PDA

View Full Version : Could gun makers sue California?


Maestro Pistolero
06-14-2010, 3:41 PM
Why wouldn't , Colt, RRA, ARMALITE, and other manufacturers of AR15 clones sue the state of California for it's arbitrary ban on those manufacturers sales of products, that manufacturers of identical product are permitted to sell?

Also, doesn't a magazine-round-limit undermine the effective exercise of the right? Example: If my house is the target of a home invasion my multiple suspects, it's not hard to imagine needing more than ten rounds to save my family.

Police often use more than ten rounds to subdue a single suspect. Although a few, well placed rounds may eventually kill an assailant, it may not be enough to stop an immediate threat. It seems like a case could be made that ten rounds is not enough to insure an effective defense against multiple attackers.

Flopper
06-14-2010, 3:47 PM
I've wondered the same thing for lowers.

I wouldn't be surprised if a the possibility of a lawsuit has been investigated and thrown out as unfeasible from a cost/benefit analysis.

As for the mag limit: the conventional wisdom is that magazine capacity limits will still be considered constitutional from a 2nd Amendment standpoint (how, I don't know) but that they should be vulnerable to an equal protection suit.

CEDaytonaRydr
06-14-2010, 3:53 PM
If they're going to do it, I'd say do it now...

This state doesn't have enough money to keep Kindergarten teachers on the payroll, much less keep Lawyers on retainer...

CSACANNONEER
06-14-2010, 4:02 PM
The manufactures could just release a new model based on an old design. So, a lawsuit is not finacially a wise investment for them.

As far as magazines go, I have plenty of +10 round mags. But, I still choose to have my Kimber CDPII as my GTG. If I need more than 8 +1 rounds and am not capable of doing a mag change, I should have never been in that situation in the first place. The reason many officers NEED to use more than 10 rounds is that many officers are not gun people and do not train or practise enough. Seriously, if you think that you can stop 12 armed people invading your home just because you have a 15, 20 or 30 round mag, you are mistaken.

kellito
06-14-2010, 4:09 PM
they should do it to kill the stupid law, not to make money, even though the money would come anyways.

thedrickel
06-14-2010, 4:15 PM
Wouldn't it be a lot simpler, cheaper and faster, to just change the model names on their lowers?

russ69
06-14-2010, 4:24 PM
Why wouldn't, Colt, RRA, ARMALITE, and other manufacturers of AR15 clones sue the state of California for it's arbitrary ban on those manufacturers sales of products, that manufacturers of identical product are permitted to sell?

They could but the law is clear, those items are ban specifically. A law suit would be a waste of money. A law doesn't have to make sense, in most cases they don't.

Thanx, Russ

IrishPirate
06-14-2010, 4:26 PM
Why wouldn't , Colt, RRA, ARMALITE, and other manufacturers of AR15 clones sue the state of California for it's arbitrary ban on those manufacturers sales of products, that manufacturers of identical product are permitted to sell?

Anyone can sue for any reason. would they win? probably not until after we find out the language of McDonald, and there are enough private lawsuits against CA pending that they wouldn't have to waste their money bringing one against CA. It would be nice if they pooled some money to help the private lawsuits out though.

Also, doesn't a magazine-round-limit undermine the effective exercise of the right? Example: If my house is the target of a home invasion my multiple suspects, it's not hard to imagine needing more than ten rounds to save my family.

No, criminals abide by all the anti-gun laws too including the hi-cap ban which means you don't need anymore than 10 rounds either.....:rolleyes: you're right on track with the rediculousness...but trying to explain common sense things like that to an anti-gunner is like trying to convince an apple tree to grow bicycles.

Police often use more than ten rounds to subdue a single suspect (and caged animals during tacticool raids on law abiding citizens). Although a few, well placed rounds may eventually kill an assailant, it may not be enough to stop an immediate threat. It seems like a case could be made that ten rounds is not enough to insure an effective defense against multiple attackers.

again....apples and bicycles. Our best bet is to vote out the anti-gun politicians and have the laws changed in our favor. Come the end of june we should have bigger legs to stand on, and come November, we'll have the chance to oust some anti's and bring in some politicians with a little more common sense (at least about guns anyways :D ).

^BOLD^

stix213
06-14-2010, 5:08 PM
I would actually like to see a proposition put on the ballot which eliminates all LEO exemptions from the AW, roster, and high cap laws, and specifically makes it illegal to pass a firearms law that exempts LEOs in the future.

I'm pretty sure we can get all the anti-gun libtards to vote for it.

The goal wouldn't be to actually put these restrictions on LEOs, but instead the legislature would be forced to loosen the laws on us regular folks, since LEOs will still need guns the politicians claim are "only useful for mass murder" for their departments.

bwiese
06-14-2010, 5:08 PM
This is a known concern and could be a basis of a suit.

The idea that Colt AR-15 is banned by name but Stags are not
is laughable.

This wouldn't be an RKBA suit, but merely a business brand
discrimination one ('government punishing a specific brand').

However, there are probably better ways of getting to our end
destination anyway. Why worry about freeing up a few brand
names to still have SB23 hanging around?

It perhaps could also be a bit politically useful in the interim
to have some banned guns on the books to allow SB23 to be
voided.

Crom
06-14-2010, 5:58 PM
It should be against federal commerce law to prohibit the sale of lowers from any one specific company. It is an unfair business practice and vilifies the manufactures. It's just plain wrong.

Also worth noting is that if all the banned manufacturers combined their efforts into a singal lawsuit [a class], it would help defray the costs of the suit and could be feasible.

bwiese
06-14-2010, 6:06 PM
It should be against federal commerce law to prohibit the sale of lowers from any one specific company. It is an unfair business practice and vilifies the manufactures. It's just plain wrong.

Also worth noting is that if all the banned manufacturers combined their efforts into a singal lawsuit [a class], it would help defray the costs of the suit and could be feasible.

Again, why aim at the trivial target?

It doesn't buy us that much and we can expend the efforts on something more productive.

I don't care if my FAL receiver is by Imbel vs FN, or my AR lower is from Stag vs Colt.

762cavalier
06-14-2010, 6:13 PM
.but trying to explain common sense things like that to an anti-gunner is like trying to convince an apple tree to grow bicycles.

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

Sig worthy there.

Crom
06-14-2010, 6:16 PM
Again, why aim at the trivial target?

It doesn't buy us that much and we can expend the efforts on something more productive.

I don't care if my FAL receiver is by Imbel vs FN, or my AR lower is from Stag vs Colt.

My point was that its a bum law that should have never come to pass. I was not suggesting that it was the best strategy to incite change. Nevertheless, I would be interested if it were possible though.

Maestro Pistolero
06-14-2010, 6:34 PM
Another disparity I would like to see disappear is if a person from another state owns a gun that only came with 10+ mags, he cannot bring his legally owned gun into CA.

That would seem to be problematic in a post incorporation world. To take it a step further, I would like to see manufacturers offer a few models that won't be offered with limited capacity mags, just to broaden the basis for the challenge.

Malthusian
06-14-2010, 6:38 PM
I would actually like to see a proposition put on the ballot which eliminates all LEO exemptions from the AW, roster, and high cap laws, and specifically makes it illegal to pass a firearms law that exempts LEOs in the future.

I'm pretty sure we can get all the anti-gun libtards to vote for it.

The goal wouldn't be to actually put these restrictions on LEOs, but instead the legislature would be forced to loosen the laws on us regular folks, since LEOs will still need guns the politicians claim are "only useful for mass murder" for their departments.

I agree!


LEO's should "NOT" be exempt from the roster.
There should not be an "LEO's" only section in any gun store

I know micro stamping was defeated, but would not micro stamping be beneficial to a LEA, for an investigation to diagram a crime scene involving LEA's?
Why would they be considered exempt from such a mandate?

postal
06-14-2010, 6:38 PM
Apparently it *IS* possible,

But has been concluded that leaving this as is for now, will give us bigger and better gains in the near future.

-read between the lines- and notice who posted that.... the guy with a LOT of insider info.....

Be patient, is probably the best advice.

curtisfong
06-14-2010, 7:56 PM
I would actually like to see a proposition put on the ballot which eliminates all LEO exemptions from the AW, roster, and high cap laws, and specifically makes it illegal to pass a firearms law that exempts LEOs in the future.

I'm pretty sure we can get all the anti-gun libtards to vote for it.

The goal wouldn't be to actually put these restrictions on LEOs, but instead the legislature would be forced to loosen the laws on us regular folks, since LEOs will still need guns the politicians claim are "only useful for mass murder" for their departments.

[x] Subscribe to your newsletter

IMO every single person in CA concerned with RKBA should be working towards this goal.

postal
06-14-2010, 8:03 PM
I would actually like to see a proposition put on the ballot which eliminates all LEO exemptions from the AW, roster, and high cap laws, and specifically makes it illegal to pass a firearms law that exempts LEOs in the future.

I'm pretty sure we can get all the anti-gun libtards to vote for it.

The goal wouldn't be to actually put these restrictions on LEOs, but instead the legislature would be forced to loosen the laws on us regular folks, since LEOs will still need guns the politicians claim are "only useful for mass murder" for their departments.

I'm not the expert, but I *think* this is in the works. Would be part of "equal protection" or in simple terms not allowing 2 or more classes of people to exist. Though, almost every other state does not neuter magazine capacity, so they are looking into whats legal in most states, not here in cali with LEO exemption.

I say, Vallejo pd (telling regular citizens) is right- here's your pepper spray and taser... leave your high cap handgun at home serves true justice to LE... to make a point. You get the same as we get- You are NOT special.

But rest assured this is being persued by the right people.

Malthusian
06-14-2010, 8:07 PM
" You get the same as we get- You are NOT special."

Well said

Hoologan
06-14-2010, 8:34 PM
Okay, what if it were to go the other way? What if the DOJ added all of the current OLLs to "the list" and/or amended the law to cover the type of rifle, not only specific manufacturers?

Scary. I think I'll go buy a half dozen lowers this weekend.

curtisfong
06-14-2010, 8:42 PM
What if the DOJ added all of the current OLLs to "the list" and/or amended the law to cover the type of rifle, not only specific manufacturers?

They'd have 100,000 lowers promptly registered as AWs.

How is that bad for you and good for them?

Fyathyrio
06-14-2010, 8:56 PM
Okay, what if it were to go the other way? What if the DOJ added all of the current OLLs to "the list" and/or amended the law to cover the type of rifle, not only specific manufacturers?

Scary. I think I'll go buy a half dozen lowers this weekend.

Then they will try and outlaw the roll pins that hold it together, or they will outlaw sights and scopes, or trigger guards...whatever it takes.

I'm perhaps being pessimistic, but I don't see McDonald being quite the magic bullet we're hoping. Pesky things like constitutionality haven't prevented the CA legislature from passing bad laws in the past, why would it stop them now? They can still have their soundbites for the nightly news about how they're passing laws for the children, and once whatever crappy law is shot down at great cost to state and CGF they can point to the evil lawyers and bad judges that killed said law while they get elected once again.

N6ATF
06-14-2010, 9:05 PM
I wish those who paid into the roster extortion scheme would sue... though would the returned money be significantly more than attorneys' fees?

dantodd
06-14-2010, 9:22 PM
However, there are probably better ways of getting to our end
destination anyway. Why worry about freeing up a few brand
names to still have SB23 hanging around?



Yes, but it may well be a nice big hammer with which to bang on SB23 in a post-McDonald world. It would be nice to have a little financial support for one of the major upcoming RKBA fights. If they'll pony up some of the money to kill SB23 from one direction it would be foolhardy not to accept it.

dantodd
06-14-2010, 9:24 PM
Okay, what if it were to go the other way? What if the DOJ added all of the current OLLs to "the list" and/or amended the law to cover the type of rifle, not only specific manufacturers?

They tried that and lost in court, they could add models but banning "series" is essentially allowing the regulatory agency to write law.

1911su16b870
06-14-2010, 9:32 PM
To the OP, I absolutely think the "banned by name lowers" manufacturers could sue the state in civil court and walk away with a victory (and relief) based on the .ca discrimination of their brands.

bwiese
06-14-2010, 9:35 PM
Okay, what if it were to go the other way? What if the DOJ added all of the current OLLs to "the list" and/or amended the law to cover the type of rifle, not only specific manufacturers?

The DOJ can't. The lists were 'frozen' on Jan. 1 2007 when AB2728 became active; all changes to the list are precluded (unless the legislature were to write a completely new law).

hoffmang
06-14-2010, 9:38 PM
The manufactures have sued in California State Court and lost in a case entitled Kasler v. Lockyer. The equal protection claim failed at that point as the RKBA wasn't subject to more than rational basis scrutiny as there is no RKBA in the state constitution and at that point the 9th circuit didn't recognize a federal RKBA.

After McDonald, that analysis will be different.

-Gene

postal
06-14-2010, 9:51 PM
" You get the same as we get- You are NOT special."

Well said

I just want to flesh this out a little.

Vallejo, is one of the cities who cannot meet their budget. They have significantly cut back on LE and FD because of budget constraints. Crime is VERY high in this little crappy town (I know- I spent 2 yrs there in the military back in 91-93, and it was bad back then) only got worse....

As a responce to the public demands for lack of safety to citizens of Vallejo, the local PD suggested pepper spray or a taser to protect themselves.

Though the PD has full capacity magazines in their FIREARMS.

This was discussed not long ago here on this forum- many stand by the idea, that if pepper spray and tasers are good enough for *US*- then it's good enough for that PD too.

I say, when an LE clocks out, he/she is just a regular citizen too, and should only have the SAME as the rest of us.

Not special- no toys for you, that I as a legal and law abiding citizen cant own- No hicaps, no off list, no nothing.... and if you're PD says I should have pepper spray and a taser.... guess what.... so should you mr policeman.

Unless you're in some kind of olympics, *YOU'RE NOT SPECIAL!*! (no offence intended to olympic athletes)


-just want to clarify-

Maestro Pistolero
06-14-2010, 10:05 PM
The equal protection claim failed at that point as the RKBA wasn't subject to more than rational basis scrutiny as there is no RKBA in the state constitution and at that point the 9th circuit didn't recognize a federal RKBA.I'm not even looking at this from a 2A standpoint here. Isn't there protection in the law that prevents the state from unfairly discriminating against companies that offer identical products? Since there is absolutely no difference between a Colt and a Daniel defense, on what basis could they defend this?

bwiese
06-14-2010, 10:14 PM
I'm not even looking at this from a 2A standpoint here. Isn't there protection in the law that prevents the state from unfairly discriminating against companies that offer identical products? Since there is absolutely no difference between a Colt and as Daniel defense, on what basis could they defend this?

You are correct that there is a non-gun "business" lawsuit possible these days.

Given the politics of it revolving around guns, you would want a whole pile of plaintiffs to make this case more 'ordinary' and 'business-related' and non-gun.

From a practical standpoint, let's wait til after McDonald and do things the optimal way.