PDA

View Full Version : Legislative action in response to future rullings


Window_Seat
01-17-2010, 4:06 PM
I scanned some of the past threads looking for the answer to my question, and came across this post by Mr. Hoffman regarding the GC part of 12050 being ruled unconstitutional in the future post Incorporation:

California has a little problem in its laws. Either 12031 or 12050 interpreted to allow discretion is unconstitutional. It's a binary either, or.

I think for certain legal and political reasons the courts and the legislature in California will choose to interpret "may issue" to really mean "will issue to anyone not prohibited." This is of course post Nordyke being final.

-Gene

If the CA Legislature decides to do nothing, how long does it take to force them to do something (assuming we never get a 2A friendly majority? Has there ever been a situation where the courts had to "order the legislature" to change a law?

As far as the #2 option, if this is the best we can get, does the legislature also interpret "good cause" as being "for reasons of self defense/protection", or are they able to leave that one alone?

Erik.

hoffmang
01-17-2010, 9:11 PM
We've already filed that case in Sykes. Timetable would probably be 60-90 days after incorporation for a decision in the District court. Then we'd go on to an appeal. That can get done in 180 to 270 days.

-Gene

RomanDad
01-17-2010, 9:17 PM
I scanned some of the past threads looking for the answer to my question, and came across this post by Mr. Hoffman regarding the GC part of 12050 being ruled unconstitutional in the future post Incorporation:



If the CA Legislature decides to do nothing, how long does it take to force them to do something (assuming we never get a 2A friendly majority? Has there ever been a situation where the courts had to "order the legislature" to change a law?


The legislature doesn't "have to do something". If the Court strikes down a section of legislation, that's it. No further action is required. Sometime the legislative counsel will seek to clean up the code in future publications. Many times they just don't. Neither has any effect on the status of the law once the Court has ruled. The section that is struck down is just ignored and not enforced.

hoffmang
01-17-2010, 9:20 PM
The "must show ID" law that was struck down by the Supreme Court is still in the California Penal Code...

-Gene

bwiese
01-17-2010, 9:35 PM
The legislature doesn't "have to do something". If the Court strikes down a section of legislation, that's it. No further action is required. Sometime the legislative counsel will seek to clean up the code in future publications. Many times they just don't. Neither has any effect on the status of the law once the Court has ruled. The section that is struck down is just ignored and not enforced.

Yup. The PC is full of stuff that's been overruled or significantly reshaped by courts.

For example, a perfect example is PC 12276(e) and (f) laws about AW "copies and duplicates" which has been riven asunder by Harrott.