PDA

View Full Version : Whats the Proof Features Equal BAD


El Toro
04-10-2011, 9:20 AM
(sorry if this has been discussed, couldnt find a thread)

So I understand the current Cal AW law which bans listed make/model AWs as well as ANY semi-auto rifle with BAD features. There is no argument that this is BAD law and the fact that we can have legal BB Featured AWs with a 10 round mag proves that the law is ineffective.

What is a potential legal challenge to the AW law - as it is obviously poorly written and ineffective? Can the feature portions of the law be overturned if they cannot prove the public is at risk? Doesnt the government need to prove a feature is BAD? I think we all agree it is laughable to consider a grip or flash hider or thumbhole stock evil and BAD. These items do not really increase the 'potential body count' so doesnt the government need to prove why I cannot own a foregrip? What if I want to wear Red Tennis Shoes? Would a law banning these be thrown out on its azz?

Maestro Pistolero
04-10-2011, 9:29 AM
Stick around. It is well known that the primary purpose for these laws are to desensitize the public to irrational gun laws while incrementally squelching 2A freedoms.

It is simply not the next battle on the list. At some point in the future, with a broader basis in case law, these laws will fail even rational basis scrutiny, and will be the proverbial low-hanging-fruit. At this time, it is best not to create any case law that will complicate overturning the laws in the future.

El Toro
04-10-2011, 9:38 AM
Thanks for the reply...

(I read between :punk: the lines you painted)

Some Guy
04-10-2011, 10:34 AM
Best thread title EVAR!

bwiese
04-10-2011, 11:24 AM
Legislators don't need proof something is bad to make (bad) law.

Legislators often like to punish opponents' supporters too to feed red meat to their own supporters. (Republicans do this on other issues, it's just the way the game is.)

barthel
04-10-2011, 11:38 AM
No proof, it's just a way to push the liberal anti gun agenda. They "scare" the anti's, so they attempt to make laws against the things that bother them.

bussda
04-10-2011, 11:48 AM
<sigh>

It is not bad as in evil, but bad as in really good. And do not confuse logic with law. :)

Chester
04-10-2011, 11:57 AM
You're talking about people who've ruled something as useless as a bayonet lug on an AR with a 16" barrel and an M4 gas system to be evil. These are also the same people who've given us such gems as "the shoulder thing that goes up" and "heat seeking vest busters".

The only real reason is because they look scary.

Don29palms
04-10-2011, 12:13 PM
One of the reasons for the 50cal ban was they could shoot heat seeking bullets that could bring down a 747.

Librarian
04-10-2011, 12:42 PM
I believe it has even been established that if the 'legislative findings' are demonstrably false-to-fact (they lied), that is not sufficient to challenge a law.

You need to pull back one further step; the few people in the legislature who actually care a tiny bit about guns and support such laws as you note probably believe much as Maestro Pistolero wrote.

But the rest of the fellow travelers just vote so it appears they are 'doing something' about a 'problem' so they can get re-elected.

HondaMasterTech
04-10-2011, 12:59 PM
Politicians get paid a lot of money to come up with new laws. If they get the idea that coming up with "gun control" laws will help them get re-elected, they will come up with as many "gun control" laws they can think of.

If this problem of "gun control" is to be solved, we MUST let politicians know that "gun control" laws will cause them to lose the next election. The last thing a politician wants to do is get a real job!

Liberty1
04-10-2011, 1:15 PM
Spray firing from the hip without reloading and shoulder thingys that go up are all the logic they need. The constitutionality of a law doesn't hing on badness or legislative findings but on the Constitutional question of may they even legislate on an issue good OR bad.

El Toro
04-10-2011, 6:57 PM
I believe it has even been established that if the 'legislative findings' are demonstrably false-to-fact (they lied), that is not sufficient to challenge a law....

So for example, if there are laws that prohibit something considered BAD, such as cocaine, but by a wierd twist it is discovered that cocaine was actually healthy for us, can we challenge those laws in court?

I'm guessing our only real recourse is to vote for cocaine-friendly politicians :eek:

What I am getting at isn't there a constitutional basis for keeping government from legislating away our ability to buy or own specific things? If there isnt, God help us when the politicians deem red sports cars, red bikinis, red tennis shoes or anything else is BAD.

bsim
04-10-2011, 7:29 PM
If gangbangers thought SA revolvers & lever action rifles were cool & used 'em in drive-by's, those would be banned.

Librarian
04-10-2011, 8:21 PM
So for example, if there are laws that prohibit something considered BAD, such as cocaine, but by a wierd twist it is discovered that cocaine was actually healthy for us, can we challenge those laws in court?
Not so far.

I rather hope we don't find any 'cocaine friendly politicians'.

What I am getting at isn't there a constitutional basis for keeping government from legislating away our ability to buy or own specific things? If there isnt, God help us when the politicians deem red sports cars, red bikinis, red tennis shoes or anything else is BAD.
Not yet.

MYOB seems not to be in the vocabulary of politicians.

El Toro
04-10-2011, 9:07 PM
Well considering that we have Marijuana-friendly politicians...:rofl2: