Capitol Weekly on SCOTUS CASE as well as Assembly Reso in SUPPORT

[Anthonysmanifesto]

find article here (http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=wvvzra5xciovjk)

then check out this article on Asm. Benoit's resolution to support the SCOTUS case in the assembly. (http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/NEWS01/80207003)

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Interseting read. Couple things that jumped out at me....

First and foremost...it appears GOC, AKA Sam Peredes, is looking forward to Heller for the increased fundraising.

“Any definition of the Second Amendment as an individual right is going to open up all kinds of legal avenues for us to overturn gun laws,” said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. “We will change our focus from lobbying to legal action because the Legislature will be neutered. Any time they sponsor legislation we think is unconstitutional, we will challenge it.”


Paredes said his parent organization, Gun Owners of America, based in Virginia, has a legal fund ready to challenge state gun laws nationwide. He declined to say how much was in the account. But if D.C. loses its ability to maintain its gun ban on constitutional grounds, it will be “fundraising Disneyland” for pro-gun groups, Paredes said, and they would have little trouble gathering the money to challenge California’s assault weapons ban, the .50-caliber ban and numerous other gun laws.

If their legal action is anything like their lobbying efforts, I dont want them anywhere near the issue.

At the very least, Hennigan said, defining the Second Amendment as an individual right would lead to years of expensive litigation, just to defend gun laws already in existence. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that the “right to bear arms” is dependent on the “militia” mentioned in the first half of the sentence. It’s only now that gun rights groups have the court they want — with a pair of new conservative justices in Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts — that Levy brought the case, he said.


Hennigan obviously is delusional. Other than Miller, there is no SCOTUS decision that draws any correlation between the 2nd Amendment and the "militia". What defines and makes up "the militia" still has not been settled, but leave it to a Brady to pass along FUD...not surprised really.

Gottlieb agreed that the .50-caliber and assault weapons ban would be logical laws to challenge in California. But he noted that the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 grandfathered in existing assault weapons owners, creating another set of legal hurdles to overturning the law.


“Technically, they didn’t ban them,” Gottlieb said. “A lot will depend on the wording coming out of D.C.”

If they didn't ban them, "assault weapons", then why cant we legally buy new ones today? Unless you are a LEO or Military, there is no way for a citizen to purchase a new "assault weapon" without running afoul of the law in CA. Gottlieb doesn't seem to "up to speed" on CA gun laws.

Thanks for sharing Anthony.

[M. Sage]

Technically, they didn't ban them. Technically, they required registration and then closed the registration process. I know, it's as good as a ban, it's the same as a ban, but it's not technically a ban. A ban would have been "turn them in."

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Technically, they didn't ban them. Technically, they required registration and then closed the registration process. I know, it's as good as a ban, it's the same as a ban, but it's not technically a ban. A ban would have been "turn them in."

They couldn't legally require folks to turn in rifles that were legal. The only reason they went with registration was because they were required to. Do you think for a second that if they had the ability they wouldn't have required folks turn in their "assault weapons"?

I understand what you are saying in a sense, but an extremely limited registration process, again open to a select few, is in effect a ban.

[M. Sage]

I agree, in effect it's a ban. Either way you slice it, it sucks.

[scottj]

This sounds like BS to me:

Nowick noted that the common law differentiated between was an “arm” and what was not: “It is very clear that the founders did not consider small-sized handguns protected ‘arms,’ but larger-sized handguns were protected ‘arms’ subject to regulation.”

Is there anything that backs this statement up?

[bwiese]

This sounds like BS to me:

Nowick noted that the common law differentiated between was an “arm” and what was not: “It is very clear that the founders did not consider small-sized handguns protected ‘arms,’ but larger-sized handguns were protected ‘arms’ subject to regulation.”

Is there anything that backs this statement up?


No, it's just Irwin going nuts.

He's afraid that 70+% of his work product relating to gun laws over the last years will be cast aside.

[Sgt Raven]

They couldn't legally require folks to turn in rifles that were legal. The only reason they went with registration was because they were required to. Do you think for a second that if they had the ability they wouldn't have required folks turn in their "assault weapons"?

I understand what you are saying in a sense, but an extremely limited registration process, again open to a select few, is in effect a ban.

If ours isn't a ban then neither is DC's because DC allowed owners to register theirs in '76 and then closed it. :p

[M. Sage]

IIRC, the case isn't about bans, though. It's about inaccessibility of permits (sound familiar?) and about the right to keep an unlocked, assembled, loaded gun at the ready in your own home.

[dixieD]

“As soon as you separate the Second Amendment from its traditional attachment to the militia, you open up a Pandora’s box,” Hennigan said. “It’s an open invitation to right-wing activist judges, and there’s a lot of them out there.”

As if there has not been a stampede of left-wing activist judges to get us in the position we are.

[hoffmang]

I think Irwin's reading my blog. I'm about the only person predicting Souter going our way...

The AW ban will be even more swiss cheese as long as Heller goes well.

-Gene

[Sgt Raven]

I think Irwin's reading my blog. I'm about the only person predicting Souter going our way...

The AW ban will be even more swiss cheese as long as Heller goes well.

-Gene

HOPE, HOPE, HOPE!:party:

[Cambo5150]

"If you try to pin these guys down on which guns laws they think are consistent with the Second Amendment, they won’t tell you.”

Umm...All you have to do is ask...we'd be happy to tell you...

[Solidmch]

Irwin. Is he not the same guy who thinks I need a gunsmith to build an AR?

[FreshTapCoke]

"If you try to pin these guys down on which guns laws they think are consistent with the Second Amendment, they won’t tell you.”


Probably because it would take a whole month.

[hoffmang]

Irwin. Is he not the same guy who thinks I need a gunsmith to build an AR?

The reason the whole Penal Code on firearms is so darn convoluted is because of Irwin. Why actually write a whole sentence when you could just refer to another section?

So, yes. That Irwin.

-Gene

[FreedomIsNotFree]

If ours isn't a ban then neither is DC's because DC allowed owners to register theirs in '76 and then closed it. :p

Its even better than that. If my understanding is correct, DC residents can "apply" for a permit, but are ALWAYS denied. That is how Heller gained standing.