PDA

View Full Version : So what's the deal with ammo registration in Sac and LA


77bawls
02-15-2012, 4:14 PM
Since the bill got kicked out for being unconstitutional why are they still enforcing it in these cities?

ke6guj
02-15-2012, 4:16 PM
Since the bill got kicked out for being unconstitutional why are they still enforcing it in these cities?
that is because the state ammo law was rulled unconstittional. the local ammo laws were not challenged and are presumed constitutional.

77bawls
02-15-2012, 4:21 PM
that is because the state ammo law was rulled unconstittional. the local ammo laws were not challenged and are presumed constitutional.

How is that possible? :mad:

paul0660
02-15-2012, 4:23 PM
How is that possible? :mad:

Because it hasn't been challenged, yet.

You might consider donating some dough to the cause.

ke6guj
02-15-2012, 4:25 PM
How is that possible? :mad:
same reason why even though we have Heller and McDonald, all other gun laws are presumed constitutional until they are specifically challenged.

The courts normally just rule on the case in front of them. they don't expand their ruling to items not brought up during the case. since the local laws weren't argued during the state law case, there was no need to rule on those laws.

littlejake
02-16-2012, 4:10 PM
It would seem that such municipal codes violate the states preemption in the area of firearms laws.

Librarian
02-16-2012, 5:08 PM
It would seem that such municipal codes violate the states preemption in the area of firearms laws.

State preemption is very narrow. See the wiki -- http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/State_Preemption_of_Some_Gun_Regulation

Wherryj
02-17-2012, 11:20 AM
that is because the state ammo law was rulled unconstittional. the local ammo laws were not challenged and are presumed constitutional.

I doubt that they are presumed Constitutional. Our government only sees the Constitution as an obstacle to their wishes. It is my assertion that the laws have not been challenged, and are thus considered as something "we have gotten away with".

lhecker51
02-17-2012, 11:52 AM
I doubt that they are presumed Constitutional. Our government only sees the Constitution as an obstacle to their wishes. It is my assertion that the laws have not been challenged, and are thus considered as something "we have gotten away with".


And they will get away with it until our rights are ripped back from the hands of kicking and screaming government officials. Who wants to risk financial ruin, arrest and conviction to be the one to challenge? You may be the lucky one whose case is selected by a 2A advocate group to represent you in court, or not.

Once the challenge begins, it will be a long time before all of the appeals are over and could take YEARS. Even then, they can decide not to comply through game playing and outright malfeasance.

Always remember that in the Peoples Socialist State of California, that you are a little person with no individual right that can EVER trump the rights of the collective, even when ordered to by the courts (Yes I am talking about the City of Los Angeles).

Seems cynical? History supports my statements above. Although we are making progress, maybe my children will be around to enjoy the result as I will most likely not be.

ke6guj
02-17-2012, 12:13 PM
I doubt that they are presumed Constitutional. Our government only sees the Constitution as an obstacle to their wishes. It is my assertion that the laws have not been challenged, and are thus considered as something "we have gotten away with".

AFAIK, most/all laws are"presumed constitutional" until someone argues to a judge that it is an unconstitutional law. AFAIK, nobody has done that with the SAC/LA laws, so they are "presumed constitutional" for now, and may be enforced as the local LEA desires.

randian
02-17-2012, 3:54 PM
How do you challenge these laws? If you don't bother running afoul of them, don't courts usually dropkick you for lack of standing? And if you do run afoul of them, you're a criminal without clean hands, which courts (especially SCOTUS) seem of late to abhor ruling on.

Librarian
02-17-2012, 4:28 PM
How do you challenge these laws? If you don't bother running afoul of them, don't courts usually dropkick you for lack of standing? And if you do run afoul of them, you're a criminal without clean hands, which courts (especially SCOTUS) seem of late to abhor ruling on.

Right; it's better all around if some civil reason could be found.

For example, if we can get the chain established

the second amendment is a fundamental right
the associated activities - carry, ability to practice, ammunition - are also protected parts of that fundamental right (see, for example Ezell (http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/246475/) for one version)
government infringements of a fundamental right have to pass strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny)
then one might bring suit against those governments to demonstrate those laws pass strict scrutiny.

The suggested chain is not yet forged.