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 > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3921  
Old 09-16-2017, 11:51 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,268
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The NRA which you are apparently a member is not a gun rights organization, nor was it founded as one - and cannot be a gun rights organiztion without losing 1/2 of its membership overnight - and losing its favored status as a member of the establishment - the Uniparty.
You must have been in a coma since the "REVOLT AT CINCINNATI" at the 1977 ANNUAL MEETING. When Harlon Carter turned the previously "markmanship" organization. When NRA went from 1 million members to the FIVE MILLION MEMBERS it has today. BECAUSE it is the preeminent gun rights organization in the world.

Reply With Quote
  #3922  
Old 10-21-2017, 7:15 PM
Drathen Drathen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Joaquin County
Posts: 97
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...-tsac-CPRC.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #3923  
Old 10-21-2017, 9:48 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,280
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

How do the Fed's know a purchasers history? States with no registry - How do they know purchase history?

How does purchase history imply current possession?

Does not a 'win' here lead to national registry? Outside of showing up armed at the time of purchase does one provide proof of prior purchase and current ownership/possession?
Reply With Quote
  #3924  
Old 10-21-2017, 10:13 PM
USMCM16A2 USMCM16A2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,007
iTrader: 96 / 100%
Default

Good read. Just hope SCOTUS will pick up the case. A2
Reply With Quote
  #3925  
Old 10-22-2017, 11:26 AM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,220
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
How do the Fed's know a purchasers history? States with no registry - How do they know purchase history?

How does purchase history imply current possession?

Does not a 'win' here lead to national registry? Outside of showing up armed at the time of purchase does one provide proof of prior purchase and current ownership/possession?

They do and they don't know. If buying from a dealer, they only know that a NICS check was run, whether a long gun or a handgun was in question, and the result of the check. The law currently allows them to retain that information for certain period of time.

What they don't know is if the sale actually took place. Maybe you changed your mind after the NICS was run. Maybe you didn't have the money to make the purchase, maybe you wised off to the clerk and he threw you out of the shop. etc.

If you are in a state that allows private purchases, nobody except you and the buyer/seller knows anything. Unless one of you tells other people about it.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #3926  
Old 10-23-2017, 2:32 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 26,976
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
How do the Fed's know a purchasers history? States with no registry - How do they know purchase history?
ATF all the time goes over FFL books in every state just for compliance.

And while they can't track "everything" they can investigate "one person at
a time" , could hit all FFLs and look for Joe Blow and do "back traces".


Quote:
How does purchase history imply current possession?
In CA, it doesn't necessarily. However showing past unrevoked eligibility to own esp with a COE should be useful for accelerating 2nd ... Nth purchases.

Note this case is NOT challenging 1st time wait etc. This is challenging CA's ARBITRARY DELAYS when NO REASON TO DO SO WHEN THERE'S INSTANT FEEDBACK, person has a gun and/or COE, etc. It will not 'harm' anyone else.

Remember, many people incl myself in California perfectly legally own a herd of unregistered firearms
that were legally acquired/possessed before certain key cutoff dates (1991, 1998, 2014).
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #3927  
Old 10-28-2017, 11:22 AM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Auburn
Posts: 1,068
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Looks like things are starting to heat up a bit:

http://markets.businessinsider.com/n...ers-1005877680

Quote:
Brandon Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case as well as the executive director of institutional plaintiff The Calguns Foundation, said that the briefs made excellent arguments and further supported the petition for review. “The Supreme Court has everything that it needs in a case with an excellent trial record teed up here to save the Second Amendment from hostile lower courts.”
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

If your opinion isn't based in reality, reality won't change your opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #3928  
Old 10-28-2017, 11:43 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,280
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Logistically, how does one prove prior possesion to bypass a check for a new purchase? Wait for ATF to hit up FFL files?

You see the point? Proof of possesion is no trivial matter so it moots the point of the case.
Reply With Quote
  #3929  
Old 10-28-2017, 12:06 PM
Redeyedrider's Avatar
Redeyedrider Redeyedrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Auburn
Posts: 1,068
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I suppose it would be reasonable to have a yearly authorization (like a fishing license) that would exempt you from the wait period if you have already passed & waited in the calendar year. Perhaps a 3 year authorization might work as well. There has to be some time period that could be deemed reasonable. Also, a current, valid CCW could be used as an exemption.
__________________
=TRUMP 2020=

If your opinion isn't based in reality, reality won't change your opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #3930  
Old 10-28-2017, 1:14 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Logistically, how does one prove prior possesion to bypass a check for a new purchase? Wait for ATF to hit up FFL files?

You see the point? Proof of possesion is no trivial matter so it moots the point of the case.
Ummm, how about a DROS form for an earlier transfer? You don't have to have physical possession, just be able to show that you successfully passed an earlier background check. Even if you had to have physical possession, just bring the unloaded firearm that is the subject of the DROS form that you are bringing to show a prior background check.
Reply With Quote
  #3931  
Old 10-28-2017, 1:15 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeyedrider View Post
I suppose it would be reasonable to have a yearly authorization (like a fishing license) that would exempt you from the wait period if you have already passed & waited in the calendar year. Perhaps a 3 year authorization might work as well. There has to be some time period that could be deemed reasonable. Also, a current, valid CCW could be used as an exemption.
Slippery slope. Next stop, there will be a renewable license to possess all firearms you own.
Reply With Quote
  #3932  
Old 10-28-2017, 2:04 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,280
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Permission slips for enumerated rights ... see the problem?

How about folks with legal possesion that never DROSed - like OPLAW , gifts, or old folks who pre-date, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #3933  
Old 10-28-2017, 2:47 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 499
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Logistically, how does one prove prior possesion to bypass a check for a new purchase? Wait for ATF to hit up FFL files?

You see the point? Proof of possesion is no trivial matter so it moots the point of the case.
Even if there remains complications with proving current ownership, or the state conspicuously extends how long it regularly takes to do the background checks, having this case reviewed (and overturned) is more valuable to us than the complaint on its face.

We need language from the Supreme Court to tell the 9th circuit to allow us to bring evidence of a poor fit between a law and the state’s goal of “public safety” in future second amendment cases.
Reply With Quote
  #3934  
Old 10-28-2017, 4:27 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,300
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Logistically, how does one prove prior possesion to bypass a check for a new purchase? Wait for ATF to hit up FFL files?

You see the point? Proof of possesion is no trivial matter so it moots the point of the case.
The initial stage is to establish exemption from the waiting period for those in possession of a CCW or 03FFL/COE.
While not absolute proof of ownership, all are regularly renewed, criminal records of CCW holders are monitored constantly.

Baby steps.
Establish an exemption for someone other than LEO for modern firearms.

03FFL with COE are already exempt from the waiting period for C&R firearms. There is zero difference between the purchase by such person of a Remington-Rand 1911 and a Kimber 1911.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #3935  
Old 10-29-2017, 8:22 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 426
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
The initial stage is to establish exemption from the waiting period for those in possession of a CCW or 03FFL/COE.
While not absolute proof of ownership, all are regularly renewed, criminal records of CCW holders are monitored constantly.

Baby steps.
Establish an exemption for someone other than LEO for modern firearms.

03FFL with COE are already exempt from the waiting period for C&R firearms. There is zero difference between the purchase by such person of a Remington-Rand 1911 and a Kimber 1911.
There is also the fact that anyone who has purchased a firearm and is in the DOJ registration data base will show up as an existing firearms owner. I believe this shows up as part of the background check and the check for prohibited persons since it is a State maintained database.

So, really, the only existing owners who won't show up as existing owners are those who recently moved here and haven't registered their imported arms, or those who don't have a COE and only have arms acquired from time periods prior to registration requirements. The former need to register per the law and will show up in the database once they do. The latter aren't usually persons who purchase modern arms or they would have done so in the last 20 years.

Thus, IMO, the implementation isn't that big of a deal.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #3936  
Old 10-29-2017, 8:54 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,280
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

CADOJ database, sure.

I was thinking more broadly throughout the circuit and nationally.

Registration databases don't go over very well nor do permission slips. If we are to keeps NICS then anywaiting period must go otherwise there are large logistical issues around proof of possession.
Reply With Quote
  #3937  
Old 10-29-2017, 12:57 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,300
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
There is also the fact that anyone who has purchased a firearm and is in the DOJ registration data base will show up as an existing firearms owner. I believe this shows up as part of the background check and the check for prohibited persons since it is a State maintained database.

So, really, the only existing owners who won't show up as existing owners are those who recently moved here and haven't registered their imported arms, or those who don't have a COE and only have arms acquired from time periods prior to registration requirements. The former need to register per the law and will show up in the database once they do. The latter aren't usually persons who purchase modern arms or they would have done so in the last 20 years.

Thus, IMO, the implementation isn't that big of a deal.
The problem with this is, as the state argued in the initial case, CA registration records are incomplete and inaccurate.

Even if they were 100% accurate for purchases, when the gun is sold/transferred, the record of the original owner is not updated, unless he files a No Longer In Possession. It's not like the DMV where the new owner registering a vehicle transfers the title and reg even if the seller neglects to inform the DMV of the sale.

So the records can establish that at some time in the past Joe Plumber *was* in legal possession of a firearm, but it will not show that he is *currently* in legal possession, even if he bought one last week.
A number of people on this forum have indicated that when they pull their firearms ownership record from DOJ, they still show "attached" to guns that they had sold years before.
Of course, a serial number cross-check would reveal the current registered owner (if they sold to someone in CA, if they sold through an out of state FFL then it would still show registered to them)
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.

Last edited by Cokebottle; 10-29-2017 at 1:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3938  
Old 10-29-2017, 1:08 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,300
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
CADOJ database, sure.

I was thinking more broadly throughout the circuit and nationally.

Registration databases don't go over very well nor do permission slips. If we are to keeps NICS then anywaiting period must go otherwise there are large logistical issues around proof of possession.
Exactly, and the problem with the DOJ having an isolated database can present a problem.

See the last line in my last post....

I drive to AZ and sell a handgun to someone. Legally, through an AZ FFL.
DOJ doesn't know about the sale unless I file an NLIP. Even with the NLIP, that gun is forever "attached" to me in the DOJ database.

The person in AZ that I sell to, could then FTF transfer it to someone else, who could then FTF transfer it to someone else,etc....
5 years from now (and 5 owners later) if the gun is used in a crime in California, I am going to be getting a visit from the cops... even if I did file an NLIP.
The only information that I would be able to provide would be that I sold it in AZ. I may or may not remember the name of the buyer, I would likely remember the FFL.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #3939  
Old 10-29-2017, 9:00 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,922
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeyedrider View Post
I suppose it would be reasonable to have a yearly authorization (like a fishing license) that would exempt you from the wait period if you have already passed & waited in the calendar year. Perhaps a 3 year authorization might work as well. There has to be some time period that could be deemed reasonable. Also, a current, valid CCW could be used as an exemption.
Look up poll taxes, etc.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #3940  
Old 11-01-2017, 2:33 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 499
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drathen View Post
While I agree with the idea of contrasting the ninth’s 2A calculus with non-2A cases, I’m not sure City of Los Angeles v Alameda Books is a good choice. Wasn’t that decision vacated by SCOTUS?
Reply With Quote
  #3941  
Old 11-02-2017, 7:46 PM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 546
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that the person is prohibited by state or federal law from processing, owning, purchasing, or receiving a firearm. The dealer shall make available to the person in the prohibited class a prohibited notice and transfer form, provided by the department, stating that the person is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, and that the person may obtain from the department the reason for the prohibition.
Says "processing", have not seen that term before.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3942  
Old 11-20-2017, 12:44 PM
USMCM16A2 USMCM16A2 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,007
iTrader: 96 / 100%
Default Interesting Article SCOTUS, 10 day wait.

Folks,


Good read http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/20/...g-period-case/ A2
Reply With Quote
  #3943  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:51 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 800
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We can only hope. And fight the good fight.
Reply With Quote
  #3944  
Old 11-20-2017, 4:52 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 800
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

We can only hope. And fight the good fight.
Reply With Quote
  #3945  
Old 11-20-2017, 5:10 PM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is offline
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,218
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Interesting.

Delayed, giving more time for CA to reply, from the Oct 30 due date to new Dec 1 2017 due date.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ter-v-becerra/
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3946  
Old 11-20-2017, 9:55 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,558
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
Interesting.

Delayed, giving more time for CA to reply, from the Oct 30 due date to new Dec 1 2017 due date.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ter-v-becerra/
Clearly these briefs establish that the need to kick a lot of circuit court butts is long overdue. The question is whether or not there are the votes needed to do so. In other words, can Thomas and Gorsuch convince Alito, Roberts and especially Kennedy to get on board to do some long overdue butt kicking? Unfortunately, I have my doubts.
Reply With Quote
  #3947  
Old 11-21-2017, 4:10 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 Jack-Booted Gov Thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 14,254
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
Interesting.

Delayed, giving more time for CA to reply, from the Oct 30 due date to new Dec 1 2017 due date.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ter-v-becerra/
One would think that the state, working to demonstrate a compelling state interest to limit a codified constitutional right, would move heaven and earth to suitably do so within the original timeline set by the very body whom they owe such a demonstration ...
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #3948  
Old 11-21-2017, 10:04 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
One would think that the state, working to demonstrate a compelling state interest to limit a codified constitutional right, would move heaven and earth to suitably do so within the original timeline set by the very body whom they owe such a demonstration ...
Why? DPRK won at CA9. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Reply With Quote
  #3949  
Old 11-22-2017, 9:46 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 499
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
One would think that the state, working to demonstrate a compelling state interest to limit a codified constitutional right, would move heaven and earth to suitably do so within the original timeline set by the very body whom they owe such a demonstration ...
I know you’re being sarcastic, but the DoJ is -not- working to demonstrate a compelling state interest, and I don’t see why their response to SCOTUS would attempt to present one. Their argument, that the 9th upheld, is that they don’t have to make such an argument.

The waiving of response on Sept 15th by the DoJ makes perfect sense. “The current court decision is that the law is such that we don’t have any responsibility to defend it... what do you want us to say?”
Reply With Quote
  #3950  
Old 11-27-2017, 2:48 PM
Mulay El Raisuli's Avatar
Mulay El Raisuli Mulay El Raisuli is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 3,586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drathen View Post

VERY good Brief.


Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCM16A2 View Post

Now that Gorsuch is on the bench, time for logic and conciseness to re-appear.


The Raisuli

P.S. I've been very busy lately. And don't have a lot of spare time now. So, I've no time to read all the way back to whatever I posted when I last was here (or at other posts). If anyone feels that there's something I should respond to, justlet me know where that something is, and I'll get to it ASAP.
Thanks.
__________________
"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
  #3951  
Old 11-27-2017, 5:44 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Clearly these briefs establish that the need to kick a lot of circuit court butts is long overdue. The question is whether or not there are the votes needed to do so. In other words, can Thomas and Gorsuch convince Alito, Roberts and especially Kennedy to get on board to do some long overdue butt kicking? Unfortunately, I have my doubts.
I agree that butt kicking is needed, but the denial of cert in Kolbe suggests that there are not enough votes.
Reply With Quote
  #3952  
Old 12-04-2017, 11:11 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 709
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

CA AG response to the Supreme Court has been filed:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...Opposition.pdf
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #3953  
Old 12-04-2017, 12:30 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,680
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default CGF: Silvester v. Harris - Second Waiting Period Unconstitutional

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
CA AG response to the Supreme Court has been filed:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...Opposition.pdf
Error with link

Copy paste the content of the link works for me, just not the direct link
Must be my phone not liking it




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by Tripper; 12-04-2017 at 1:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3954  
Old 12-04-2017, 1:06 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,390
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripper View Post
Error with link


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Opens for me.
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #3955  
Old 12-04-2017, 1:41 PM
Tripper's Avatar
Tripper Tripper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Coast-Salinas
Posts: 7,680
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default CGF: Silvester v. Harris - Second Waiting Period Unconstitutional

Delete, updated original

Last edited by Tripper; 12-04-2017 at 1:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3956  
Old 12-04-2017, 4:00 PM
BlueOvalBandit BlueOvalBandit is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Anaheim
Posts: 44
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I skimmed it pretty fast. But is it just me or did CA's response just dance right past and ignore the whole part of the lawsuit challenging the 2nd waiting period not the 1st?
Reply With Quote
  #3957  
Old 12-04-2017, 4:48 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,922
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Of course it did.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #3958  
Old 12-04-2017, 4:49 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,922
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Of course it did
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #3959  
Old 12-04-2017, 6:40 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 499
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueOvalBandit View Post
I skimmed it pretty fast. But is it just me or did CA's response just dance right past and ignore the whole part of the lawsuit challenging the 2nd waiting period not the 1st?
No, they mention that. They just regurgitate the Ninth Circuit decision and periodically say, “we agree.”

But what else would you expect them to say?
Reply With Quote
  #3960  
Old 12-04-2017, 7:10 PM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 709
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

The odds are obviously against cert given SCOTUS’ aversion to 2A cases... but this would be a nice vehicle for clarifying how intermediate scrutiny should work for 2A cases and remanding to lower courts to apply said standard. Would be nice.
__________________
-------------------------
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 3:36 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.