Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-30-2013, 9:16 PM
acolytes's Avatar
acolytes acolytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OC
Posts: 1,914
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Alan Gura - NY 7-round limit "clearly unconstitutional"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=SQ0IX74oSuY
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-30-2013, 9:29 PM
Moonshine Moonshine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,053
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Gura is amazing. I have no doubt if the Cali AWB is thrown out in court it will be his work.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-30-2013, 9:34 PM
compulsivegunbuyer compulsivegunbuyer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,801
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

I think NY may get the smack down.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-30-2013, 9:59 PM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,770
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by compulsivegunbuyer View Post
I think NY may get the smack down.
I've only been in CA for 16 months and to the best of my knowledge the CA AWB hasn't been challenged in court, can anyone confirm/deny?

If the NY AWB was struck down on a federal level, would that verdict change anything here in CA? I assume it would just be ammo for the prosecution to challenge other state laws.

I know Woollard v. Sheridan in MD had no impact on CA 'good cause' statement requirement directly, just wondering if a federal ruling on something like this would.

Just really trying to get my head around state/federal rulings and how they impact each other.
__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up. Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFL
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:05 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,103
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligaran View Post
I've only been in CA for 16 months and to the best of my knowledge the CA AWB hasn't been challenged in court, can anyone confirm/deny?
there are multiple CA AWB challenges in progress, filed back in 2011, but the wheels of justice turn real slow.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=436300
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=429902
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:13 PM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,770
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
there are multiple CA AWB challenges in progress, filed back in 2011, but the wheels of justice turn real slow.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=436300
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=429902
Thank you for posting these. I had seen them before honestly, forgot all about them.
I guess I had assumed they were more challenging how vague the laws were. I didn't realize they were seeking a ruling on the whole AWB being unconstitutional.
__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up. Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFL
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:18 PM
scootle's Avatar
scootle scootle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,985
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
there are multiple CA AWB challenges in progress, filed back in 2011, but the wheels of justice turn real slow.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=436300
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=429902
You know... how do the above play into things when we are faced with the current AWB efforts that are being put into play both at the Fed level (Feinstein) as well as State (Yee)? Things are so complicated!

As for the 7-round magazine circus in NY... the thing that had me curious about the entire thing is how their law compels NY residents to sell all magazines of greater than 7-round capacity "out of state"... hypothetically speaking, in the event their 7-round limit stuck... and the Federal 10-round limit somehow came down... where are NY residents supposed to sell their "high capacity" magazines exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-31-2013, 8:33 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
there are multiple CA AWB challenges in progress, filed back in 2011, but the wheels of justice turn real slow.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=436300
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=429902
...and don't forget that the wheels of justice only turn when lubricated judiciously with large amounts of cash.
__________________
"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?"
"The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites."
-Anton Scalia, Supreme Court Justice
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:18 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligaran View Post
I've only been in CA for 16 months and to the best of my knowledge the CA AWB hasn't been challenged in court, can anyone confirm/deny?

If the NY AWB was struck down on a federal level, would that verdict change anything here in CA? I assume it would just be ammo for the prosecution to challenge other state laws.

I know Woollard v. Sheridan in MD had no impact on CA 'good cause' statement requirement directly, just wondering if a federal ruling on something like this would.

Just really trying to get my head around state/federal rulings and how they impact each other.
In my opinion (others may say different) the only thing that matters in California is the Supreme Court (of both the state and the US). The reason is the anti-gun feeling here is so strong that it takes an absolute authority to get anything done.

The California AWB is being challenged (it started at the end of 2011) and nothing has happened of yet, and we'll be lucky to see anything happen in our life time because it is in CAs interest to just drag it out because we can't seem to get injunctive relief.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-30-2013, 11:19 PM
Full Clip's Avatar
Full Clip Full Clip is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Playa Vista, CA
Posts: 9,112
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligaran View Post
I've only been in CA for 16 months and to the best of my knowledge the CA AWB hasn't been challenged in court, can anyone confirm/deny?
Others have answered this, but the overarching dilemma is that plainly unconstitutional laws can be passed in a matter of days/weeks -- or even hours, in the case of NY -- but then take YEARS or DECADES to undo through the courts. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens must deal with them and the a-hole legislators will be long gone/out of office by the time their foolishness is corrected, so they pay no political price for it.
__________________
“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” — Robert A. Heinlein

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds” — Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-31-2013, 9:04 AM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Full Clip View Post
Others have answered this, but the overarching dilemma is that plainly unconstitutional laws can be passed in a matter of days/weeks -- or even hours, in the case of NY -- but then take YEARS or DECADES to undo through the courts. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens must deal with them and the a-hole legislators will be long gone/out of office by the time their foolishness is corrected, so they pay no political price for it.
A VERY accurate analysis.
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-31-2013, 8:16 AM
Sig Sauerkraut's Avatar
Sig Sauerkraut Sig Sauerkraut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 126
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonshine View Post
Gura is amazing. I have no doubt if the Cali AWB is thrown out in court it will be his work.
I agree. When the anti-2A beast is finally slain it will be this man, or a man just like him, who is holding the sword.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-30-2013, 9:42 PM
kimber_ss's Avatar
kimber_ss kimber_ss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,148
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The 2A master speaks!

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-30-2013, 9:46 PM
acolytes's Avatar
acolytes acolytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: OC
Posts: 1,914
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Maybe we will hear the steam roller start up in the near future.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-01-2013, 2:55 AM
The Wingnut's Avatar
The Wingnut The Wingnut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,120
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by acolytes View Post
Maybe we will hear the steam roller start up in the near future.
It's already warmed up and idling.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wernher von Browning View Post
I just checked. Change is all I've got left, they took all the folding money.
Quote:
A people whose only powers, liberties & remedies are those strictly defined by the State is not a free people at all.
Wanted: pre-war Colt Detective Special and commercial 1911.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-30-2013, 9:48 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 10,924
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

He did preface his comment by saying Americans have an expectation of 10 rounds as opposed to 20 or 30 when referencing handguns. What I found interesting is that he asserts the magazine is an asset of the handgun and is to be included in the phrase "in common use". That he discusses the concept of magazine capacity without assigning a number, discussing the configuration of the handgun for example, is an excellent approach. He rejects, properly I think, that there is a magic and defensible number of rounds allowed.

I thought his time and place comments were interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:14 AM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,509
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
He did preface his comment by saying Americans have an expectation of 10 rounds as opposed to 20 or 30 when referencing handguns. What I found interesting is that he asserts the magazine is an asset of the handgun and is to be included in the phrase "in common use". That he discusses the concept of magazine capacity without assigning a number, discussing the configuration of the handgun for example, is an excellent approach. He rejects, properly I think, that there is a magic and defensible number of rounds allowed.

I thought his time and place comments were interesting.

One word for it. I'm going with sholling completely, but I fail to see the advantage to us of giving even a little bit.


The Raisuli
__________________
"Ignorance is a steep hill with perilous rocks at the bottom"

WTB: 9mm cylinder for Taurus Mod. 85
WTS: Model 94 AE 30-30
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-30-2013, 9:52 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Time and place was interesting. And I would agree to an extent. You dont carry an AR in Central Park, normally. You should not, and probably do not, need a 30 round mag there. Only thing I see biting butt is like, NY imposing 10 round limits inside city limits for pistols.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:02 PM
Country Woodpecker Country Woodpecker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 95
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

So when it's mentioned of it "getting struck down" how long can we expect for this to occur? Will it be pushed front and center or drag out over years?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-31-2013, 4:55 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Country Woodpecker View Post
Will it be pushed front and center or drag out over years?
Yes & Yes.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:23 PM
odysseus's Avatar
odysseus odysseus is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NorCal
Posts: 10,372
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Clearly the recent NY law is unconstitutional and will face Court arguments.

The NY politicians putting through this horrible law know this. But then they know that it will be groups fighting for our Rights that will have to put up money to fight it and this takes time, and they have the taxpayers money to dip into pay for their end. So they don't care, it is all political theater.
__________________
"Just leave me alone, I know what to do." - Kimi Raikkonen

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.' and that `Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.'
- John Adams

http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:28 PM
kyoseki's Avatar
kyoseki kyoseki is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 81
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Cuomo has said he's a gun owner...

... anyone else suspect that the only reason they went with a 7 round limit is because that gun is likely a 1911 compact?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:34 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,089
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I like Gura but his time place and manner restriction comment make me believe that we'll eventually have to find a second legal superstar - someone less willing to bend to the idea of the state being able to limit how much ammo you can carry.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:53 PM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
I like Gura but his time place and manner restriction comment make me believe that we'll eventually have to find a second legal superstar - someone less willing to bend to the idea of the state being able to limit how much ammo you can carry.
Political grandstanding doesn't win you battles in court.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-30-2013, 11:09 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,089
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
Political grandstanding doesn't win you battles in court.
Surrendering in advance emboldens gun grabbers and assures restrictions on the size and number of magazines you can carry on a LTC will be put forward by those fighting carry rights. After all the god of gun rights says it's reasonable and constitutional. Bottom line that was an extremely stupid thing to say.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-30-2013, 11:26 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,497
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Surrendering in advance emboldens gun grabbers and assures restrictions on the size and number of magazines you can carry on a LTC will be put forward by those fighting carry rights. After all the god of gun rights says it's reasonable and constitutional. Bottom line that was an extremely stupid thing to say.
Go read Sun Tzu and re-evaluate your statement.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-30-2013, 11:26 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Surrendering in advance emboldens gun grabbers and assures restrictions on the size and number of magazines you can carry on a LTC will be put forward by those fighting carry rights.
You mean we've already won the right to carry a loaded handgun in public in California. Wow?! I missed that.

There is a time and place for many arguments and you're missing something.

It may never be legal to carry a loaded AR with a 30 round magazine in Manhattan while you have the right to carry a Glock 17 with a 17 round magazine.

To argue the opposite is... challenging.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-30-2013, 11:59 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Surrendering in advance emboldens gun grabbers and assures restrictions on the size and number of magazines you can carry on a LTC will be put forward by those fighting carry rights. After all the god of gun rights says it's reasonable and constitutional. Bottom line that was an extremely stupid thing to say.
Same thing he did during Heller oral arguments. Have a listen for yourself, he is about the least confident person I have ever heard at SCOTUS oral arguments. This guy is no "rock star", he just got lucky, and had a great deal of amicus support. If you ever meet him you might ask him what would have happened had Sandra Day O'Connor not retired before Heller was heard. It was certainly not foreseeable when he filed his case.

I think most people that have actually studied the court realize what a disaster Heller would have been if that hadn't happened. Which of course is the reason the NRA hadn't filed a similar suit. The little known truth here is that thanks to Gura we nearly lost the RKBA forever. But, of course that isn't how history played out...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-01-2013, 7:53 AM
1859sharps 1859sharps is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,775
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sholling View Post
Surrendering in advance emboldens gun grabbers and assures restrictions on the size and number of magazines you can carry on a LTC will be put forward by those fighting carry rights. After all the god of gun rights says it's reasonable and constitutional. Bottom line that was an extremely stupid thing to say.
"we" really need to come to terms/peace with the FACT that some limitations on our 2nd amendment rights WILL be held constitutional. doesn't matter if we agree or not, if the holding is right or not, it will happen. And we WILL have to live with it.

my personal feeling is most "gun control" laws would/will pass constitutional tests. Things like back ground checks, and buying through dealers due to the interstate commerce clause. maybe even 1 handgun in 30 days, some magazine limits may pass muster. etc

We are only now reaching the limits of what will pass muster. I think California hit and crossed that line around 1999. DC and Chicago passed those lines years earlier. for example, but many, many places in the US they aren't even close to the limits yet.

I actually disagree the vast majority of gun control laws, even if they do pass "muster", but I came to terms long, long ago the reality is if there can be limits on the 1st, there can be limits on the 2nd too.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-31-2013, 12:27 AM
nicki's Avatar
nicki nicki is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,152
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default As much as I hate to admit it.

Alan Gura's strategy of going one piece at a time and building a solid foundation is the way to go.

We are in new constitutional territory where the federal courts are actually applying the 2nd amendment to state and local governments.

This Supreme court is not an activist court, as such, they are not going to make broad rulings and they will avoid cases that will do so.

To me the court has signaled they want "clean plantiffs" and "narrowly tailored clean cases" in 2nd amendment challenges.

The Supreme court obviously knows that there are 20,000 plus gun laws across the country and by selectively picking cases, they can define the scope of the 2nd amendment without invalidating what they see as reasonable gun regulations.

Like it or not, Alan has to get "5" justices to agree with him on any one point. Getting "low hanging fruit" first builds the legal foundation to work our way up the tree for 'higher fruit".

The court is well aware of what happened post Roe vs. Wade with the wholesale invalidation of abortion laws all across the United States and something tells me that the Conservatives on this court don't want to do something similar with gun laws.

A key phase from Justice Scalia of "ordered Liberty" strikes me as the court saying, we will deal with 2nd amendment cases, but don't push us to where we don't want to go.

The court will stay away from cases that can go sideways on other issues.

The "Willits" case from Oregon is a perfect example.

Here the Oregon Supreme court told the sheriffs of Oregon that they had to issue CCW permits to medical marijuana card holders and the sheriffs were complaining that they would be violating federal law.

The case was appealed to the US Supreme court and the court denied cert.

That case could have opened up not only 2nd amendment issues, but "Commerce Clause", 9th, 10th and 14th amendment issues.

While the court is showing restraint in overturning laws, I think the court will take a "dim view" of newly enacted gun laws that are counter to "Heller".

When state and local governments make laws that are counter to the "Heller ruling", the Supreme court has to have a smack down if for no other reason that to force state and local governments to respect the federal courts.

Nicki

Last edited by nicki; 01-31-2013 at 12:41 AM.. Reason: rephase
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:27 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 823
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

There is a fundamental imbalance in the system.
Stupid/unethical politicians and churn out unconstitutional laws several orders of magnitude faster that the judicial system can overturn them.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-30-2013, 10:38 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was surprised as I was unaware that Heller involved a .22 9 shot revolver...
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-31-2013, 2:14 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The courts will have a very hard time if they want to avoid confronting the elephant in the room of nearly every police officer's pistol and the standard US military pistol since the 1980s having a 15+ round capacity.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-02-2013, 1:47 PM
retiredAFcop retiredAFcop is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,975
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
The courts will have a very hard time if they want to avoid confronting the elephant in the room of nearly every police officer's pistol and the standard US military pistol since the 1980s having a 15+ round capacity.
Gura has wisely suggested that the SCOTUS "in common use" standard be applied to time and place restrictions on magazine capacity, as well as amounts of ammunition carried in public, while clearly allowing citizens to have whatever magazines and ammunition they choose at home, at the range, and when traveling between.

This sounds very reasonable to most people, and allows the antis to think they are placing themselves into a position to control what magazines and ammunition we carry in public, even if they can't control what we have in private.

I would suspect that the follow up is to apply police and military carry standards for magazines and ammunition to armed citizens, since those are standards that are "in common use" - this means that if the local PD allows officers to carry three regular capacity magazines with a handgun, then citizens would have to be allowed to carry the same amount.
__________________
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are an American who is not subject to the UCMJ, then you are a civilian. It is disrespectful to our military members to claim otherwise.

Demanding that LEOs be held to a high standard of professional conduct is a show of respect for the LE profession. Let's all be respectful.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-31-2013, 5:28 AM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,055
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Let's assume just for the sake of argument that Gura is substandard in orals. Honestly, who cares? To me it seems orals are mostly for show - and/or to telegraph where a court is going on an issue (less likely).

It's the stuff that is written down and argued in the briefings that seem to matter most at the appellate level - which may be why Clarence Thomas doesn't even participate in the orals (made national news when he apparently told/made a joke to another justice during orals a few weeks back).


And on damaging statements by Gura? I'm not sure they were damaging, but we have to understand that we are a very small and somewhat specialized segment of society. I doubt 5% of the US population know who Alan Gura is or could pick him out in a line-up. Probably about the same percentage know what SAF is and what it does.

Gura could make all sorts of irresponsible statements and it wouldn't make a ripple in the media - unless he were saying that the Heller and McDonald opinions were wrong and the SCOTUS should have decided for DC and Chicago.

And what Gura says in the press (or in court) is not evidence to be presented in future cases he litigates.

It is kind of weird that he could be such a pivotal force in an issue which is under such intense discussion and still be a media nobody. I think he should treasure that relative anonymity.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-31-2013, 6:31 AM
phamkl phamkl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 553
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I also don't really like that statement since it could be taken out of context easily, and I think it already has right here. My understanding of that comment is that high cap mags, that is actually large capacity magazines such as the 33 rounder for Glocks, would reasonably be restricted at certain times and places. Gura clearly states that standard capacity is in common use and therefore constitutionally protected.

Last edited by phamkl; 01-31-2013 at 8:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:07 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 791
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phamkl View Post
I also don't really like that statement since it could be taken out of context easily, and I think it already has right here. My understanding of that comment is that high cap mags, that is actually large capacity magazines such as the 33 rounder for Glocks, would reasonably be restricted at certain times and places. Gura clearly states that standard capacity is in common use and therefore constitutionally protected.
his comments sound like he's acknowledging "reasonable restrictions" a phrase used in the heller ruling iirc, but setting up the debate to focus around what the firearm came with. time will tell but denying access vs regulating seem to be two different things and might be what we'll see in the later stages of this game. dangerous and unuasual may be regulated but not banned, high capacity 50 round or 100 round drums may be classified and defines as a regulated item but not eliminated.... time and manner surrounding them might be reasonable.

we'll see.


I care to differ gura may have been a little intimidated in heller but some of his later court cases he seems to be much quicker at coming back against the justices and his sharp tongue in his briefs as well as his come backs are far from timmid
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Quote:
....."there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” and the public interest always weighs in favor of protecting constitutional rights. See Joelner v. Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004).
I VOTE and contribute to organizations who share my pursuit of freedom
1991
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-31-2013, 12:15 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 10,924
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
his comments sound like he's acknowledging "reasonable restrictions" a phrase used in the heller ruling iirc, but setting up the debate to focus around what the firearm came with. time will tell but denying access vs regulating seem to be two different things and might be what we'll see in the later stages of this game. dangerous and unuasual may be regulated but not banned, high capacity 50 round or 100 round drums may be classified and defines as a regulated item but not eliminated.... time and manner surrounding them might be reasonable.
In short, a 30 round Glock magazine at the range is OK, for defense of one's home is OK. But perhaps not walking about downtown.

What I find interesting is the approach - no reliance on an arbitrary number and the creative "time & place" argument. I'm capable of an automatic dislike of all lawyers, but sometimes I do marvel at the way their swampy little minds work.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:12 AM
Chatterbox Chatterbox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I found his point to be moot. If we're discussing carrying AR-15s in Central Park, does he think that having a 10 round magazine in it will somehow appease the fearful crowd and be accepted as normative?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:24 AM
Marthor's Avatar
Marthor Marthor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Left CA to OH
Posts: 1,299
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

He was arguing that home possession or going to the range with 20 round magazines was common use, but he also said that going down the street in a city is a different circumstance...

Is he arguing for mag capacity limits on CCW permits? That surprises me!

He talked about physics of how many rounds can fit depending on the bullet diameter. If you banned extended magazines, you'd still have your 33 round 9mm Glock. I don't see magazine limits as viable even on the street. So, I guess I disagree with Gura on that.
__________________
Marthor's Gun Page... on facebook
Single Action Shooting Society (SASS) Member #93491
National Rifle Association (NRA) Life Member
Ohio Concealed Handgun License
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:03 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.