PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court upholding CA assault weapons ban?


chip3757
06-28-2010, 11:03 AM
Read this on CNN's coverage of McDonald.

Courts have generally upheld other cities' restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. The conservative high court majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles, similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004

When did CA's assault weapons law go before the supreme court?

tommyid1
06-28-2010, 11:15 AM
Huh

G60
06-28-2010, 11:17 AM
? what's so difficult to understand about his question?

SAN compnerd
06-28-2010, 11:18 AM
I believe thats true, but I will let someone else chime in with the specifics. Of course CNN is going to spin this great win.

RRangel
06-28-2010, 11:19 AM
The collective rights argument is now destroyed.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 11:21 AM
Read this on CNN's coverage of McDonald.



When did CA's assault weapons law go before the supreme court?

It didnt. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Silvera.... Thats not the same as ruling in favor of the ban.

Crom
06-28-2010, 11:26 AM
Read this on CNN's coverage of McDonald.



When did CA's assault weapons law go before the supreme court?

It was the supreme court of California, not the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

It was this case the news was referring to: http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Kasler-v-Lockyer.pdf (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Kasler-v-Lockyer.pdf)

OleCuss
06-28-2010, 11:27 AM
OK, until 7 a.m. the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the states. Meaning the State of Kalifornia could violate your RKBA with impunity - and it did/does.

While I've not read the SCOTUS ruling, I'd be surprised if the McDonald decision addresses "Assault Weapons" to any great extent. If it did, it would probably be a bland statement mostly along the lines that they aren't ruling on the constitutionality of the AWB. After all, the question in McDonald was rather narrowly focused and doesn't come close to requesting the lifting of our AWB.

The big change from today is that we now have a federal right to have the RKBA recognized throughout our nation. Now we can have our cases heard in Federal courts as the RKBA now has federal standing. (I'm probably using the wrong terminology since I'm no lawyer by any stretch).

So if "Assault Weapons" are addressed or not addressed in McDonald - don't worry overly much as they really weren't much of a part of this case and other aspects of federal law may be more important in reversing that ban than a straight 2A argument.

You should also not be surprised at federal courts not defending us when the 2A was not incorporated.

motorhead
06-28-2010, 11:28 AM
not to mention it has little in common with the klinton awb. the antis are putting on a brave face and trying not to think of all the money they're going to waste.

E-120
06-28-2010, 11:33 AM
I read that on CNN as well. What I want to know is how will this effect us on getting tax stamp toys like silencers and SBRs?

PitchMan
06-28-2010, 11:33 AM
not to mention it has little in common with the klinton awb. the antis are putting on a brave face and trying not to think of all the money they're going to waste.

Indeed, they don't want to lose donations/funding at this point, so naturally they will keep spinning it thier way.

stitchnicklas
06-28-2010, 11:40 AM
so now we can have magazine caps and bullet buttons heard in federal court instead of anti-gun california court??

tonelar
06-28-2010, 11:49 AM
we can have them heard in CA court/ just now the CA justices have the weight of 2A to contend with...
this is all kinds of AWESOME!

OleCuss
06-28-2010, 11:57 AM
so now we can have magazine caps and bullet buttons heard in federal court instead of anti-gun california court??

What tonelar said.

But the recourse to Federal courts is not to be underestimated. It means that if the state and state courts are acting against your RKBA you have standing to take a case to the Federal courts and be heard there.

bwiese
06-28-2010, 12:01 PM
so now we can have magazine caps and bullet buttons heard in federal court instead of anti-gun california court??

Um, I don't think we need to take BulletButtons to Fed court.

We've won on that already :), Ca DOJ is not opposing us.

We will be bringing Non-Bullet-Button situations up the line :)

Connor P Price
06-28-2010, 12:08 PM
Um, I don't think we need to take BulletButtons to Fed court.

We've won on that already :), Ca DOJ is not opposing us.

We will be bringing Non-Bullet-Button situations up the line :)

Can you tell us any more regarding this?

stag1500
06-28-2010, 12:08 PM
We will be bringing Non-Bullet-Button situations up the line :)

What about magazine capacity?

Anchors
06-28-2010, 12:12 PM
so now we can have magazine caps and bullet buttons heard in federal court instead of anti-gun california court??

I hope nobody brings up bullet buttons in court haha.
I'd rather have someone just challenge the semi-auto assault weapons ban as a whole.

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 12:13 PM
We'll be updating everyone on this as soon as we can.

What about magazine capacity?

socalblue
06-28-2010, 12:19 PM
What about magazine capacity?

Magazine capacity is going to be difficult to address as a specific issue for a number of reasons. It would be a difficult argument that only having 10 rounds instead of xx rounds violates ones civil rights. Sneaking magazine capacity into the mix along with other issues such as the roster, AWB ban, etc is a more likely scenario.

bwiese
06-28-2010, 12:26 PM
Magazine capacity is going to be difficult to address as a specific issue for a number of reasons. It would be a difficult argument that only having 10 rounds instead of xx rounds violates ones civil rights. Sneaking magazine capacity into the mix along with other issues such as the roster, AWB ban, etc is a more likely scenario.

There are alternate routes to this (besides the paths outlined before - armored van service, etc.) that do not depend on RKBA and yet will be difficult for CA to countermand.

advocatusdiaboli
06-28-2010, 12:41 PM
We will be bringing Non-Bullet-Button situations up the line

Glad the Bullet Button is so easy to remove--I cannot wait.

Does this mean the ammo ban is sure to fall--handguns are now essential for personal and home defense and, by logic, centerfire ammo shouldn't be restricted or overly regulated.

Glad I didn't spend too much money on 10-round magazines and that I'm not buying too many roster pistols in compromise of what I wanted.

I figure this might take a year or two though. Our opposition will spend many hours devising regulations, just as abridging or abrogating as those now if not more so, and trying to pass them off as reasonable regulation. I do wish SCOTUS had been more clear and firm--I don't like Alito's weasel wording on local regulation.

Ding126
06-28-2010, 12:59 PM
7 hrs ago the SC rules on McDonald and we are talking about getting, SBR's, MG and Cans...let get rid of BB, Gun Roster & AWB in CA 1st. ...it takes one step at a time to get to the top of a ladder

Scott Connors
06-28-2010, 1:15 PM
Okay, so I've read the decision, and the Alito refers to the 2nd Amendment several times as a fundamental right, which puts it in the same category as the 1st Amendment's free speech and freedom of religion clauses. The legislature may place limitations on these, but IIRC these limitations must pass the strict scrutiny test, ie the least restrictive approach, as opposed to the lesser standard of rational (as in "rationalize") basis. Some pretty out-there practices have been ruled to be constitutionally protected, for example animal sacrifices (so far human sacrifices haven't, but if "right to die" gets passed, who knows?).

Now, since Heller held that commonly used firearms fall under constitutional protection, and since AR-platform rifles are the most popular rifle in the US, I would think that outright prohibitions on possession of an AR would not pass strict scrutiny. Since AR's are essentially identical to other weapons in that class, it could be argued that continued bans on AKs doesn't even pass the rational basis test.

But I'm sure that Kali judges will manage to obfuscate the situation in their usual fair and impartial manner. :sarcasm:

wildhawker
06-28-2010, 1:19 PM
But I'm sure that Kali judges will manage to obfuscate the situation in their usual fair and impartial manner. :sarcasm:

That's why you don't litigate gun cases in CA courts barring extraordinarily specific circumstances.

grammaton76
06-28-2010, 1:20 PM
7 hrs ago the SC rules on McDonald and we are talking about getting, SBR's, MG and Cans...let get rid of BB, Gun Roster & AWB in CA 1st. ...it takes one step at a time to get to the top of a ladder

Repealing parts of the NFA will be easy to tackle in other states. That'd have a trickle-through effect to CA over time, as formerly restricted items become "common".

CGF's very right to first attack the unique CA-only challenges which we face first. No sense in wasting time on parts of the law which may be eroded through other states' activities over the next few years when we have unique issues to attack now.

BigDogatPlay
06-28-2010, 1:25 PM
It didnt. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Silvera.... Thats not the same as ruling in favor of the ban.

In the court of public opinion, with the likes of CNN writing the copy, it is. :D

Fortunately the court of public opinion carries no weight or force of law.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 1:26 PM
Magazine capacity is going to be difficult to address as a specific issue for a number of reasons. It would be a difficult argument that only having 10 rounds instead of xx rounds violates ones civil rights. Sneaking magazine capacity into the mix along with other issues such as the roster, AWB ban, etc is a more likely scenario.

The California legislature, in their effort to write as much as they can about everything they can,and to further bolster their sense of self importance (and to give kickbacks to certain special interests they feel beholden to) have already solved that problem. By treating some PRIVATE CITIZENS differently than they treat OTHER PRIVATE CITIZENS, based on what they do for a living (Mind you, these arent exceptions that apply when they're at WORK.... They are exceptions that apply to them 24/7 thus making them "more equal" in the eyes of the law) they have likely violated the Equal Protection clause.

Roadrunner
06-28-2010, 1:32 PM
The California legislature, in their effort to write as much as they can about everything they can,and to further bolster their sense of self importance (and to give kickbacks to certain special interests they feel beholden to) have already solved that problem. By treating some PRIVATE CITIZENS differently than they treat OTHER PRIVATE CITIZENS, based on what they do for a living (Mind you, these arent exceptions that apply when they're at WORK.... They are exceptions that apply to them 24/7 thus making them "more equal" in the eyes of the law) they have likely violated the Equal Protection clause.

But how will the cops feel about that ?

jgaffney
06-28-2010, 1:34 PM
The anti-gun California Legislature will easily claim, with a straight face, that they have not infringed on your RKBA. They have just passed "reasonable" restrictions, like handgun ammo sales restrictions, micro-stamping, lead ammo, etc. It's hard to make the claim that these incremental infringements violate the 2nd Amendment.

As to full-auto, silencers, etc, those would certainly fall under the "reasonable" restrictions rule.

If the Right were to mount a campaign of incremental restrictions on abortion, similar to the incremental restrictions on gun owners, the Left would explode.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 1:36 PM
But how will the cops feel about that ?

They shouldnt mind at all.... When the storm was coming in, they bought themselves umbrellas.... All we're asking is for the rain to stop.

Roadrunner
06-28-2010, 1:42 PM
They shouldnt mind at all.... When the storm was coming in, they bought themselves umbrellas.... All we're asking is for the rain to stop.

Some like being a privileged class. Using your analogy, some like having bigger umbrellas than the rest of us. It gives them a clear advantage that some of them would like to keep.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 1:53 PM
Some like being a privileged class. Using your analogy, some like having bigger umbrellas than the rest of us. It gives them a clear advantage that some of them would like to keep.

Some whites in the Jim Crow South enjoyed their fiefdoms as well.... That didnt pass Constitutional muster, either.

On THE JOB, they will certainly have better weapons (Grenade launchers, full auto rifles, C4 to blow doors off crack houses comes to mind, as they arguably need those weapons to conduct their jobs- whether they actually DO or not is NOT a question the Courts will consider.)

Off the job there is no justification for the disparate treatment. They have no more right to self defense than you or I do. "Im A cop, I like being able to buy stuff other small people cant" is no different or legally justifiable than "Im white.... I enjoy being able to eat places black people can't"

advocatusdiaboli
06-28-2010, 2:02 PM
I think McDonald is a huge step forward but that we'll be forced to litigate incessantly as Anti-firearm legislators try to figure out how to drive their anti-guns laws through the gaping hole of permissible/reasonable regulation Alito left for them. But it's a better than what we had before by an order of magnitude in firearm's rights. And for that I am grateful.

N6ATF
06-28-2010, 2:02 PM
And after this morning, CA will continue to violate the RKBA with impunity unless and until every last victim disarmer is bankrupted, all state government assets are seized and auctioned, or they are thrown in prison for contempt and/or treason.

winnre
06-28-2010, 2:04 PM
But how will the cops feel about that ?

I think cops get the short end of the stick sometimes... I heard of they use mace they cannot empty the entire can on the bad guy like regular ol' civilians can.

BigDogatPlay
06-28-2010, 2:15 PM
But how will the cops feel about that ?

As a former cop I feel like this about it....

1) Whether a mag holds ten rounds or 100 has nothing to do with how "dangerous" a gun with that mag inserted is. What matters is the hand that holds the gun. The hand is what we as a society should be concerned about, not the gun and certainly not the magazine.

2) That I, as a cop, could buy with my own money magazines that you can't is and always has been a gross violation of equal protection under the law. My no longer being a cop and hence no longer being able to buy those magazines only reinforces how abjectly stupid and blatantly unequal the ten round limit is.

3) That I spent my career knowing for certain that I had nothing to fear from a law abiding citizen who chose to own firearms, and since it's already logically apparent that magazines are by themselves not at all dangerous, I think we all should be able to use our lawfully owned firearms as they were originally designed.

Roadrunner
06-28-2010, 2:15 PM
Some whites in the Jim Crow South enjoyed their fiefdoms as well.... That didnt pass Constitutional muster, either.

On THE JOB, they will certainly have better weapons (Grenade launchers, full auto rifles, C4 to blow doors off crack houses comes to mind, as they arguably need those weapons to conduct their jobs- whether they actually DO or not is NOT a question the Courts will consider.)

Off the job there is no justification for the disparate treatment. They have no more right to self defense than you or I do. "Im A cop, I like being able to buy stuff other small people cant" is no different or legally justifiable than "Im white.... I enjoy being able to eat places black people can't"

I understand your point, however I question whether legislators and the general public will associate those disparities with Jim Crow laws. And I'm reasonably sure that some police chiefs and sheriffs will argue that the two are like comparing apples and oranges.

I agree that there are certain weapons that have a clear law enforcement use, and probably could be argued that there really isn't any application for private use other than maybe just blowing stuff up for kicks. I could also argue that some weapons and devices have an exclusively military use and should not be allowed for police use. I'm starting to go off on a rant, but these are the questions that need to be addressed because there has to be a clear differentiation between what is a class bias and what is clearly a legitimate restriction that will pass constitutional muster.

advocatusdiaboli
06-28-2010, 2:22 PM
And I'm reasonable sure that some police chiefs and sheriffs will argue that the two are like comparing apples and oranges.

Of course, just as the Cities of Chicago and Oak Park did to ban handguns from ordinary citizens but still allow LE to have them for their own protection...and those cities have now lost. My concern is over Alito's backpedaling on regulation--I fear it means Saldana and her posse will be enacting laws faster than we can sue over them and get them over-turned.

Roadrunner
06-28-2010, 2:24 PM
As a former cop I feel like this about it....

1) Whether a mag holds ten rounds or 100 has nothing to do with how "dangerous" a gun with that mag inserted is. What matters is the hand that holds the gun. The hand is what we as a society should be concerned about, not the gun and certainly not the magazine.

2) That I, as a cop, could buy with my own money magazines that you can't is and always has been a gross violation of equal protection under the law. My no longer being a cop and hence no longer being able to buy those magazines only reinforces how abjectly stupid and blatantly unequal the ten round limit is.

3) That I spent my career knowing for certain that I had nothing to fear from a law abiding citizen who chose to own firearms, and since it's already logically apparent that magazines are by themselves not at all dangerous, I think we all should be able to use our lawfully owned firearms as they were originally designed.

I appreciate your candor. I also appreciate that you are a former cop and no longer afforded that same "privileges" that you once had. Please don't take this as an attack, but did you always feel this way, or was it only after you left law enforcement that you began feeling like that?

BigDogatPlay
06-28-2010, 2:27 PM
I appreciate your candor. I also appreciate that you are a former cop and no longer afforded that same "privileges" that you once had. Please don't take this as an attack, but did you always feel this way, or was it only after you left law enforcement that you began feeling like that?

Always.....

Membership "having it's privileges" is a nice tag line for a credit card company, but it's a recipe for disaster when applied to a society.

As we can clearly see with each passing day.

Roadrunner
06-28-2010, 2:39 PM
Always.....

Membership "having it's privileges" is a nice tag line for a credit card company, but it's a recipe for disaster when applied to a society.

As we can clearly see with each passing day.

Then I applaud you and other cops past and present that feel as you do. Unfortunately, there are those, like the Emeryville Police Chief, Sandra Hutchens, and the infamous Roderick Tuason that don't feel as you do. And there are the politicians like Saldana who play games with words and make us out to be the bad guys. Those are the ones that I am most concerned about. Talk is cheap, and while they say they support the second amendment, their actions say otherwise.

VW*Mike
06-28-2010, 3:17 PM
I say we all need to stop and breathe. We have a long road ahead, but lets focus here, at home. Donate to CGF. Let them take on the stuff in this state as they see fit, as needed. They are much smarter then most of us in these area's. All this crap has been accumulating for years, it will not be undone overnight.

RomanDad
06-28-2010, 3:56 PM
I understand your point, however I question whether legislators and the general public will associate those disparities with Jim Crow laws. And I'm reasonably sure that some police chiefs and sheriffs will argue that the two are like comparing apples and oranges.


We're no longer at the whim of legislators, the general public, or police chiefs. We won incorporation....

Now we SUE... And the specific rules (irregardless how many times Steven Breyer screams the "sky is falling", "it will be too much work!!!" "How can we possibly agree to take on so much work so late in my life!!!???") for the deprivation of equal protection of fundamental rights, whether they be rights the Courts agree with, or ones they dont, are LONG ESTABLISHED, and as easy to predict the outcomes, as the hour the sun will set.

This decision effectively ties the hands of the legislatures, and paints a path for any appellate or trial judge who went to law school, that will be damned near impossible to deviate from without TRULY causing the sky to fall and entire swaths of civil rights precedent to be undermined.. They are in the proverbial Catch-22 (no pun intended).

Roadrunner
06-28-2010, 10:02 PM
We're no longer at the whim of legislators, the general public, or police chiefs. We won incorporation....

Now we SUE... And the specific rules (irregardless how many times Steven Breyer screams the "sky is falling", "it will be too much work!!!" "How can we possibly agree to take on so much work so late in my life!!!???") for the deprivation of equal protection of fundamental rights, whether they be rights the Courts agree with, or ones they dont, are LONG ESTABLISHED, and as easy to predict the outcomes, as the hour the sun will set.

This decision effectively ties the hands of the legislatures, and paints a path for any appellate or trial judge who went to law school, that will be damned near impossible to deviate from without TRULY causing the sky to fall and entire swaths of civil rights precedent to be undermined.. They are in the proverbial Catch-22 (no pun intended).

Does it really tie legislators hands ? Or will legislators simply ram through the laws and then dare us to sue them ? I have the impression that legislators will still make these laws and when they're overturned, they will go into political mode, claim victim status, and tell their respective sheeple that they tried to protect them with more laws but the gun lobby is just too big. That probably doesn't mean much, except that I would hate to see these bastards get reelected purely because they whined and cried and tugged at the heart strings of stupid people.

grammaton76
06-29-2010, 12:07 AM
Does it really tie legislators hands ? Or will legislators simply ram through the laws and then dare us to sue them?

In California, at least, they will deal with the Office of Administrative Law if they try it after it's already been rendered clearly illegal.

It's an office filled with people who have very little sense of humor where it comes to state legislators passing illegal laws. They may not be able to do much about municipal law, but they'll happily pee on the clouds of our state legislature.

Bluejay
06-29-2010, 3:26 AM
The AWB looks like a 'hard target' to me. I don't necessarily see how yesterday's ruling makes it significantly easier to take on. I can imagine the standard line about the 2nd Amendment guaranteeing arms, "but not SUPER DEDLY PISTUL GRIP arms", which in a kind of inane, self-contained way, is true.

I'd love to see the AWB taken down at some point, but it seems to me that the most obvious target right now would be CCW related issues.

nicki
06-29-2010, 3:37 AM
The 2nd is now a fundamental right that applies to the states and we should have equal rights.

The AR platform is rapidly becoming a "Common Arm".

The issue of bans based on cosmetic features will be interesting, because do those any of those features effect the core function of a rifle.

One could even now argue that banning "ergonomically designed" arms is discriminatory because there are many individuals who do not shoot well with traditional designed rifles.

As far as magazine capacity goes, standard magazine capacity for most common pistols is 15 rounds, 10 rounds is the uncommon magazine capacity.

With EBR's, standard mag capacities are 20 to 40 rounds.

The fact that gun crime went down after the AWB expired and sales skyrocketed shows that if we really want public safety, we need to enact mandatory gun proliferation laws.

Nicki

Roadrunner
06-29-2010, 7:04 AM
In California, at least, they will deal with the Office of Administrative Law if they try it after it's already been rendered clearly illegal.

It's an office filled with people who have very little sense of humor where it comes to state legislators passing illegal laws. They may not be able to do much about municipal law, but they'll happily pee on the clouds of our state legislature.

Okay, and what about municipal laws ? I know the state has preemptive powers over gun laws, but from what I gather, cities like L.A. are still making their own gun laws, and so far no one has challenged them that I'm aware of. Are their laws on the ragged edge of being illegal, or are they just not illegal enough to bother with ? The point to asking is that bills that are now law, such as Micro stamping and the .50 cal ban have come from the fertile fields of L.A. and effect us all. So once Gura gets done playing in N.C., when will he go knocking on Carmen Trutanich's door ? When can we put the fear of Alan Gura into the state legislators so that they become too gun shy to even think about introducing new bills that regulate firearms? Inquiring minds want to know !

Bugei
06-29-2010, 7:14 AM
Magazine capacity is going to be difficult to address as a specific issue for a number of reasons. It would be a difficult argument that only having 10 rounds instead of xx rounds violates ones civil rights. Sneaking magazine capacity into the mix along with other issues such as the roster, AWB ban, etc is a more likely scenario.

Actually, I'm thinking it's the other way around: we don't justify 11 rounds -- they should justify the 10-round limit as serving some compelling state interest.

We didn't get strict scrutiny, but the questions I'd be asking the court would be "This handgun holds 10 rounds and is legal. This one holds 11 and is illegal. What precisely is the benefit to the people of California in that banning that one round? State the number of people who were wrongly killed last year with an 11th round. Why do police get to carry larger capacity magazines? Are their lives more important than those of regular citizens?"

You know....like that.
Needless to say, IANAL.

RomanDad
06-29-2010, 7:20 AM
Does it really tie legislators hands ? Or will legislators simply ram through the laws and then dare us to sue them ? I have the impression that legislators will still make these laws and when they're overturned, they will go into political mode, claim victim status, and tell their respective sheeple that they tried to protect them with more laws but the gun lobby is just too big. That probably doesn't mean much, except that I would hate to see these bastards get reelected purely because they whined and cried and tugged at the heart strings of stupid people.

Segregationists from the South hated blacks as much or more than gun grabbers hate guns.... And there were a LOT more of them.... And they largely remained in power at the state, local and even Federal levels for DECADES after the major salvos of the Civil Rights movement.... But even they eventually figured out they had lost.

REH
06-29-2010, 7:36 AM
What are the opinions on how McDonald will affect CCW? Is the “good cause” issue out?

joedogboy
06-29-2010, 7:47 AM
Magazine capacity is going to be difficult to address as a specific issue for a number of reasons. It would be a difficult argument that only having 10 rounds instead of xx rounds violates ones civil rights. Sneaking magazine capacity into the mix along with other issues such as the roster, AWB ban, etc is a more likely scenario.

The 10 round limit makes it difficult and expensive to get magazines for many firearms. Standard magazine capacities for most handguns tend to be 15 rounds, and standard rifle magazine capacities tend to be 20 or 30 rounds. There are even some firearms where it is not possible to purchase a magazine with just a 10 round capacity.

This makes it more difficult and expensive to legally own/use your firearm, and produces a "chilling effect" on the exercise of your rights ("chilling effect" is commonly used to determine that speech laws violate the 1st Amendment, so it should apply to other rights).

joedogboy
06-29-2010, 7:55 AM
But how will the cops feel about that ?

The same way that members of the military feel about it - when off duty and out of uniform, they are citizens, and probably want all of the rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution.

Nobody seems to mind that, even with "police and military" exemptions to firearms laws, the military exemptions only apply to military personnel who are on duty, and using firearms owned by the military. Why should the police exemption be any different?

When the police get the same shake as the rest of the law abiding citizens, they will exert themselves to ensure that citizens can get CCW, can have standard capacity magazines, and can purchase a full range of firearms (including semi-auto rifles and off-roster handguns).

Removing special, unequal, and unconstitutional status for off duty police reinforces pro 2A Californians, by adding most of those cops to our ranks.

joedogboy
06-29-2010, 7:58 AM
Okay, and what about municipal laws ? I know the state has preemptive powers over gun laws, but from what I gather, cities like L.A. are still making their own gun laws, and so far no one has challenged them that I'm aware of. Are their laws on the ragged edge of being illegal, or are they just not illegal enough to bother with ?

McDonald was a case brought against a municipality (Chicago) for making gun laws that violate the 2A. Using McDonald as precedent, it will be much easier to bring a case against L.A. for violating the 2A rights of citizens with their gun laws.

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Roadrunner
06-29-2010, 8:56 AM
Segregationists from the South hated blacks as much or more than gun grabbers hate guns.... And there were a LOT more of them.... And they largely remained in power at the state, local and even Federal levels for DECADES after the major salvos of the Civil Rights movement.... But even they eventually figured out they had lost.

The same way that members of the military feel about it - when off duty and out of uniform, they are citizens, and probably want all of the rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution.

Nobody seems to mind that, even with "police and military" exemptions to firearms laws, the military exemptions only apply to military personnel who are on duty, and using firearms owned by the military. Why should the police exemption be any different?

When the police get the same shake as the rest of the law abiding citizens, they will exert themselves to ensure that citizens can get CCW, can have standard capacity magazines, and can purchase a full range of firearms (including semi-auto rifles and off-roster handguns).

Removing special, unequal, and unconstitutional status for off duty police reinforces pro 2A Californians, by adding most of those cops to our ranks.

McDonald was a case brought against a municipality (Chicago) for making gun laws that violate the 2A. Using McDonald as precedent, it will be much easier to bring a case against L.A. for violating the 2A rights of citizens with their gun laws.

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Well, I hope you're all right. The problem I have with all of this is the progressives that keep getting voted into office by making promises they have no intention of keeping, and by people who buy into the lies because they want free stuff that they don't have to work for. The problem is, if they get enough progressives in office that don't like our current Constitution, all they need is a 2/3 majority vote and our form of government gets flushed down the toilet along with our rights. So while I'm remaining optimistic particularly for my kids futures, it's a cautious optimism that tells me to keep my kids up to speed with what's happening.

Bottom line, in spite of all the vilifying of Joe McCarthy in the '50s, I think he was right and we are simply fighting a much harder battle now than we might have, had our parents and grandparents listened to him.

grammaton76
06-29-2010, 2:00 PM
Okay, and what about municipal laws ? I know the state has preemptive powers over gun laws, but from what I gather, cities like L.A. are still making their own gun laws, and so far no one has challenged them that I'm aware of. Are their laws on the ragged edge of being illegal, or are they just not illegal enough to bother with ? The point to asking is that bills that are now law, such as Micro stamping and the .50 cal ban have come from the fertile fields of L.A. and effect us all. So once Gura gets done playing in N.C., when will he go knocking on Carmen Trutanich's door ? When can we put the fear of Alan Gura into the state legislators so that they become too gun shy to even think about introducing new bills that regulate firearms? Inquiring minds want to know !

For municipal laws, we have pre-emption on a statewide basis. However, the problem is that some tortured arguments are made that if the city's law isn't covering the same exact area as the state's law, they aren't in conflict. I.e. if California says you can have 10 rounds in a mag but a city says only 5, that's pre-empted because California already said how many rounds you can have in a magazine.

However, California never said you could or couldn't have a pistol with a certain barrel length, so LA can regulate those if it wants...

The same way that members of the military feel about it - when off duty and out of uniform, they are citizens, and probably want all of the rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution.

It really depends. Some of the most anti-gun people I've ever met were former Marines. The attitude is summed up with, "I'm competent with firearms because I'm a Marine. You aren't and should never be trusted with a gun, they should only be for people with military service like us."

There are tales of a lot of police with the same exact mindset, but I haven't run into them personally.

winnre
06-29-2010, 2:07 PM
The 10 round limit makes it difficult and expensive to get magazines for many firearms. Standard magazine capacities for most handguns tend to be 15 rounds, and standard rifle magazine capacities tend to be 20 or 30 rounds. There are even some firearms where it is not possible to purchase a magazine with just a 10 round capacity.

This makes it more difficult and expensive to legally own/use your firearm, and produces a "chilling effect" on the exercise of your rights ("chilling effect" is commonly used to determine that speech laws violate the 1st Amendment, so it should apply to other rights).

On the other hand some firearms have 7 rounds as a norm, like the 1911, and because of the 10 round limit you get an "Oh yeah?" reply and everyone makes magazines that hold MORE than the original design required, simply to push the limit.

jl123
06-29-2010, 2:08 PM
Is carpal tunnel a disability? Do pistol grips make it easier to hold a rifle without pain caused by carpal tunnel? If you answer yes to both, does this make the assault weapons ban discrimanatory? I would argue yes.

camsoup
06-29-2010, 2:14 PM
7 hrs ago the SC rules on McDonald and we are talking about getting, SBR's, MG and Cans...let get rid of BB, Gun Roster & AWB in CA 1st. ...it takes one step at a time to get to the top of a ladder

Don't forget either Shall issue CCW or LOC.....or BOTH! :D

Scott Connors
06-29-2010, 2:30 PM
Is carpal tunnel a disability? Do pistol grips make it easier to hold a rifle without pain caused by carpal tunnel? If you answer yes to both, does this make the assault weapons ban discrimanatory? I would argue yes.

I had the honor of knowing and working with the late Preston Covey, who was a professor of applied philosophy at Carnegie Mellon University and a firearms trainers with the Allegheny County Sheriff's Department. Prof. Covey also suffered from the effects of childhood polio which left him largely unable to use one arm. Accordingly he was unable to use any long gun that did not have a separate pistol grip (FYI, his weapons of choice were a Steyr AUG and a short-barreled Benelli with a pistol grip stock, and he was a virtuoso with both). He was a ferocious opponent of those that would have left him defenseless.

Covey left us in 2006. I would suggest that when the time comes to attack California's AW law, we find a plaintiff who is likewise unable to use conventionally stocked long arms due to physical disability.

grammaton76
06-29-2010, 2:31 PM
Covey left us in 2006. I would suggest that when the time comes to attack California's AW law, we find a plaintiff who is likewise unable to use conventionally stocked long arms due to physical disability.

Got one one-armed/one-legged guy whom I see at the show regularly. He's talked about wanting to sue on the assault weapon issue.

navyinrwanda
06-29-2010, 2:47 PM
So-called “assault weapon” bans that attempt to justify their existence by equating certain features with public danger will fail. So, too, will restrictions on magazine capacity.

First, after McDonald, the burden of justification is on the state. The state must explain what compelling government interest their restrictions serve, and must do more than simply proclaim some ill-defined reduction in danger. This means that there must be a clear and compelling reason for each component of a restriction, e.g., how does “a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon” endanger public safety? And how does banning such a feature – but only on semi-automatic centerfire rifles and not shotguns, bolt-action rifles, muzzle loaders, or even semi-automatic rifles that cannot “readily accept a detachable magazine” – affect public safety in a way that justifies infringing upon a fundamental constitutional right?

Second, McDonald together with Heller specifically outlaw “empirical” or “interest-balancing” tests that attempt to weigh costs vs. benefits. In both opinions is the statement, “The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government — even the Third Branch of Government — the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” This means that the courts must be very skeptical of government claims, even ones that might be supported with some sort of statistical, technical or expert evidence. And suggestions that the public otherwise will have access to “enough” or “adequate” firearms for self-defense must fail for the same reason that handgun bans were ruled unconstitutional in Heller.

When the actual components of these restrictions are examined – rather than emotionally-charged accusations calculated to incite panic – they will not survive judicial scrutiny.

norcal01
06-29-2010, 5:35 PM
The same way that members of the military feel about it - when off duty and out of uniform, they are citizens, and probably want all of the rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution.

Nobody seems to mind that, even with "police and military" exemptions to firearms laws, the military exemptions only apply to military personnel who are on duty, and using firearms owned by the military. Why should the police exemption be any different?

When the police get the same shake as the rest of the law abiding citizens, they will exert themselves to ensure that citizens can get CCW, can have standard capacity magazines, and can purchase a full range of firearms (including semi-auto rifles and off-roster handguns).

Removing special, unequal, and unconstitutional status for off duty police reinforces pro 2A Californians, by adding most of those cops to our ranks.

As a former LEO I agree with you completely. It is absolutely unacceptable to set LEO's aside and grant them rights outside of those given to other citizens. I believed that before I was a cop, while I was a cop, and I still believe it. If a LE agency wants its officers stay armed while off duty and believe that they cannot possibly do so without exempting them from the roster and other restrictions, they should issue them department weapons and magazines for use off duty. The fact that I could buy as many handguns as I wanted, regardless of whether or not they were on the roster and regardless of whether or not I qualified with them so that I could carry them off duty, always seemed strange to me. I'm not going to lie and say it wasn't awesome to be exempt from waiting periods and be able to buy whatever I wanted, but I've always thought that EVERYONE should be able to do those things.

That being said, I feel compelled to mention that most, if not all, of the officers I know, feel the same way. In my admittedly limited experience with CLEO's, many of them take the anti-gun stance because #1 they are essentially a politician and not really a police officer or deputy anymore, and #2 they seem to think it gives them some credit with certain segments of the population who are not only anti 2A but also anti LE. Most of the officers I know would gladly give everyone the rights LEO's enjoy because they aren't so stupid as to actually believe that criminals are legally purchasing/carrying/using firearms anyway. Just my 2 cents.

javalos
06-29-2010, 6:19 PM
I hope because of the recent victory in the Supreme Court for our 2A rights, the CA AWB isn't rushed to court unless there is a really rock solid case that would give us a very strong chance to overturn it. As it is, I'm tickled pink that we have 2001 California Supreme Court ruling of Harrott vs. Kings County that allowed us to having legal AR's or AK's despite having BB's and limited capacity magazines.

Psy Crow
06-30-2010, 3:06 PM
I think McDonald is a huge step forward but that we'll be forced to litigate incessantly as Anti-firearm legislators try to figure out how to drive their anti-guns laws through the gaping hole of permissible/reasonable regulation Alito left for them. But it's a better than what we had before by an order of magnitude in firearm's rights. And for that I am grateful.

I have to wonder if Alito and the other justices that believe in the 2A left this in as bait...