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
  #41  
Old 01-25-2013, 11:01 AM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,302
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

who would hide anything in their house? Like I said, boating accident, not hidden
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-25-2013, 11:07 AM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RuskieShooter View Post
To those saying this is illegal: you are right but it doesn't matter.

If this passes...

The state will access the AW registry records and send uniformed police to those residences to confiscate the now illegal "assault rifles".

Most will scream and holler, but to protect themselves and their families, they will turn them over and vow to fight this in the courts.

It will take months for this to make its way through the legal system, and during that time your rifle(s) will be turned into little pools of molten aluminum.

The courts will rule this was unconstitutional and that the rifles need to be returned or the owner properly compensated. Because it was already destroyed, they will have to pay the compensation.

The state will then move money from education/first responders/parks to pay for this. Next, they will go to the taxpayers and claim that to keep these services running they need another tax increase.

The sheep of this state will vote in the tax increase (it's for the children!) and you will have paid for your rifle(s) twice; once at the store and again at tax time.

Our handlers in Sacramento will view this as win/win. They get rid of all the "scarey" rifles and get a permanent tax hike as well.

Don't think this will happen? Look at how the bullet train to nowhere keeps getting funded...

-Ruskie
Unfortunately you're probably right.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-25-2013, 11:14 AM
PhillyGunner PhillyGunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Back East
Posts: 744
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

To all the lawyers on the forum... and those smarter than I... could the mere proposal of this (law-edited)bill constitute a case for incorporation? Seems like this bill violates both Section 9 and the 10th Amendment and since we have bills pending at the Federal level that clearly state the Federal suppositions must avoid being de-facto, even SUGGESTING de-facto law seems unconstitutional to me. IMHO

Last edited by PhillyGunner; 01-25-2013 at 11:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-25-2013, 12:20 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I don't see why they would have to compensate anybody. Seizure of illegal items never needs compensation. A charge of "unlawful possession of a firearm" will be treated the same as "unlawful possession of a controlled substance" or "unlawful possession of explosives".
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-25-2013, 12:27 PM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rosamond, Ca
Posts: 10,575
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by killmime1234 View Post
I think they consistently underestimate how many hundreds of thousands of these guns are in circulation. The state does not have the money to compensate for all the "grandfathered" guns.

At least he can tell his constituents that he tried to save the beh-behs.
Compensate? Who the hell thinks they are going to compensate anyone?

I foresee two options at the most.

#1. Remove your "grandfathered" firearm from this state and store it in another.
#2. Deliver your "grandfathered" firearm into the waiting hands of your local LEO to be carted off to the foundry to be melted into re-bar to air in rebuilding CA's aging infrastructure. You will receive a hearty handshake and a thank you for your donation from the representative of our lords and masters.
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-25-2013, 12:29 PM
PhillyGunner PhillyGunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Back East
Posts: 744
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

randian- section 9 of the constitution states "... no ex-post facto Law shall be passed." This means you can't make illegal what was legal. How can an item be both illegal and legal at the same time?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-25-2013, 12:37 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGunner View Post
randian- section 9 of the constitution states "... no ex-post facto Law shall be passed." This means you can't make illegal what was legal.
No, it means that I can't make your previously legal possession illegal. I can make your current and future possession illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:03 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 7,824
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
No, it means that I can't make your previously legal possession illegal. I can make your current and future possession illegal.
You need to read up on what the rest of the universe calls "the law".
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:06 PM
HiveDR. HiveDR. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: california
Posts: 204
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

As a Ret. LEO I say good luck collecting these guns. All I would say is "their not here, you can not come in my house, come back with a warrant and you can see for yourself". Next be on the phone to a lawyer and be ready to comply when my door gets kicked in a few hours later. This is a "concern" we have lived with as RAW owners for 20+ years and I am sure nearly everyone has their own plan on what and how they will address this issue.

Me, I can't give them what is out of their reach, and no, I would not use the fell in the ocean bit. Because when it is found to be unconstitutional and thrown out I will want to use my RAWs in Ca. again. But then again by that time I will be a resident of a state that believes in the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:09 PM
PhillyGunner PhillyGunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Back East
Posts: 744
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

First, sorry guys, noticed in post #44 I was typing faster than thinking and used 'de-facto' twice... meant ex-post facto.

Guess I'm still confused, randian. I believe the concept of ex-post facto to mean exactly that... that a current possession can not, now, be made illegal when it was previously legal. It does not however cover future possessions, but if the language of the bill itself makes the bill unconstitutional, then in theory at least, it can't become law and would have no bearing on current or future possessions.

That is why I am curious if a bill that is so clearly unconstitutional in its very suggestion, that the protected group (Californians) could take a case to the California State Supreme to require Incorporation... California's legal system to follow the limit of the Federal Law on the subject and make CA's gun control law subject to the Constitution and current Federal Law.

But I'm no lawyer, and certainly no Constitutional scholar... just thinking through my fingers. If I have this all wrong, please continue to set me straight.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:20 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
You need to read up on what the rest of the universe calls "the law".
I did. What did I say that was wrong? If I pass a law, effective today, that possession of X is unlawful, I cannot charge you with that crime if you performed the proscribed act last week. A law that allowed that is ex post facto. I sure as hell can prosecute you today, if you were in possession today. That is not ex post facto, notwithstanding the fact that you lawfully possessed the item last week. I am prosecuting you today for your conduct today, not your conduct last week.

Furthermore, it is well settled law that contraband, which X is under this hypothetical law, need not be compensated if it is seized by law enforcement. Why else do you think drug raids aren't compensable events? I don't recall compensation being paid when anti-drug laws were first being passed. The courts were perfectly fine letting existing lawful property become contraband, and not compensating its owners for seizure.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:22 PM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rosamond, Ca
Posts: 10,575
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
No, it means that I can't make your previously legal possession illegal. I can make your current and future possession illegal.
Not quite so. What it actually means is that you cannot be punished for something you did, which was not a crime when you did it, because of a law that was passed which makes it a crime to do that same thing now.

If they make it a crime to own an AW starting on 1 Jan 2014, then you cannot own an AW on 1 Jan 2014 without breaking the law.

Example: Cocaine was once 100% legal to own and use in the US. On the day before it became illegal, you could have a kilo sitting on your dining room table, and you could be shoveling it up your nose to your hearts content. On the day that it actually became illegal, if you were caught in possession of that very same kilo of cocaine, you would be arrested, taken to jail, and tried in court for the crime of cocaine possession. No grandfathering that kilo of cocaine because it was pre-ban cocaine.
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:26 PM
RMP91's Avatar
RMP91 RMP91 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 3,661
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Registration = (Eventual) Confiscation.

I was STUPID to think they wouldn't stoop this low when I made my "What's wrong with Registration" thread...
__________________
Do what all great men would do: Tuck your head between your legs and kiss your *** goodbye. -Jake71

There's lots of players on the team. Not everyone gets to play "Quarterback". -CEDaytonaRydr

Last edited by RMP91; 01-25-2013 at 1:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:29 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGunner View Post
Guess I'm still confused, randian. I believe the concept of ex-post facto to mean exactly that... that a current possession can not, now, be made illegal when it was previously legal.
The law wouldn't make you a criminal for what you do today, it would make you a criminal for what you are doing on the date it becomes effective (which cannot be before the date it was passed).

I don't understand your confusion.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:30 PM
big red big red is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 482
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

We are continuely fighting politicians on their ground so why not take it away from them? How about suing them personally and working to drag them out from under the color of their jobs? How about recall petitions using volunteers to get signatures? How about researching legal cases to file criminal or legal sanctions against people. tie them up in legitimate legal issues so they don't have the time for this crap and let others know they are being watched and it could happen to them. If we get one then people with other issues (non-gun) might jump on board to mail those who are anti-gun if those poiticians just happen to be pissing other people like deep pocket old fashion farmers. we need to change our attack posture and take them out of their game rather than fighting them on their ground. Bankrupt a legislaturer with legitimate lawsuits and the rest will run. Remember we are fighting cowards who would not take up a gun to defend this country or their families.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:36 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by randian
No, it means that I can't make your previously legal possession illegal. I can make your current and future possession illegal.
Not quite so. What it actually means is that you cannot be punished for something you did, which was not a crime when you did it, because of a law that was passed which makes it a crime to do that same thing now.
How is that not a repeat, in different words, of what I said? "make your current possession illegal" and "make it a crime to do that now" look like synonyms to me. You know, current == now? Your "previously legal possession" is "what you did that wasn't a crime when you did it".
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:38 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 7,824
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
I did. What did I say that was wrong? If I pass a law, effective today, that possession of X is unlawful, I cannot charge you with that crime if you performed the proscribed act last week. A law that allowed that is ex post facto. I sure as hell can prosecute you today, if you were in possession today. That is not ex post facto, notwithstanding the fact that you lawfully possessed the item last week. I am prosecuting you today for your conduct today, not your conduct last week.

Furthermore, it is well settled law that contraband, which X is under this hypothetical law, need not be compensated if it is seized by law enforcement. Why else do you think drug raids aren't compensable events? I don't recall compensation being paid when anti-drug laws were first being passed. The courts were perfectly fine letting existing lawful property become contraband, and not compensating its owners for seizure.
What planet are you getting this information from?
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:39 PM
JSolie's Avatar
JSolie JSolie is offline
Snoot lickin' good!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stitchnicklas View Post
4A rights violation would be a billion dollar lawsuit
per each!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:43 PM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,730
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Can one of you legal eagles clarify something for me.
I would assume that this new bill would need to permanently amend all others that have a grandfather clause to make them apply?

I guess what I'm asking is this: If there's a bill that says 'no more grandfather clauses' and another that has a grandfather clause, which trumps which? How does that work?
__________________
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
  #60  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:44 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 31,445
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Just added the link to the bill - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201320140AB174 - to the first post.

If you would kindly follow that link, you would see a tab at the far right "Comments to Author". That's a feature of the new presentation of the bill-tracking software.

Please use that provided access to the office of the legislator. I wouldn't bother saying any more than 'I oppose this bill'.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum - most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.

Heller was 2008. McDonald was 2010. Things started getting bad with GCA-1968.
It takes time to unwind 40 years of bad law.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:46 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaligaran View Post
I guess what I'm asking is this: If there's a bill that says 'no more grandfather clauses' and another that has a grandfather clause, which trumps which? How does that work?
Order of passage. Later one controls if they are in conflict.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:49 PM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,730
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
Order of passage. Later one controls if they are in conflict.
Thanks radian.

Damn that's just low...
__________________
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
  #63  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:51 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
What planet are you getting this information from?
If I'm wrong, say why I'm wrong. Then I can stop being wrong. Responding to my every post with vacuous insinuations is abusive and ignore-worthy.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-25-2013, 1:57 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 7,824
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
If I'm wrong, say why I'm wrong. Then I can stop being wrong. Responding to my every post with vacuous insinuations is abusive and ignore-worthy.
You haven't proven where you're RIGHT. Until you cite proven case law where an example like this has been upheld by SCOTUS, you have no validity either.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-25-2013, 2:06 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
You haven't proven where you're RIGHT. Until you cite proven case law where an example like this has been upheld by SCOTUS, you have no validity either.
What the heck are you talking about? I don't have to cite SCOTUS to repeat what ex post facto means, nor do I have to cite SCOTUS regarding what actually happened when other lawful property (drugs) was made contraband, namely that owners were not compensated for that. I also don't have to cite SCOTUS to make an analogy regarding drugs and guns, namely that if governments didn't have to compensate owners for making drugs contraband, they don't have to compensate owners for making guns contraband.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-25-2013, 2:25 PM
Swagman00's Avatar
Swagman00 Swagman00 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: East bay Nor-Cal (Not Oakland!)
Posts: 3,847
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

If ANYTHING like this ever makes it to law (dear god forbid the thought), I will personally spend several hours to cut the chunk of metal with the serial number on it out of every firearm I own and tell them every gun has been disposed of.

I dare them to search my property. They have a better chance of finding Jimmy Hoffa.

Of this I swear to the end of time.
__________________
Bojack needs a season 3 already...



Anyway...here's a dearth of reasoning to ponder: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Guns
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-25-2013, 2:32 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 7,824
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
What the heck are you talking about? I don't have to cite SCOTUS to repeat what ex post facto means, nor do I have to cite SCOTUS regarding what actually happened when other lawful property (drugs) was made contraband, namely that owners were not compensated for that. I also don't have to cite SCOTUS to make an analogy regarding drugs and guns, namely that if governments didn't have to compensate owners for making drugs contraband, they don't have to compensate owners for making guns contraband.
So you don't have a case law to back up your assertion that they can make something illegal that was legal, and not compensate for it.....
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-25-2013, 3:02 PM
Rusty_Rebar Rusty_Rebar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 259
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Ex Post Facto would seem to apply, but who knows, as has been stated in this thread, it will take months to years to get through court and by then your RAW will have been a soda can 10 times over. Fact of the matter is, California has done this in the past with the SKS. I am not sure if that was later overruled, but lots of ppl lost their guns in that move.

As to your point about a court case to stop this. A bill has no force of law, it has not passed, so no court is going to take it up. After it passes, and when someone with standing challenges it, is when a court can look at it. Probably start in federal court, appeal to 9th circuit, then to SCOUTS -- years.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-25-2013, 3:11 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
So you don't have a case law to back up your assertion that they can make something illegal that was legal, and not compensate for it.....
I assert they can, because they have, and still do. It may be that a takings challenge to drug prohibition has never been made. No compensation has ever been paid by any government for loss of property by enforcement of a drug law. I doubt compensation has ever been paid for enforcement of any law deeming a class of property contraband.

SCOTUS said in Whipple v. Martinson "There can be no question of the authority of the State in the exercise of its police power to regulate the administration, sale, prescription, and use of dangerous and habit-forming drugs..." Sounds like a statement of near-unbounded authority to ban possession of previously lawful property, which is what anti-drug acts are and were.

Why would you think guns can get better treatment?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-25-2013, 4:05 PM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 10,896
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Oaths of office should be revised to include acknowledgment of the penalties for breaching the oath.

"I do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and hereby submit to a sentence of no less than 99 years in federal pound-me-in-the-*** prison should I fail to adhere to these terms I do so swear"...etc.
__________________
Whatever the question, Cilantro is the answer.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-25-2013, 4:43 PM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,501
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Sanity - I predict a booming firearms storage business in either Nevada or Arizona until this gets hashed out by the 9 black robes if this becomes law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HiveDR. View Post
As a Ret. LEO I say good luck collecting these guns. All I would say is "their not here, you can not come in my house, come back with a warrant and you can see for yourself". Next be on the phone to a lawyer and be ready to comply when my door gets kicked in a few hours later. This is a "concern" we have lived with as RAW owners for 20+ years and I am sure nearly everyone has their own plan on what and how they will address this issue.

Me, I can't give them what is out of their reach, and no, I would not use the fell in the ocean bit. Because when it is found to be unconstitutional and thrown out I will want to use my RAWs in Ca. again. But then again by that time I will be a resident of a state that believes in the Constitution.
__________________
"I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." Matthew Quigley
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-25-2013, 4:44 PM
jeffrice6's Avatar
jeffrice6 jeffrice6 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 3,655
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ptoguy2002 View Post
Sums it up perfectly!!!
__________________
WTB: S&W 617 4" 10 shot Pre-Lock
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-25-2013, 4:50 PM
CBruce's Avatar
CBruce CBruce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,994
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
This guy is the reason that I propose a Constitutional Amendment permanently banning ANY author/co-author of ANY legislation found to be in violation of the Constitution.

There should be VERY SEVERE penalties for trying to violate the highest law of our land. These "servants" continually dance around the grey areas of the Constitution, and if they go too far, they just get to try again and again until the courts either allow their transgression or the people run out of money to fight in the courts.

This should be a "one and done" offense. Serving in politics is a PRIVILEDGE, not a RIGHT. Using that privilege to violate other's rights should have severe repercussions. I would even suggest that willfully violating the Constitution is a form of treason, but that's a future amendment.
Make the state liable for any court costs for laws tossed out as unconstiutional by the courts and then let the legistlation police itself.

I don't expect every individual representative to be constitutional scholars, but there's enough people working to figure out what's what.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-25-2013, 4:53 PM
CBruce's Avatar
CBruce CBruce is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,994
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
I assert they can, because they have, and still do. It may be that a takings challenge to drug prohibition has never been made. No compensation has ever been paid by any government for loss of property by enforcement of a drug law. I doubt compensation has ever been paid for enforcement of any law deeming a class of property contraband.

SCOTUS said in Whipple v. Martinson "There can be no question of the authority of the State in the exercise of its police power to regulate the administration, sale, prescription, and use of dangerous and habit-forming drugs..." Sounds like a statement of near-unbounded authority to ban possession of previously lawful property, which is what anti-drug acts are and were.

Why would you think guns can get better treatment?
Because people legally own those guns right now. I seriously doubt anyone owns drugs from before they were made illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-25-2013, 4:56 PM
X-NewYawker's Avatar
X-NewYawker X-NewYawker is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 5,995
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Hiding or non-compiance are NOT an option. Defeating the bills -- all of them is the only hope -- how many CA residents (and guys I know in other states) never registered or modified their rifles after various new laws and the AWB -- and only recently with all this new activity told me that realized their guns have been felonies for nearly 20 years!

Its a lot easier to MAKE us into criminals and then wait for us to show up at the range than kick down our doors.
and safer for cops.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-25-2013, 4:57 PM
X-NewYawker's Avatar
X-NewYawker X-NewYawker is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 5,995
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

and if they make a gun illegal then you won an illegal gun. They can take it and shove it up your *** if they want.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-25-2013, 5:40 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBruce View Post
Because people legally own those guns right now. I seriously doubt anyone owns drugs from before they were made illegal.
In 1924 there were people who legally possessed heroin. That year, the Feds made possession of heroin a felony. Those people were not compensated for their loss.

Fast forward to 2013. There are people who legally possess a certain class of gun. If possession of those guns is made a crime, I expect they will not be compensated for their loss.

The analogy is exact. Why do you have trouble with it?
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-25-2013, 5:48 PM
mosinnagantm9130's Avatar
mosinnagantm9130 mosinnagantm9130 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Places
Posts: 8,068
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
In 1924 there were people who legally possessed heroin. That year, the Feds made possession of heroin a felony. Those people were not compensated for their loss.

Fast forward to 2013. There are people who legally possess a certain class of gun. If possession of those guns is made a crime, I expect they will not be compensated for their loss.

The analogy is exact. Why do you have trouble with it?
The analogy is not exact. Drug use is not a fundamental right.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodEyeSniper View Post
My neighbors think I'm a construction worker named Bruce.

Little do they know that's just my stripper outfit and name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopperX View Post
I am currently cleaning it and I noticed when I squeeze the snake this white paste like substance comes out. What the heck is this crap?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff L View Post
Don't D&T a virgin milsurp rifle. You'll burn in collector hell.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-25-2013, 6:01 PM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 7,824
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
I assert they can, because they have, and still do. It may be that a takings challenge to drug prohibition has never been made. No compensation has ever been paid by any government for loss of property by enforcement of a drug law. I doubt compensation has ever been paid for enforcement of any law deeming a class of property contraband.

SCOTUS said in Whipple v. Martinson "There can be no question of the authority of the State in the exercise of its police power to regulate the administration, sale, prescription, and use of dangerous and habit-forming drugs..." Sounds like a statement of near-unbounded authority to ban possession of previously lawful property, which is what anti-drug acts are and were.

Why would you think guns can get better treatment?
The weapons in question were explicitly LEGAL prior to this, not just "not illegal". This bill attempts to remove KNOWN EXEMPTED LEGAL items of value, currently in possession of the owners, that were, up to the point a bill such as this passes, not only legal, but KNOWN to be legal and documented as such.

Even the notorious SKS issue was a forced buyback, not a confiscation without compensation.

Stop spreading FUD.
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: I cant wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-25-2013, 6:11 PM
Peter.Steele's Avatar
Peter.Steele Peter.Steele is offline
Irritable Smut Lord
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: .
Posts: 7,367
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mosinnagantm9130 View Post
The analogy is not exact. Drug use is not a fundamental right.


No, but the right to be free of unreasonable seizures in your person, house, papers and effects certainly is a fundamental right.
__________________
NRA Life Member

No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic68220_5.gif
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 7:49 PM.




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.