View Single Post
  #159  
Old 11-07-2013, 7:08 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,540
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
Sounds like an argument that is less about the roster, and more about providing a means for Joe-nonActiveLEObutSkilledWithaGun-Average to also get an exemption.

Kind of like the 1in30 dealer sale rule for handguns...
You don't need an exception to buy a book that isn't on the "not unsafe book" roster. I think the proper analysis is that firearms should be presumptively lawful, and the State should have the burden of showing with clear and convincing evidence that a particular model is "dangerous" {defined in parallel with obscenity; devoid of artistic, historical, or self defense value, etc.}. So a claymore mine is probably going to be an easy win, but it's going to be up to the State to prove that Glock gen4s are "dangerous," not our job to pay Glock to prove to DOJ that the gun meets arbitrary lines drawn in the sand by folks that have never touched a firearm.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elSquid View Post
Serious question: when can I expect all the listed restrictions on firearms to be invalidated based on Cooper v Mitchell Bros?
We only wish. Bow-chicka-bow-bow.
__________________
Nationwide Master List of Current 2A Cases, courtesy of Al Norris @ TFL.

Reloading Clubs: SF, East Bay

Case Status: Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster). SF v. 44Mag (Mag Parts Kits). Bauer v. Harris (DROS Fees). Davis v. LA (CCW policy). Jackson v. SF (Ammo/Storage). Teixeira (FFL Zoning). First Unitarian v. NSA (Privacy). Silvester (Waiting Period). Schoepf (DROS Delay). Haynie (AW ban). SFVPOA v. SF (10+ mag possession ban). Bear in Public: Drake (3CA); Moore (7CA); Richards, Peruta, McKay (9CA).