PDA

View Full Version : Anti's just gave us a "unintended gift".


nicki
11-19-2012, 3:39 PM
http://www.10news.com/home/homepage-showcase/people-line-up-to-legally-make-untraceable-guns.

There was a thread on the 80 percent lowers and a news story that went with it. Many on this board of course are upset because they are concerned about the state trying to ban these 80 percent builds.

I would like to change direction of our discussion on this because I expect some idiot in the legislature will jump on with a "CALI-BAN".

In fact, introducing legislation for a "CALI-BAN" on home built guns would be the equivalent in the game of chess of trading your Queen for a knight.

In my view, a move for a "CALI-BAN" on 80 percent receivers would be a "STUPID" move on our opponents side and even though we would take a "hit", the cost to them would be substantial and in the long game, would have unintended consequences for them.

For example, SB 249 caused us a lot of grief and work, but let's take a look at the end results of these effort.

1. The media educated many Californian's that you can own ARs/AKs and other EBRs in this state.

2. We got free public advertising of the existence of Calguns to the general public. In short, we are now on the radar.

3. Ever person who buys a AR/AK or any other arm with a bullet button/maglock is now going to have to join with us to protect their new arm.

Something to consider here. Many of these new owners thought they couldn't own a EBR and when they found a way, they jumped on it.

The gun store owners who are moving the "EBRs" are probably the ones who will most likely be cooperative in coordinated action to protect our gun rights.

I would suspect that if these gun store owners are nicely approached, that they will get involved, as such, they can reach out to their customers which is a probably a bigger base than NRA members.

The other side has built the whole premise of licensing and registration as the core foundation for 'reasonable gun control" and that it would work because somehow guns are these items that governments can control the flow of.

Few people in the general public have even considered that if guns were unavailable that high quality military grade arms could be manufactured in machine shops.

The other side points to countries like England and Japan and says that because they restricted the legal access to guns, they have low gun crime.

The other side points and says if we stop civilian sales of guns, that magically the Mexican Drug cartels won't have guns.

Here is the underlying item in the story that the editor of the story missed.

If you want a unregistered and untraceable gun, just build your own, the technology already exist and an average person with some guidance can build their own.

The people in the United States are turning against "Prohibitions" as a matter of public policy because they don't work. They just aired a story on a work around on gun prohibitions.

Here is something that wasn't mentioned on the story because only a "twisted person" such as myself would consider this.

What if someone started to build various guns and then put markings and serial numbers on those guns of already existing guns?


For example, let's say someone had an a few registered guns, what if they made clones of those guns with the same markings? As long as they didn't keep the guns together, it is unlikely they would have issues.

I am sure that no one would consider building a 80 percent gun out of state and put the same markings on it that they have on guns they have in this state before bringing the gun back, right.:rolleyes:

For you "Tin foil" hatters, when they come for your guns, you give them your "real ones" or "clones" if you you can't tell them apart.;)

For example, let's say someone inherited a RAW. What if they went down and turned in a 'clone" that they "cut up" into pieces and the "clone" had the markings of the RAW?

Between the machine shop 80 percent receivers and 3D printing, technology will moot the viability of gun bans, licensing and registration.

If someone was a enterprising criminal, based on this story, does the technology exist that they could manufacture "select fire" untraceable arms?

At this point, all we can do is see what happens. If no legislation is introduced by anyone, then at that point all we can do is go about quietly our business on this issue.

The other side actually does have have some people who aren't stupid and they once they realize the unintended consequences of a ban on the 80 percent receivers, it may be a battle that they don't want to fight.

I have a "gut feeling" that once a list is compiled of what the 'unintended consequences" would be from even an attempted ban on the 80 percent receivers, there will be a few groups in this state who will realize that such a bill would be a disaster for them.

In the court of public opinion, this is an issue to where we actually could get on "offense" rather than "defense".

The emphasis on reducing gun violence in our society should always be focused on the individuals/groups that are committing the gun violence.

Gun licensing, registrations and bans have been promoted as "public safety" measures under the guise that if we restrict the supply of guns, crime will go down.

It has allowed politicians and other self interest groups to divert attention away from failed government policies that create a climate that promotes violence in many areas of the state.

Now that a media station has shown that the supply of guns can't be restricted, that quality guns can be built outside of the commercial market, they have just torn out the foundation of the gun control argument.

Once the public believes that guns can be readily manufactured with available machining equipment, the proposals to restrict commercial sales of guns will be seen as what they are, worthless.

I know many of you are ready to "defend gun rights", but we are in a "War" and "Wars" are won by "offense".

Many times there is "dumb luck", in history for example, we had the "dumb luck" at the battle of Midway and the Japanese Navy suffered massive losses that turned around the War in the Pacific.

In the War on Guns, California is the battleground.

On Dec 6th in San Francisco after the Federal Court hearings, we will have a luncheon and many key people in the Calguns community will be there.

You can bet there will be discussion on many things. If 2nd amendment issues are really important to you, if you can make it, be there.

Nicki

stix213
11-19-2012, 4:05 PM
My 2 cents (that's all its worth really)

http://www.10news.com/home/homepage-showcase/people-line-up-to-legally-make-untraceable-guns.

There was a thread on the 80 percent lowers and a news story that went with it. Many on this board of course are upset because they are concerned about the state trying to ban these 80 percent builds.

I would like to change direction of our discussion on this because I expect some idiot in the legislature will jump on with a "CALI-BAN".


Calling Senator Yee....


In fact, introducing legislation for a "CALI-BAN" on home built guns would be the equivalent in the game of chess of trading your Queen for a knight.

In my view, a move for a "CALI-BAN" on 80 percent receivers would be a "STUPID" move on our opponents side and even though we would take a "hit", the cost to them would be substantial and in the long game, would have unintended consequences for them.

For example, SB 249 caused us a lot of grief and work, but let's take a look at the end results of these effort.

1. The media educated many Californian's that you can own ARs/AKs and other EBRs in this state.

2. We got free public advertising of the existence of Calguns to the general public. In short, we are now on the radar.

3. Ever person who buys a AR/AK or any other arm with a bullet button/maglock is now going to have to join with us to protect their new arm.

Something to consider here. Many of these new owners thought they couldn't own a EBR and when they found a way, they jumped on it.


I agree, and I said as much more than once, from the first thread about the CBS video, to the last thread I saw after SB249 was killed. It was free advertising.

One item you left off your list though was it also let the pro-gun troops in CA flex their muscles and see what can really be accomplished with a revved up opposition. The next time something this threatening comes along I hope we can do even better.

I fear though that an "80% ban" wouldn't energize as many people against it because it is more of a niche in the firearms community, mostly left to the more hardcore center of us IMO.


The gun store owners who are moving the "EBRs" are probably the ones who will most likely be cooperative in coordinated action to protect our gun rights.

I would suspect that if these gun store owners are nicely approached, that they will get involved, as such, they can reach out to their customers which is a probably a bigger base than NRA members.


I fear though that an 80% ban would only energize the real patriots among gun stores, since in theory a ban on 80% builds would actually increase gun store business on bare receivers :(


The other side has built the whole premise of licensing and registration as the core foundation for 'reasonable gun control" and that it would work because somehow guns are these items that governments can control the flow of.

Few people in the general public have even considered that if guns were unavailable that high quality military grade arms could be manufactured in machine shops.

The other side points to countries like England and Japan and says that because they restricted the legal access to guns, they have low gun crime.

The other side points and says if we stop civilian sales of guns, that magically the Mexican Drug cartels won't have guns.

Here is the underlying item in the story that the editor of the story missed.

If you want a unregistered and untraceable gun, just build your own, the technology already exist and an average person with some guidance can build their own.

The people in the United States are turning against "Prohibitions" as a matter of public policy because they don't work. They just aired a story on a work around on gun prohibitions.

Here is something that wasn't mentioned on the story because only a "twisted person" such as myself would consider this.

What if someone started to build various guns and then put markings and serial numbers on those guns of already existing guns?


For example, let's say someone had an a few registered guns, what if they made clones of those guns with the same markings? As long as they didn't keep the guns together, it is unlikely they would have issues.

I am sure that no one would consider building a 80 percent gun out of state and put the same markings on it that they have on guns they have in this state before bringing the gun back, right.:rolleyes:

For you "Tin foil" hatters, when they come for your guns, you give them your "real ones" or "clones" if you you can't tell them apart.;)

For example, let's say someone inherited a RAW. What if they went down and turned in a 'clone" that they "cut up" into pieces and the "clone" had the markings of the RAW?

Between the machine shop 80 percent receivers and 3D printing, technology will moot the viability of gun bans, licensing and registration.

If someone was a enterprising criminal, based on this story, does the technology exist that they could manufacture "select fire" untraceable arms?

At this point, all we can do is see what happens. If no legislation is introduced by anyone, then at that point all we can do is go about quietly our business on this issue.

The other side actually does have have some people who aren't stupid and they once they realize the unintended consequences of a ban on the 80 percent receivers, it may be a battle that they don't want to fight.

I have a "gut feeling" that once a list is compiled of what the 'unintended consequences" would be from even an attempted ban on the 80 percent receivers, there will be a few groups in this state who will realize that such a bill would be a disaster for them.

In the court of public opinion, this is an issue to where we actually could get on "offense" rather than "defense".

The emphasis on reducing gun violence in our society should always be focused on the individuals/groups that are committing the gun violence.

Gun licensing, registrations and bans have been promoted as "public safety" measures under the guise that if we restrict the supply of guns, crime will go down.

It has allowed politicians and other self interest groups to divert attention away from failed government policies that create a climate that promotes violence in many areas of the state.

Now that a media station has shown that the supply of guns can't be restricted, that quality guns can be built outside of the commercial market, they have just torn out the foundation of the gun control argument.

Once the public believes that guns can be readily manufactured with available machining equipment, the proposals to restrict commercial sales of guns will be seen as what they are, worthless.


I like this line of thinking, but I believe Yee jumped into the SB249 battle at first without thinking any of the consequences through. It was only later once he was already committed and others (Harris?) became involved was any actual strategy, or consideration of the consequences, applied to the subject.

Remember as a general rule, gun banners don't know much about guns, the gun industry, or gun safety. Also the people who don't own guns and don't really have a horse in the race will not necessarily follow the logic to its end conclusion. Some will, but many (most?) will see it as some evil work around that needs to be stopped without considering how or even if that is practical.


I know many of you are ready to "defend gun rights", but we are in a "War" and "Wars" are won by "offense".

Many times there is "dumb luck", in history for example, we had the "dumb luck" at the battle of Midway and the Japanese Navy suffered massive losses that turned around the War in the Pacific.

In the War on Guns, California is the battleground.


I fully agree. Fight a war long enough and eventually your opponent will make a critical mistake we can capitalize big on.


On Dec 6th in San Francisco after the Federal Court hearings, we will have a luncheon and many key people in the Calguns community will be there.

You can bet there will be discussion on many things. If 2nd amendment issues are really important to you, if you can make it, be there.

Nicki

Guapo
11-19-2012, 4:26 PM
I like your optimism, however California loves to sucks that right out of everyone the hard way.

ICONIC
11-19-2012, 4:30 PM
How can you ban a piece of aluminum.

stix213
11-19-2012, 4:37 PM
How can you ban a piece of aluminum.

They'd probably target the manufacture part instead of the paper weight part.

njineermike
11-19-2012, 4:47 PM
They'd probably target the manufacture part instead of the paper weight part.

Or they'd require a license and/or permit to purchase billet in the state.

m03
11-19-2012, 4:57 PM
Or they'd require a license and/or permit to purchase billet in the state.

Which will work until 3D printers become more ubiquitous.

njineermike
11-19-2012, 5:00 PM
Which will work until 3D printers become more ubiquitous.

I have one in my living room:

http://reprap.org/wiki/Mendel

I haven't completed assembly, but it's almost ready.

bill_k_lopez
11-19-2012, 5:08 PM
If they ever banned all guns -of what good would it do you to own one?

JoeJinKY
11-19-2012, 5:24 PM
Which will work until 3D printers become more ubiquitous.

I am seriously looking at this machine, but it is a year or two away. I have SolidWorks on my computer, and I have to go though the learning curve to know that program. Once I am confident that I can create things :D in SolidWorks, I'll lease this machine or its "Big Brother" the Fortus 900, and start into the brave new world of 3-D Rapid Prototyping. At over $450,000.00 for the Fortus 900 without the 'Bells and Whistles' it would be a HUGE purchase I would probably not be able to handle, but leasing one would be affordable and profitable, assuming I had clients who needed things printed using the vast array of materials available.

http://www.fortus.com/Products/Fortus-400mc.aspx

http://www.fortus.com/Products/Fortus-900mc.aspx

DonFerrando
11-19-2012, 5:53 PM
Which will work until 3D printers become more ubiquitous.

It will work as much as banning fertilizer and gasoline...

CitaDeL
11-19-2012, 6:36 PM
Here's a possible outcome to a legislative response to the 'untracable' gun build story.

lLApVGIU8eQ

These people do not have licensing, regulation, or even high tech tools like a CNC milling machine. So, in effect, a California ban on manufacturing guns out of a block of metal would do nothing in preventing proliferation as the process would go underground as it is in the Philipines. Every garage would be a possible 'illegal' gun factory.

diginit
11-19-2012, 6:55 PM
In my view, a move for a "CALI-BAN" on 80 percent receivers would be a "STUPID" move on our opponents side and even though we would take a "hit", the cost to them would be substantial and in the long game, would have unintended consequences for them.


The word stupid is the clincher. What stupidity has even slowed the antis from bans yet? This is California. Where marrying pets will be legal soon. But your german sheperd won't be allowed to carry teeth.
Check Please!

jj805
11-19-2012, 10:38 PM
How can you ban a piece of aluminum.

They'd probably target the manufacture part instead of the paper weight part.

How would they know the 80% lower was not manufactured before the date of the ban? It would be almost impossible to enforce consistently.

xounlistedxox
11-19-2012, 10:56 PM
Guess they will have to ban all sheet metal too

Morbo
11-20-2012, 5:52 AM
This is the whack-a-mole state. If they cannot stop you from making a gun, they will make buying ammo as much fun as a colonoscopy. And forget about reloading supplies.

Do not take my pessimism as an attack, I like your ideas and I believe there is real merit in your argument. It is hard to be optimistic in this state after the recent election results.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-20-2012, 5:53 AM
Here's a possible outcome to a legislative response to the 'untracable' gun build story.

lLApVGIU8eQ

These people do not have licensing, regulation, or even high tech tools like a CNC milling machine. So, in effect, a California ban on manufacturing guns out of a block of metal would do nothing in preventing proliferation as the process would go underground as it is in the Philipines. Every garage would be a possible 'illegal' gun factory.


A .38 for $120? Deal!


The Raisuli

Jason_2111
11-20-2012, 6:33 AM
My wife actually commented on this whole situation really well last night.
She pointed out that in California, the sheep are afraid of wolves, so they try to ban pointed teeth... completely forgetting that lots more things besides wolves, like the sheep dogs, have pointed teeth.

Jason_2111
11-20-2012, 6:34 AM
Expect a new ban. Lots of them... they've got a super majority. The sanity check is officially gone from the State .GOV.... so yeah, things are going to get bad.
Skylining something that was little known outside the gun community was pure stupidity, plain and simple.

QQQ
11-20-2012, 7:38 AM
But-but-but-
Jerry Brown will save us!

IVC
11-20-2012, 8:01 AM
Ban on 3D printers coming in 3, 2, 1...

It's for the children. And the puppies.

MaHoTex
11-20-2012, 8:08 AM
The next session in the state legislature is going to be very painful for lawful gun owners. I can hardly wait for the hoops we will need to jump through.

Bhobbs
11-20-2012, 8:12 AM
How would they know the 80% lower was not manufactured before the date of the ban? It would be almost impossible to enforce consistently.

The same way they enforce the hi cap mag ban. WE enforce it upon ourselves. There is no way they can do it but we, as law abiding citizens, respect the law and follow it.

the86d
11-20-2012, 8:48 AM
As legal firearm owners with LEGAL firearms move out, there are 20 criminals moving in to replace them all strapping ILLEGAL firearms. They need to see the UK ban results "the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted. " - ABC News - http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618

Now what happens when it is a greater ratio of criminals? Cartels will run the cities more than ever before, and thugs will live in politician's former homes (taken by force and illegal firearms with no resistance present as all the LEGAL-resistance was banned,) and bury them in the back yard.

VaderSpade
11-20-2012, 9:07 AM
The same way they enforce the hi cap mag ban. WE enforce it upon ourselves. There is no way they can do it but we, as law abiding citizens, respect the law and follow it.

IF there is a ban and that's a big IF
manufactures will quit shipping to CA.
The anti's will consider that a win.

Bhobbs
11-20-2012, 9:22 AM
IF there is a ban and that's a big IF
manufactures will quit shipping to CA.
The anti's will consider that a win.

I think it's very possible there will be a ban.

motorhead
11-20-2012, 10:45 AM
nothing good can possibly come from this. by using the scare word "untracable", the story portrays builders as seeking to avoid existing laws. how do you think the antis will respond?

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj22/neon_tony/Unicorn-Poop.jpg

-hanko
11-20-2012, 10:47 AM
It will work as much as banning fertilizer and gasoline diesel...
fixed

randian
11-20-2012, 10:54 AM
The other side points to countries like England and Japan and says that because they restricted the legal access to guns, they have low gun crime.

The other side are, as usual, lying. England and Japan had low gun crime (compared to the US) before the bans.

Nyanman
11-20-2012, 11:13 AM
The other side are, as usual, lying. England and Japan had low gun crime (compared to the US) before the bans.

And isn't gun crime now higher than it previously was in England? I don't know about Japan, but doesn't the U.K. have much more violence than pre-ban?

njineermike
11-20-2012, 11:13 AM
This is the whack-a-mole state. If they cannot stop you from making a gun, they will make buying ammo as much fun as a colonoscopy. And forget about reliading supplies.

Do not take my pessimism as an attack, I like your ideas and I believe there is real merit in your argument. It is hard to be optimistic in this state after the recent election results.

It's been hard to be optomistic in this state long before this election.

randian
11-20-2012, 11:35 AM
And isn't gun crime now higher than it previously was in England? I don't know about Japan, but doesn't the U.K. have much more violence than pre-ban?
Indeed it is. England is rather fond of importing its own conquerors.

postal
11-20-2012, 5:55 PM
England wants to ban knives since stabbings have skyrocketed too.

njineermike
11-20-2012, 6:13 PM
England wants to ban knives since stabbings have skyrocketed too.

It will be just about as effective as Australia regulating glass bottles due to glassings in bar fights.

bubbapug1
11-20-2012, 11:01 PM
Now what happens when there is a greater ratio of criminals? Cartels will run the cities more than ever before, and thugs will live in politician's former homes (taken by force and illegal firearms with no resistance present as all the LEGAL-resistance was banned,) and bury them in the back yard.

I like the part about burying them in the backyard....thats a great fantasy. The real thugs however are already in the US CONGRESS

garand1945
11-22-2012, 8:39 PM
One of the best things that could happen for 2A rights right now is for as many people as possible to make their own guns. This needs to become a widespread belief and practice for countless reasons that you should contemplate and keep to yourself. Just nod your head, and turn on your friends.

We need to spread 80% build parties to all 50 states. We need to get every gun friendly CNC owner set up with a program and jigs to do build parties. Turn your out of state friends on to it. Don't go to the media. Stay underground. In common use is our friend.

winnre
11-22-2012, 8:41 PM
How hard is it to do the other 20%?

garand1945
11-22-2012, 9:23 PM
How hard is it to do the other 20%?


Mount it in the jig, push green start button, de-bur. See the 80% build party threads

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=573827

WiKDMoNKY
11-22-2012, 9:25 PM
Without the right tools and the know how, I'd say pretty hard...


How hard is it to do the other 20%?



Sent from my HTC Sensation using Tapatalk 2

john67elco
11-23-2012, 1:32 AM
In NJ you need a permit to manufacture a firearm. If they did this to include your own firearm that will kill the blocks of aluminum or people building their own and BP's. This is what I'd expect if something was to hit.

ClarenceBoddicker
11-23-2012, 3:27 AM
Why would CA bother with banning homemade firearms when all they would have to do is make it a Felony to possess unregistered firearms? They are going to require people to register all their firearms anyways, after the long gun registration law goes into effect. They could even add an extra tax/fee to homemade firearms on top of the registration fee/tax. The fun will start when CA starts to outlaw owning "unsafe" firearms, once the roster gets expanded to cover all firearms. Things are going to get very interesting in CA firearms wise over the next 10-20 years & the SCOTUS will do nothing to stop it. Anybody who values their personal 2A rights would be wise to start working on getting out of CA. This state has reached the point of no return, with both taxes & lost 2A rights.

IVC
11-23-2012, 8:01 AM
The fun will start when CA starts to outlaw owning "unsafe" firearms, once the roster gets expanded to cover all firearms.

Not quite. If CA decided to go this route, it would be a relatively easy case to get the preliminary injunction, particularly in the light of, at that time, stricken down roster requirement.

It's about burden of proof. If CA wants to ban a handgun claiming it's "unsafe", they would have to prove it. They cannot just say "we assume it's unsafe based on these features, so you prove it's safe." If it worked that way, we would have "guilty until proven innocent" judicial system.

There are tricks they might try to play, but they would end up in the position that Mississippi legislators are when they try to introduce backdoor abortion regulation - it gets stricken down quickly. Anything that CA "invents" to bypass a Supreme Court precedent would be open for use/abuse by any state/group/municipality wishing to circumvent any other Supreme Court ruling. That's not easy to do.

ClarenceBoddicker
11-23-2012, 12:53 PM
Not quite. If CA decided to go this route, it would be a relatively easy case to get the preliminary injunction, particularly in the light of, at that time, stricken down roster requirement.

It's about burden of proof. If CA wants to ban a handgun claiming it's "unsafe", they would have to prove it. They cannot just say "we assume it's unsafe based on these features, so you prove it's safe." If it worked that way, we would have "guilty until proven innocent" judicial system.

There are tricks they might try to play, but they would end up in the position that Mississippi legislators are when they try to introduce backdoor abortion regulation - it gets stricken down quickly. Anything that CA "invents" to bypass a Supreme Court precedent would be open for use/abuse by any state/group/municipality wishing to circumvent any other Supreme Court ruling. That's not easy to do.

I believe your logic is flawed. CA can ban & restrict any firearms they wish to, such as so called "Assault Weapons". AFAIK, both Roberti-Ross & SB-23 have withstood judicial review essentially intact, without any "burden of proof" required. Since when has any "burden of proof" been required to pass a law? Where is this line in the sand that the SCOTUS has made about firearms restrictions? Do you really think the SCOTUS will actually overturn or invalidate in whole or in a functional manner any Federal, State or Municipal anti-gun laws? As I see it as long as just one type of firearm (single shot non repeater or even black powder) is still available for citizens to buy & own with "reasonable restrictions", then the SCOTUS will do nothing. I can easily see CA getting away with a one generation outright ban on all semi-auto firearms & repeating ones without redundant and impracticable "safety" features, as they are doing with "Assault Weapons". The simple path of incremental firearms restrictions & eventually confiscations has been laid out by the UK. It's no big secret & the gun grabbers know it well. No matter what anyone says on here, they won a tremendous victory with Roberti-Ross & SB-23. When the generation of RAWs owners dies off, a once legal class of firearms will be permanently banned in CA for normal citizens. Time is rapidly closing to legally challenge Roberti-Ross with any hopes of a positive outcome. By 2070 I would say that pool of RAWs will be totally gone from CA, save for a few in the hands of FFLs & LEOs. Roberti-Ross was a watershed event in modern CA anti-2A restrictions & pretty much is being ignored by the gun rights movement.

ScottB
11-23-2012, 1:08 PM
I like your optimism, however California loves to sucks that right out of everyone the hard way.

I agree. The bozos in the legislature know full well that essentially there are no consequences to them or their political interests when they ban or restrict guns. That's why they keep doing it. With the results of the last election and their new supermajority, look for them to double down, not lighten up.

At this point we can only win in court and that has its own issues.

Sgt Raven
11-23-2012, 2:37 PM
I believe your logic is flawed. CA can ban & restrict any firearms they wish to, such as so called "Assault Weapons". AFAIK, both Roberti-Ross & SB-23 have withstood judicial review essentially intact, without any "burden of proof" required........snip...........


Where has R-R or SB23 been reviewed since Heller? :TFH:

ClarenceBoddicker
11-23-2012, 3:05 PM
Where has R-R or SB23 been reviewed since Heller? :TFH:

OK, so are they being challenged again?

IVC
11-23-2012, 3:14 PM
Since when has any "burden of proof" been required to pass a law?

Since the banned activity has been recognized as a civil right by the highest court of the land.

Technically, you're right that it's not a "burden of proof," which is a judicial, not legislative term, but the counterpart we are talking about is called a "compelling government interest." Now, we are running into "strict scrutiny" review standard vs. some other levels of scrutiny, but the one that merely requires legislators to act in good faith, the "rational basis," has been ruled insufficient. The game changes significantly after Heller established the armed self defense as a fundamental, individual, human right, and then McDonald incorporated the 2A and it's core of armed self defense against the states.

Also, as pointed above, the laws you refer are all way pre-Heller.

ClarenceBoddicker
11-23-2012, 3:27 PM
Since the banned activity has been recognized as a civil right by the highest court of the land.

Technically, you're right that it's not a "burden of proof," which is a judicial, not legislative term, but the counterpart we are talking about is called a "compelling government interest." Now, we are running into "strict scrutiny" review standard vs. some other levels of scrutiny, but the one that merely requires legislators to act in good faith, the "rational basis," has been ruled insufficient. The game changes significantly after Heller established the armed self defense as a fundamental, individual, human right, and then McDonald incorporated the 2A and it's core of armed self defense against the states.

Also, as pointed above, the laws you refer are all way pre-Heller.

OK, so can Roberti-Roos be retroactively challenged due to Heller & McDonald? If so, why has it not been done? It seems to me as the most important case to litigate to the SCOTUS other than maybe 922o. AFAIK SB-23 was not seriously challenged as Roberti-Roos was shortly after it was passed. What good are things like Shall Issue LTC, OC, Roster, etc, if whole classes of firearms like semi-auto military pattern rifles can be severely restricted or even banned outright?

IVC
11-23-2012, 6:07 PM
What good are things like Shall Issue LTC, OC, Roster, etc, if whole classes of firearms like semi-auto military pattern rifles can be severely restricted or even banned outright?

Pena v. Cid is the Roster case which is intended as the major step in that direction by establishing that a class of firearms cannot be banned based on cosmetic features. If you look at the case, it explicitly challenges a prohibition based on the color of the slide.

Once Roster is resolved, AWB is next. It's always good to keep all these cases in context of what they achieve in the big picture. Choosing smaller bites with well defined goals helps build the legal framework for all future cases. It takes a lot of time since courts tend to take a lot of time, and the legal framework for 2A as seeded by Heller is very new.

sharxbyte
11-23-2012, 7:32 PM
The airsoft ban attempts started the priming and sb249 really kicked us into high gear. If they are smart they will attempt to wait a few years until we slip into complacency again. Not likely, because we still have cases on a national level that they want to stop, but I believe that this year especially we have become a more coherent group with fellow non-affiliated gun owners, and the CA firearms industry alike. Gun stores are beginning to recognize Calguns as a valuable asset and client base, and have also been a medium of reaching non-Calgunners and encouraging them to become educated and join the fight.

Scarecrow Repair
11-24-2012, 9:32 AM
OK, so can Roberti-Roos be retroactively challenged due to Heller & McDonald? If so, why has it not been done?

Probably because chess is complicated and sometimes pawns clear the field for the big guns.

IrishPirate
11-24-2012, 9:56 AM
How would they know the 80% lower was not manufactured before the date of the ban? It would be almost impossible to enforce consistently.
^ together with V
The same way they enforce the hi cap mag ban. WE enforce it upon ourselves. There is no way they can do it but we, as law abiding citizens, respect the law and follow it.

they will enact some law that just makes it stupidly expensive to do an 80% build so that you would much rather buy a complete gun that they can ensure will be registered. if they try to make it illegal to own an unregistered gun, it will backfire since there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of legally owned guns purchased from FFL's already in this state that are not registered. Forcing retroactive registration would get shut down fast!

Probably because chess is complicated and sometimes pawns clear the field for the big guns.

great analogy...

winning Pena v Cid would be a huge win for us. If they uphold that guns can't be banned based on cosmetic features, we can take that to the AWB and get that over turned too. It truely amazes me that it's taken this long to overturn the roster. Every single person I've explained it to...even rabid anti's...has said it's screwy.

Dreaded Claymore
11-24-2012, 8:25 PM
OK, so are they being challenged again?

Yes, they are. Richards vs. Harris (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Richards_v._Harris), suit being filed by the Calguns Foundation.