PDA

View Full Version : Equal Protection vs. Category 4 AWs: an interesting paradox


shopkeep
02-23-2006, 11:06 AM
Well folks, if it wasn't confusing enough that you can build a detachable mag .22 lawfully with all the evil features you want and THEN register it multi-caliber, here's more fun for ya!

If the DOJ does attempt to force us to register as category 4 and attempts to enforce a feature limit, there's a good chance they've violated Equal Protection clauses. Why? Because Kasler registrants had 22 days AFTER the SB-23 registration window closed and THEY never had any feature limits.

If the DOJ decides NOT to list these, then they may be violating equal protection clauses ANYWAYS! The DOJ itself and others have stated that these off-list recievers are "virtually identical to weapons currently considered Assault Weapons in the state of California". All it takes is a different reciever manufacturer and you enter a protected class that is not required to register.

PanzerAce
02-23-2006, 12:06 PM
also, if they never list these, it would seem to be an illegal block of interstate commerce to me.

shopkeep
02-23-2006, 12:10 PM
Although Bushmaster and others could decide to sue them for that I think it's much more likely they'll simply rename their lowers in the event this happens. As far as I've heard, Bushmaster was pretty upset it was blocked from a market where competitors are selling thousands of lowers at 200% normal price.

bwiese
02-23-2006, 12:10 PM
That is all well and good and may play a later part of the fight.

For now, we have a memo proposing regulatory law updates unsupported by statutory law in several aspects. There are other areas they may well screw up on administratively too, which I won't go into here.

glen avon
02-23-2006, 12:10 PM
well, I know you're no attorney, but since you are making legal pronouncements, please explain just how this is an EP violation? in detail, with citations, not just plaintive burden-shifting appeals to some vague notion of equity, if you don't mind?



because I am telling you it is NOT an "equal protection" issue.

glen avon
02-23-2006, 12:13 PM
also, if they never list these, it would seem to be an illegal block of interstate commerce to me.

states have the right to ban things, even if they are interstate commerce; just not *because* they are interstate commerce.

shopkeep
02-23-2006, 12:14 PM
That is all well and good and may play a later part of the fight.

For now, we have a memo proposing regulatory law updates unsupported by statutory law in several aspects. There are other areas they may well screw up on administratively too, which I won't go into here.

I'm eager to see this thing get ripped apart by a good attorney. I would expect Equal Protection arguments and other similar things to come last.

glen avon
02-23-2006, 12:15 PM
I would expect Equal Protection arguments and other similar things to come last.

please explain the EP violation.

glen avon
02-23-2006, 12:59 PM
yeah, that's what I thought. nothing.

you are not doing anybody any favors by tossing out legal terms without being able to explain or support them.

shopkeep
02-23-2006, 1:34 PM
yeah, that's what I thought. nothing.

you are not doing anybody any favors by tossing out legal terms without being able to explain or support them.

I'm not going to spend extensive amounts of time doing legal research that I'm not being paid to do just to satisfy some guy who feels like trolling my posts. This is an internet forum for California gun owners, NOT a law firm.

bu-bye
02-23-2006, 1:42 PM
I'm not going to spend extensive amounts of time doing legal research that I'm not being paid to do just to satisfy some guy who feels like trolling my posts. This is an internet forum for California gun owners, NOT a law firm.

I agree. If you want legal research contact a lawyer. We are friends here having a discussion.

glen avon
02-23-2006, 1:48 PM
I'm not going to spend extensive amounts of time doing legal research that I'm not being paid to do just to satisfy some guy who feels like trolling my posts. This is an internet forum for California gun owners, NOT a law firm.

well, on the other hand, maybe you should do at least a little research on the law you are tossing around before you post it.

if you can't back up what you say, well, you know the solution.

glen avon
02-23-2006, 1:56 PM
We are friends here having a discussion.

your friends are not doing you any favors by misinforming you on the law. your friend is incorrect here, and if he can't back up his legal conclusions he should not post them.

I would not be doing any of my fellow citizens - including shopkeep - a favor if I let them go on spreading mistakes about the law, would I?

I have asked shopkeep before, privately and politey via PM, and also in posts, how he came to conclusions I thought (and am pretty darn sure) he is mistaken on, but no response. instead of verifying his position, he ignores any who disagree, and continues to misinform.

but I might be mistaken here, in thinking you all would want to be correct in your legal arguments. maybe you don't care if you are on the right track, and instead like to bandy about legal terms to each other? could be. maybe. I don't know. nd I don't care what anybody in particular here thinks, but I would not want somebody who doesn't know better to find this board, see a post with legal BS in it, and then try to argue that point to an anti who knows better (as most do). that sets our cause back every time it happens. knowledge is power, BS gets you nowhere.

whatever.

bwiese
02-23-2006, 2:43 PM
I think 10thAmendment may agree with me - having seen my detailed rebuttal memo - that there are more direct and more immediate ways of reliably attacking the DOJ memo at a lower, fundamental level (AW definitions, regulatory authority, etc.) than via larger EP issues.

These could come into play but as a secondary result of unsupported regulatory excess, which should be addressed first.

Jarhead4
02-23-2006, 2:49 PM
I found this at www.landmarkcases.org. It is not complete, but it does give suport for Equal Protection for our situation. You want more you will have to look it up yourself.

http://www.landmarkcases.org/landmarkframe_equal.html

The Traditional Standard: Restrained Review.--The traditional standard of review of equal protection challenges of classifications developed largely though not entirely in the context of economic regulation. It is still most validly applied there, although it appears in many other contexts as well. A more active review has been developed for classifications based on a ''suspect'' indicium or affecting a ''fundamental'' interest.


''The Fourteenth Amendment enjoins 'the equal protection of the laws,' and laws are not abstract propositions.'' Justice Frankfurter once wrote. ''They do not relate to abstract units, A, B, and C, but are expressions of policy arising out of specific difficulties, addressed to the attainment of specific ends by the use of specific remedies. The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.'' The mere fact of classification will not void legislation, then, because in the exercise of its powers a legislature has considerable discretion in recognizing the differences between and among persons and situations. ''Class legislation, discriminating against some and favoring others, is prohibited; but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment.'' Or, more succinctly, ''statutes create many classifications which do not deny equal protection; it is only 'invidious discrimination' which offends the Constitution.''

JALLEN
02-23-2006, 2:53 PM
Having said that, and all other things being equal, arguably there actually is an equal protection claim that could be made here. Whether a Jerry Brown or Rose Bird appointed jurist is going to buy the claim or not is quite another story.



It's one thing to have the judiciary mangled by Jerry Brown appointees. At least he was elected and given the job of doing so. Please reassure me that there are no Rose Bird appointees in the system!

Mute
02-23-2006, 2:53 PM
I agree that we should be as accurate as possible in our debates, especially with anti's but the fact is most of them also know precisely two things, jack and **** and jack's left town. That doesn't mean we should be as ill-informed, but don't try to tell us how well versed these people are on the law. They are not.

As to the original post I don't recall shopkeeper saying he knows with absolute certainty that this is an EP violation, just that there's a good chance and he cites an example. Now if you feel that he's completely off base, why don't you enlighten us all and cite some legal examples of why he's wrong.

You want everyone here to be well versed in the law, yet instead of sharing your thoughts on the matter you prefer to ***** and moan about how some here are a bunch of ignoramuses. Thanks for nothing.

glen avon
02-23-2006, 3:13 PM
As to the original post I don't recall shopkeeper saying he knows with absolute certainty that this is an EP violation, just that there's a good chance and he cites an example. Now if you feel that he's completely off base, why don't you enlighten us all and cite some legal examples of why he's wrong.... Thanks for nothing.

well here it is since you are asking so nicely:

equal protection effectively applies only to suspect or protected classifications.

one is race. if SB23 said "no AWs for Mexicans" it would be a violation of equal protection.

this gets "strict scrutiny." which means you *can* classify according to race , but courts must strictly scrutinize such classifications when examining them. few if any laws will pass this test. "strict in theory, fatal in fact."

there is an "intermediate scrutiny" classification which receives more deference, but is still scrutinized.

such as gender. thus, women cannot be denied AWs just because they are women.

the last classification is the "rational basis" test, which means that if a court can come up with any rational basis for the law, it will defer. the AW ban falls squarely under the rational basis test.

it took me about, oh, 1.2 seconds to find this page: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/325/325lect03.htm

shopkeep could have found it too if he cared to research his legal theories, but he did not. instead, he posted about EP violations and when asked to explain, he replied with the analytical equivalent of "no, you prove I'm wrong." which is not how debate or constructive argument works.

BUT, because he apparently feels *no* need at all to support his "I'm not a lawyer, but here's my version of the law" legal statements, I guess in the interest of preventing misinformation, I will have to clean up after him. :eek:

...You want everyone here to be well versed in the law, yet instead of sharing your thoughts on the matter you prefer to ***** and moan about how some here are a bunch of ignoramuses....

that is not true. I have never called anybody here an ignoramus or anything like it. I most certainly do not "prefer to ***** and moan." If somebody posts something I disagree with, I will ask them what they are referring to, or to explain it to me. sometimes they are right, sometimes I am right, sometimes I misunderstand, that's life. you can look at each and every one of my posts and they all begin with simple questions, polite inquiries, neutral obstervations or the like, if not a helpful answer or outright humor.

the "*****ing and moaning" you refer to is likely my holding others to task when they are spreading disinformation and won't either explain it or stop it.

JALLEN
02-23-2006, 3:20 PM
Before you guys start wadding up your knickers over this, understand that Constitutional law is a game that is played by millions of amateurs, and many thousands of pros, including thousands who do nothing else but immerse themselves in these matters all day every day. The only players whose scores count are a few hundred players who have been chosen to serve on the federal courts. The concepts involved are highly technical for the most part, and many of the terms have evolved into a kind of shorthand for Constitutional precepts of astonishing complexity after being distilled in hard arguments over dozens of cases over two hundred years of political fine tuning. Too, even the most gifted, well-educated, experienced players very often divide 5 to 4 on what these concepts mean and how they are to be applied to any given set of facts.

Looking up a few cases, or treatises on the internet, then deciding you know how to judge the outcome of a particular, and perhaps novel, set of facts or the efficiacy of an argument is beyond silly, even if, and perhaps especially if, you graduated from law school last year. This isn't to say you must not do it, merely that you should not to get too worked up about it, especially if others do not agree with your conclusions.

stator
02-23-2006, 3:30 PM
well here it is since you are asking so nicely:

equal protection effectively applies only to suspect or protected classifications.

one is race. if SB23 said "no AWs for Mexicans" it would be a violation of equal protection.

this gets "strict scrutiny." which means you *can* classify according to race , but courts must strictly scrutinize such classifications when examining them. few if any laws will pass this test. "strict in theory, fatal in fact."

there is an "intermediate scrutiny" classification which receives more deference, but is still scrutinized.

such as gender. thus, women cannot be denied AWs just because they are women.

the last classification is the "rational basis" test, which means that if a court can come up with any rational basis for the law, it will defer. the AW ban falls squarely under the rational basis test.

it took me about, oh, 1.2 seconds to find this page: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/325/325lect03.htm

shopkeep could have found it too if he cared to research his legal theories, but he did not. instead, he posted about EP violations and when asked to explain, he replied with the analytical equivalent of "no, you prove I'm wrong." which is not how debate or constructive argument works.

BUT, because he apparently feels *no* need at all to support his "I'm not a lawyer, but here's my version of the law" legal statements, I guess in the interest of preventing misinformation, I will have to clean up after him. :eek:



that is not true. I have never called anybody here an ignoramus or anything like it. I most certainly do not "prefer to ***** and moan." If somebody posts something I disagree with, I will ask them what they are referring to, or to explain it to me. sometimes they are right, sometimes I am right, sometimes I misunderstand, that's life. you can look at each and every one of my posts and they all begin with simple questions, polite inquiries, neutral obstervations or the like, if not a helpful answer or outright humor.

the "*****ing and moaning" you refer to is likely my holding others to task when they are spreading disinformation and won't either explain it or stop it.

I think Shopkeep is referring to the California Constitution which is different from the US Constitution. California's specifies equal protection for "life, liberty, or property". See Article 1, Section 7. Here's the start of it:

"SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;"

Frankly, I do not think this means squat any more since the 2002 "do-over" for AW registrations for LEO's private (let me emphasize that...) PRIVATELY-PURCHASED AND PRIVATELY-OWNED AW's obviously violates Section 7. Good Luck on getting any CA judge to recognize that... many are more political than the pols in Sac.

In reading our state constitution, my impression is that our state has screwed it up with all the add-ons and revisions of many old Sections and Articles. We've not done an acceptable job of maintaining it, IMO. Mediocre at best.

dbol
02-23-2006, 5:11 PM
I think Shopkeep is referring to the California Constitution which is different from the US Constitution. California's specifies equal protection for "life, liberty, or property". See Article 1, Section 7. Here's the start of it:

"SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;"

Frankly, I do not think this means squat any more since the 2002 "do-over" for AW registrations for LEO's private (let me emphasize that...) PRIVATELY-PURCHASED AND PRIVATELY-OWNED AW's obviously violates Section 7. Good Luck on getting any CA judge to recognize that... many are more political than the pols in Sac.

In reading our state constitution, my impression is that our state has screwed it up with all the add-ons and revisions of many old Sections and Articles. We've not done an acceptable job of maintaining it, IMO. Mediocre at best.

I'm pretty sure that it doesn't matter whether Shopkeep was referring to the Federal or California Constitution - both are applied in the same fashion that glen avon describes above. There are some ways in which CA equal protection is broader (e.g., gender is a protected class subject to strict scrutiny in CA, not so at the Federal level), but not in ways that would help us here.

Unlike most of us, I happen to agree with glen avon that equal protection is a pretty clear-cut loser here - there's no protected class (i.e., race, disability, etc.) or fundamental right involved. This means rational basis review, which is effectively a rubber stamp.

stator
02-23-2006, 5:25 PM
I'm pretty sure that it doesn't matter whether Shopkeep was referring to the Federal or California Constitution - both are applied in the same fashion that glen avon describes above. There are some ways in which CA equal protection is broader (e.g., gender is a protected class subject to strict scrutiny in CA, not so at the Federal level), but not in ways that would help us here.

Unlike most of us, I happen to agree with glen avon that equal protection is a pretty clear-cut loser here - there's no protected class (i.e., race, disability, etc.) or fundamental right involved. This means rational basis review, which is effectively a rubber stamp.

Mostly but not actually true... there have been equal protection cases in California from corporations to sex offenders of which none were about race. Most cases in our generation have been about race though because our nation seems to be fixated on it to where we have to put our race on the 4473 forms. In earlier generation times, equal protection was not so narrow focused to racial issues.

I thought it was odd that the person who respond to shopkeep talked about shopkeep's lack of internet research, but only provide one link from North Carolina that was all about the US Constitution. The two constitutions are not identical and therefore, one must consider both in this case.

-aK-
02-23-2006, 5:35 PM
How about the fact that the Sheriff can dole out concealed carry permits at his desire, or deny at his desire.

There for if you have $10,000 to make a campaign contribution you get one. If you poor. (or minority.......) then tough titty.

Wulf
02-23-2006, 5:50 PM
Wouldent "age" be a protected class... After all, we're talking about a ban with what ammounts to a grandfather clause. Two similarily situated people separated only by a few minutes of birth time, one can dros a reciever on their birthday the day before the ban, the other is shut out forever. Sounds pretty unequal to me.

dbol
02-23-2006, 6:27 PM
Mostly but not actually true... there have been equal protection cases in California from corporations to sex offenders of which none were about race. Most cases in our generation have been about race though because our nation seems to be fixated on it to where we have to put our race on the 4473 forms. In earlier generation times, equal protection was not so narrow focused to racial issues.

What I wrote above is completely correct.

I never said race (or any other protected class) needed to be involved to file or prevail on an equal protection claim. I assert that it would be possible and even non-frivolous to file an equal protection claim if the DOJ went ahead and put into place the AW classification scheme laid out in its recent memo.

What I was getting at, with reference to glen avon's post, is that the standard of review applied by the courts in reviewing an equal protection claim is dependent on the involvement of a protected class or a fundamental right. If one of those factors is involved, the court applies a much more stringent standard of the review that is much more difficult for the government to meet. If no such factor is involved, the standard of review the court will apply is known as "rational basis." Rational basis review is satisfied if a reasonable person could believe that there are legitimate reasons for the government action.

I still stand behind my assertion that an equal protection claim here would not be successful. This is not to say, however, that laws cannot be overturned on rational basis review. A few years ago, the US SCt overturned a Texas sodomy law (Lawrence vs. Texas) ostensibly based on a rational basis standard.

Wouldent "age" be a protected class... After all, we're talking about a ban with what ammounts to a grandfather clause. Two similarily situated people separated only by a few minutes of birth time, one can dros a reciever on their birthday the day before the ban, the other is shut out forever. Sounds pretty unequal to me.

Age is a protected class, but what is at issue here doesn't really affect age - your issue is with the effective date of the law (although I completely understand your point). If the DOJ said only people under 40 could buy unlisted receivers, then age (in its conception as a protected class) would be involved and there would be a slam-dunk equal protection case.

Anonymous Coward
02-23-2006, 6:35 PM
FYI: In Kasler the EP defense was tried and it didn't hold up:

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/kasler2.htm

glen avon
02-24-2006, 7:42 AM
You know, it's interesting how we have grown to accept the anti's arguement that the right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the constitution is not a fundamental right that is subject to strict scrutiny when the government seeks to infringe upon it. I for one, have never accepted the proposition that the second amendment is not worthy of "incorporation" to the states via the fourteenth, but that's just silly old me.

yes, but until the courts agree with you, then it doesn't matter in analyzing a lawsuit. whether or not you or I think it should matter is a separate debate.

glen avon
02-24-2006, 8:14 AM
FYI: In Kasler the EP defense was tried and it didn't hold up:

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/kasler2.htm

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The irony is too much. all the armchair attorneys (e.g., "I'm no lawyer but...." and "anybody who passed the bar exam would agree with me" and "well, in reading Harrott, juxtaposed against Kasler in conjunction with Miller, which I read to blah blah blah, clearly DOJ has violated case law, Harrott blah blah blah Kasler blah blah blah case law. blah blah blah") seem to have missed this little tidbit; that is, the rest of the case.

so much for EP claims. this should be the last nail in that coffin, the end of the story, fin, etc. but we'll see. I have noticed that the law doesn't seem to stand in the way of the erstwhile lawyers here.

See Kasler v. Lockyer (2000) 23 Cal.4th 472, 478-491. Opinion by Janice Rogers Brown, a conservative/libertarian leaning jurist since appointed by President Bush to the federal bench.

glen avon
02-24-2006, 8:30 AM
...To make matters worse, the pro-gun community likes to pound on the table using the 2nd amendment as a fundamentalist argument, obviously ignoring the fact that the 2nd amendment does not block very stringent firearms regulation like the AWB....

yes indeed. they like to sloganeer with such tidbits as "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?!"

my reply is "what part of unsinkable did the Titanic not understand?"

theory and opinion aren't even speedbumps in the way of facts and reality.

Sgt Raven
02-24-2006, 8:57 AM
yes indeed. they like to sloganeer with such tidbits as "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?!"

my reply is "what part of unsinkable did the Titanic not understand?"

theory and opinion aren't even speedbumps in the way of facts and reality.

This far from "settled" law. The 9th says its a collective right, the 5th says its a individual right, till SCOUS rules one way or another its still open. And in “Miller” the defense didn’t even show up so they ruled a short barreled shotgun wasn’t a militia weapon even though they had been used by the military, this was due to lack of evidence on record. And in Miller they said that taxing NFA items was OK, they didn’t go as far as saying you couldn’t own them.

-aK-
02-24-2006, 9:03 AM
You know, it's interesting how we have grown to accept the anti's arguement that the right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the constitution is not a fundamental right that is subject to strict scrutiny when the government seeks to infringe upon it. I for one, have never accepted the proposition that the second amendment is not worthy of "incorporation" to the states via the fourteenth, but that's just silly old me.

I know, I know, some interpret this amendment as a collective right and all, and I have tried to study these arguments carefully in my free time, but still, any law restricting this constitutional guarantee very arguably could be looked at as a legal restriction on a fundamental right. If abortion is a fundamental right under the penumbras of the constitution, then shouldn't the explicit designation of keeping and bearing of arms and explicit prohibition of government infringment against it be? Shouldn't the strictest scrutiny possible be applied to determine whether a goverment ban on private firearm ownership is a valid exercise of authority in these cases?

My convictions apply equally to the first amendment. There should be no laws restricting the press or speech. My favorite five words in in the bill of rights are "Congress shall make no law..."

10TH

Why should the 2nd mean anything? The 10th went out the door a while ago. the 1st isn't even recognized by our totalitarian government. The 4th is infringed upon often as well. I wonder sometimes if the 5th and 6th are even still rights if you look at the terrorist concentration camps in cuba....
I could keep going if I knew the rest of my rights like I should.


I'm with ya 100% 10th.

-aK-
02-24-2006, 9:21 AM
This far from "settled" law. The 9th says its a collective right, the 5th says its a individual right, till SCOUS rules one way or another its still open. And in “Miller” the defense didn’t even show up so they ruled a short barreled shotgun wasn’t a militia weapon even though they had been used by the military, this was due to lack of evidence on record. And in Miller they said that taxing NFA items was OK, they didn’t go as far as saying you couldn’t own them.

For anyone intersted in reading about this heresy.


U.S. Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
307 U.S. 174 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174)

You'll need to give them your email address to view it. Don't worry, I don't receive any spam from them.

glen avon
02-24-2006, 9:36 AM
This far from "settled" law....

Please explain what you mean by "'settled' law" and what that has to do with this situation.

-aK-
02-24-2006, 9:57 AM
Please explain what you mean by "'settled' law" and what that has to do with this situation.

Glen,

I believe he is reffering to our current problem. The memo. It isn't settled law...

At least that is how I perceived that statement.

glen avon
02-24-2006, 10:10 AM
I agree that the Memo has no force of law today, but I don't think that's what he is referring to. Instead, I think instead he is using a term of art without fully understanding what it means and its implications.

in this case, I suspect he thinks the term "'settled' law" means anything at all WRT/ firearms law, the 5th Circuit, the State of California, and the 9th Circuit.

Mesa Tactical
02-24-2006, 10:18 AM
To make matters worse, the pro-gun community likes to pound on the table using the 2nd amendment as a fundamentalist argument, obviously ignoring the fact that the 2nd amendment does not block very stringent firearms regulation like the AWB. To a large segment of the population, this demonstrates that the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth pro-gun activists who like to whip out the 2nd amendment are fools. Using the 2nd amendment in discussion now causes guilt by association. Therefore, I predict that trying to pass an RKBA amendment in California will create a lot of backpressure, without actually doing much good, so in my opinion it is a very very bad way of improving gun rights, likely to backfire.

Well said.

I wish gun rights advocates would STFU about the 2nd Amendment. It's like referring back to God in an argument. In other words, it is no argument. It's just blind faith that It Is Written that I am right and you are wrong and you will just have to accept it, end of discussion.

That advances gun rights not one little bit.

The arguments in favor of gun rights are ALL on our side. There's no need for an intelligent person to fall back on the 2nd Amendment to defend gun rights.

Glasshat
02-24-2006, 11:10 AM
One of the ways libs have gotten their way on so many issues including gun bans, is by constantly pushing their agenda every day in every way. They live and breath their issues and never let anyone forget them.

RKBA is a good example here. Getting it on the ballot will create discussion, noise, and backpressure. If it loses at the voting booth the first time out, the process to get it on the next ballot must be started immediatly. The news will be out that an issue important to a certain voting block is not going away and a compromise must be reached. After a compromise is reached, another gun issue must be taken up and compromised in the same manner, until all of our rights are restored. Incrementalism.

The important thing to remember is that the anti-gun agenda is the "wacko agenda", not the 2nd Amendment rights agenda. We are not foaming at the mouth, they are.

We have to go on the offensive with our demand to restore our rights, and not to think we are victorious if we get to register our "AW's" so we can have pistol grips and mags. After registration comes confiscation.

Registration is not our victory, it is their agenda. Don't forget that.

Mesa Tactical
02-24-2006, 11:20 AM
Mesa:
The only problem is that like it or not, under the current constitutionally structured government, gun rights can only be advanced or defended by intelligent attorneys falling back on effective 2nd Amendment arguments before constitutionally instituted U.S. courts.


No. Gun rights are advanced legislatively, and legislation happens by providing compelling arguments in favor of gun rights. Legislatively, gun rights have been advancing in most of the US lately, due to the proliferation of shall-issue states. These states are shall-issue because laws were passed to make them so. The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with these laws.

In California, legislation is usually going the other way. To advance (or maintain) gun rights in this state you usually are in the position of defeating proposed anti-gun legislation. Again, this is done using compelling arguments to defeat the legislation. No one ever defeated anti-gun legislation in California by waving a "From My Cold Dead Fingers" sign around outside the Capitol building.

Maybe some of the lawyers on this board can suggest how often anyone ever wins a court case based on the 2nd Amendment. I bet it doesn't happen very often.