jump right to the level of scrutiny and start the analysis from there. And no the color of a gun isn't a good reason to ban something. But we're not really dealing with a color ban. It's a "lacks safety features" regulation that does not prohibit the possession of usable, mechanically identical handguns. If the courts take a "how does this regulation burden the exercise of the right" approach, you may not even get to strict or intermediate scrutiny. I'm not making this up, it already happened in Nordyke, which I think is a good example of a case with not so compelling facts that resulted in some bad language.

hoffmang
11-20-2009, 10:16 PM
The difference is that Heller was prohibited from owning a usable handgun for self defense. The make, model, color, were never mentioned in any of the decisions from the trial court to the Supreme Court. Not even Gura framed the argument as one about an individual having an unrestricted choice to pick whatever make, model, or color handgun he or she wants.

Actually, that's exactly what Alan Gura did in DC and the DC government ran away screaming from the argument instead of fighting it.

I repeat that you lack litigation experience.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
11-21-2009, 5:20 AM
I suspect that some of the more liberal judges might prefer guns be hidden out of sight, and so might go for the idea that CC is preferable to OC, and go for both, hoping the average Joe with a gun keeps it under his shirt. Which is probably the way it would shake out if it goes that way.


That might be the way it shakes out. But as long as I don't have to get a permit, either works for me.




I think it is a much easier case to make that CA CC issuing is in violation of the equal protection clause, than that it is in violation of the 2A. It would not surprise me if a court declined to rule on the 2A side of such a thing and went for the EP argument, since it is so much simpler, and there is no need to deal with whether CC is a protected right or not.


That's what I was thinking.


However, the average on looker knew that the purpose of the literacy tests and such was specifically to discriminate against blacks, and the courts have taken a dim view of racial discrimination. Discriminating against everyone OTOH, is something the courts have often tolerated. Look at the unconstitutional practices the courts have allowed such as mass drug tests, drunk driving checkpoints, and the like.


Its not quite that simple. It isn't just racial discrimination that gets them going, but the infringement of civil rights. Also, the checkpoints don't infringe on a Right. I've never heard of a "mass" drug test. Where has this happened?

The Raisuli

SteveH
11-21-2009, 6:43 AM
You guys still arguing about that old Scotus case that has not been used to overturn a single california gun law? Give it a rest. Make your prediction as the OP asked and quit your bickering.

Purple K
11-21-2009, 1:30 PM
WHAM!!!!!

Serpentine
11-21-2009, 7:18 PM
I am a severe optimist. ALL of the gun "control" schemes in this state are based on the fact that the 2A doesn't apply here. IE, they do so because they CAN. That won't be the case after Incorporation, ESPECIALLY if we get P/I Incorporation.

So, ALL gun "control" schemes will then have to be justified in court. And that's FEDERAL court, not the state courts. So, all "California only" things like the AWB, 962, bullet buttons, "safe handgun list," will go bye-bye at the first challenge.

Unrestricted LOC might come as early as June. If not, not long after. There's 25 states that have this already & it doesn't cause a problem there. I see no chance of the PRK justifying the prohibition in front of a Federal court.

CCW will be Shall Issue. "Separate but Equal" doesn't fly in regard to anything else, it won't fly for CCW either.

Further, it won't take ten years for all of this to happen. A properly crafted criminal defense of a defendant we like (or can least tolerate) will overturn this nonsense real quick.

Which leads me to 626.9. The illogic & stupidity inherent in this law we already know. But, just because they can, they did. The good news is that we already have a "pure" defendant to use to strike this down. Theseus isn't a drug dealer. His charge isn't connected to anything but the basic charge. We'll have Incorporation before his case hits the state Supreme Court. That being our Supreme Court, that doesn't bode well for him, but they might follow the Law of the Land. If not, next step is the Federal Courts, where I'm confident that following the Law of the Land will be done. Which means we'll have "sensitive" defined as being on the far side of the metal detectors in a year or two.

The biggest wild card in the deck is our beloved AG, Jerry Brown, who favors Incorporation. If (and that's a big IF), he intends to follow that to its logical conclusion, he won't oppose us on any of this. True, he'll be gone at the end of next year, but he can kill (or by inaction allow to die) most of the unconstitutional nonsense before then. Whether he will or not takes a crystal ball better than what I've got at present. But, I am confident. Even if he's not all that strong for us, he's bright enough to know not to play with a losing hand. So, he might just fold as soon as Incorporation comes our way.

In any event, none of this will take long. We'll be a free state much sooner than ten years.

The Raisuli

I'm totally on board you Mulay! In 12-18 months = Handgun Roster - gone, ammo restrictions - gone, 10 day wait - gone, SBR restrictions - gone, safe or lock requirement for every purchase - gone, HSC card - gone. Multiple behind the scene dealer restrictions - gone. Micro-stamping - gone, etc., etc.

NICS check will remain (as it should be), but done with a phone call - not twenty minutes of paperwork, data entry, printout, $25-$35 dollars, and another $25 for a senseless HSC card.

The 2A will be incorporated as an individual civil right against the states by SCOTUS = ...... "shall not be infringed." Even the 9th circuit court realizes this.

Through the 14th, everyone has equal protection. So what Idaho and Texas has, so goes to every law abiding, qualified, US citizen regardless of what state he lives in. NFA items included through tax stamps (or maybe not), etc.

12-18 months and the US Constitution 2A will mean what it means. All that are against it, especially those that are SWORN to uphold it, are treasonous, tyrannical enemies of the United States of America.

Just because some individual wacko's snap on occasion and shoot people indiscriminately, does not mean that every citizen has to give up his civil right because some politicians say so! If you applied the same logic to airplanes, knives, shovels, automobiles, alcohol and cigarettes, etc, we would eventually end up with no rights or privileges - and a destroyed country.

Just because someone yells FIRE in a crowded theater, doesn't mean the states can put duct tape over your mouth.

Just because some people choose to worship Satanical religions, doesn't mean that the rest of us cannot practice the religion we choose! So goes the 2A!!



.