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 08-09-2018, 5:12 PM
xSlapshotx's Avatar
xSlapshotx xSlapshotx is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 257
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz Maurer View Post
we should fight to close the loophole
all LEO should be subject to the roster, no exceptions.
I like this tactic. Im pro cop (mostly) but this would get them and the police chiefs on our side and demand the roster be abolished.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-09-2018, 5:26 PM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,818
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xSlapshotx View Post
I like this tactic. Im pro cop (mostly) but this would get them and the police chiefs on our side and demand the roster be abolished.
Oh, by the way, if it wasn't clear from my posts, I am not anti-cop. I do believe that if they become as restricted as we (non-LE) are, they will be more vocal about these issues
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-10-2018, 4:47 AM
javaduke javaduke is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Free World
Posts: 218
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

MV,

I'm afraid you are making the same mistake that I believe all of us have made at some point. You are trying to find any logic in California gun laws. Well, if I may suggest - don't. There is no logic there. There's only one goal - to push the ruling party's political agenda, to disarm CA citizens, to get more votes, to stay in power as long as possible. That's it. Unfortunately at some point I came to realization that there's absolutely nothing I personally can do about it (yes, I have contributed to all 2A organizations, NRA, CRPA, etc., and yes, I participated in several political events, and yes, I wrote to my reps, yada, yada, yada) and I moved to Arizona where at least for now we have a pretty darn good simulation of freedom as we know it (of course, nobody guarantees that the present state will stay forever - just look at Nevada, Florida, some other formerly red states). Of course, gun laws was not the only reason, but it was a major factor that influenced my decision.

Unfortunately I never met you in person, but based on your posts and videos that I enjoy watching over and over and over again, we have a lot in common, so I think it would make sense if you consider moving from the People's Republic of California to the United States of America

Just my 2 US cents
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-10-2018, 6:43 AM
dummykid dummykid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 656
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

this post reminds me there is a guy selling Costa Carry comp for $5800 and he has 3 or 4 CCCs.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-10-2018, 6:54 AM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,818
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

I am definitely not trying to find the logic in any Gun Control. If anything I am finding ways to prove the lack of logic.

But yes, eventually if/when nothing changes, I will no be able to stay here anymore.
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-10-2018, 1:11 PM
enegue enegue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Culver City, CA
Posts: 602
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Mosin, all I have to say is that I love your YouTube videos man. Keep it going. Молодец !
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-10-2018, 5:44 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,484
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
This. It was never about safety. It was a chokepoint.
that will choke the market to death in a couple of years.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-10-2018, 7:14 PM
Lex Talionis's Avatar
Lex Talionis Lex Talionis is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 476
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by big red View Post
the roster is nothing more than legalized extortion in my personal opinion based on how a gun gets put on the roster only after a fee has been paid to the state. If the fee is not renewed then the gun mysteriously becomes unsafe and falls off the roster but is still legal for LE and other exempted groups to use in our protection. Slight double standard. As far as unsafe handguns being used by LE and politicians why not go the public embarrassment route by "outing" them to the public and asking them to explain it. Embarrassing questions repeated time and time again in a public venue often get quicker results than legal cases. use other tactics to make changes. the other side did it adn that is why we are in the mess we are in now to a large degree.
Embarrassing only works on people who have scruples, it won't work on the gun grabbers.

As you and others have noted, the roster is only a cynical means to extort money and drive up costs to manufacturers and therefore upset the free market in order to prevent gun sales.
__________________


THE LAW OF RETALIATION
Leviticus 24:19–21 "an eye for an eye" (עין תחת עין‬, ayin tachat ayin)
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-10-2018, 7:23 PM
wannabefree wannabefree is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
Embarrassing only works on people who have scruples, it won't work on the gun grabbers.

As you and others have noted, the roster is only a cynical means to extort money and drive up costs to manufacturers and therefore upset the free market in order to prevent gun sales.
So now we all now what its all about and whats wrong with it. All I want to know is how do we fix it !
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-10-2018, 8:25 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 8,957
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
You see, they're only unsafe for US to have. They become magically safe while someone in a uniform handles the exact same weapon.
So you are in favor of eliminating all sales of "off roster" gun sales? Because PPT's are exempt.

How about eliminating all importation of off roster guns by anyone moving into CA? Because they are exempt.

How about eliminating all interfamily transfers of off roster guns? Because they are exempt?

It's not just LEO's who are exempt from the roster..

Make no mistake the roster is stupid... and does nothing to stop crime.

It's just as stupid as all the recent laws which California voters passed by over 60%.

The main reason LEA's and LEO's are exempt is simply money.

If an agency were to equip their Officers with a handgun, let say LAPD. Which probably has over 15,000 handguns issued, then a year later had to buy all new handguns because the previously issued guns were no longer on the roster. That would cause literally millions and millions of dollars to be spent on reissuing new hand guns, magazines, spare parts and holsters. Not to mention training and other costs every time a issued pistol rolled off the roster...

Hey I'm not for the roster, as I said it's stupid.

But with the current anti gun climate in California, stopping any anti gun laws will be impossible, unless it's done in the courts.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-10-2018, 8:34 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 31,379
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Gun control is not about guns.
Gun control is about control.
The roster is not about safety, it is about incrementally blocking the ability to purchase a new gun.
In 70 years, there will be zero legally owned "assault weapons" in California as the current owners will be dead.
As grandfathered off-roster guns are lost/stolen/fail/destroyed, there will be fewer and fewer handguns in California.
__________________
- 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
  #52  
Old 08-10-2018, 9:05 PM
robertkjjj's Avatar
robertkjjj robertkjjj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 780
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
Gun control is not about guns.
Gun control is about control.
The roster is not about safety, it is about incrementally blocking the ability to purchase a new gun.
In 70 years, there will be zero legally owned "assault weapons" in California as the current owners will be dead.
As grandfathered off-roster guns are lost/stolen/fail/destroyed, there will be fewer and fewer handguns in California.
...............
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Your prediction assumes that the progress that the leftists have made in the last 20 years will continue at the same rate in the future, indefinitely. Yet, as man has seen time and again, the passage of time and unforeseeable events has a say in these things. I'm quite confident that the Europeans must have seen what Germany had accomplished by summer of 1941, and thought "OMG. At this rate the Nazis will own all of Europe and Russia and all of Africa within 10 years." Stuff just has a way of changing. Attempts at predicting the future more than 1-2 years out tends to be futile.
__________________

NRA Lifetime Member. Hunter & Target Shooter.
San Diego County.
Passionate supporter of RTKBA.
Supporter of conceal and open-carry.

"It's called the Bill Of Rights. Not the Bill of Needs."

Acronyms
AR-15 Primer
CA firearms laws timeline
BLM land maps
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-10-2018, 9:28 PM
big red's Avatar
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 849
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

the intent is to embarrass the public by constantly pointing out the failure of the gun laws put into place by the people who were elected by the public. The idea is to make the public think twice about re-electing these people. You have tried lawsuits and we will all be dead by the time decisions are made. so what is to lose in trying a less expensive and more public demonstration of this lunacy the public has allowed to happen with their tax dollars. Money that could be used for roads, services, and other things needed by the public as opposed to building an evil empire in DOJ. but we can sit by and wait for nothing to happen and then continue to whine while DOJ continues to demand more and more money and gun organizations demand more money on the other side to file lawsuits that go nowhere so far.

Last edited by big red; 08-10-2018 at 9:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-10-2018, 9:42 PM
jamesob's Avatar
jamesob jamesob is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: exeter
Posts: 4,780
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

We all know that once a firearm falls off the roster after the extortion fee isn’t paid, it becomes unsafe.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-11-2018, 2:43 AM
augoldminer augoldminer is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My problem with the gun roster is how a gun is unsafe because of color..

The gun manufactures have to submit guns that are blued and guns with different surface finishes as different guns even though they are mechanically identical.
If its gun that is blued and the same gun with a parkerized finish the state sees them as two different handguns. this has absolutely nothing to do with safety.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-11-2018, 7:57 AM
Delta1/329 Delta1/329 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 161
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

What about creating a ballot measure to hold California LEO's to the hand gun roster for safety reasons? We need to start thinking about a different way to support the 2nd in California. The politicians are 2 steps ahead of us because they now how we are going to react.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 08-11-2018, 8:35 AM
Lightstrider's Avatar
Lightstrider Lightstrider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: North
Posts: 572
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So about the intrafamiliar transfer of off roster, can my out of state mother send an off roster handgun to my local FFL for me to PPT?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 08-11-2018, 8:49 AM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 909
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightstrider View Post
So about the intrafamiliar transfer of off roster, can my out of state mother send an off roster handgun to my local FFL for me to PPT?
Yes, parents and grandparents can gift an off roster handgun to you. Step parents or siblings cannot.

Handguns should be accompanied by a letter of gift, specifying giver's name and relationship (e.g. John Smith, Grandfather), the handgun (e.g. Glock 17 9mm pistol, serial 12345), and the receiver's name (e.g. Little Jimmy Smith).

You may have to call a few FFLs before you find one that knows how to handle an off-roster interstate intrafamilial transfer, not all of them do and some will even say it's not possible.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 08-11-2018, 9:11 AM
Half Cocked's Avatar
Half Cocked Half Cocked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Socialist Republik of Kalifornistan
Posts: 631
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz Maurer View Post
we should fight to close the loophole
all LEO should be subject to the roster, no exceptions.
Absolutely. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Right now all we get is lip service from the LEOs regarding 2A rights because they are not affected by these Kommiefornia laws. I believe that laws should be applied equally to all classes; the crooked politicians in Excremento believe that it is OK to carve out exemptions for their pet castes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-11-2018, 9:52 AM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 8,957
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Cocked View Post
Absolutely. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Right now all we get is lip service from the LEOs regarding 2A rights because they are not affected by these Kommiefornia laws. I believe that laws should be applied equally to all classes; the crooked politicians in Excremento believe that it is OK to carve out exemptions for their pet castes.
So you want to end ALL exemptions to the roster?

Don't blame LEO's for the laws it's your friends, neighbors, relatives and coworkers who passed the latest laws by a wide +60% margin. Leo's also didn't support the laws, just like the didn't support the lessening of the criminal penalties for crimes or the legalization of marijuana...

But all those silly bills were passed by CA. voters.

Face it it's the people who live in CA and who vote for these laws who are responsible. not the LEO's.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-11-2018, 10:35 AM
Half Cocked's Avatar
Half Cocked Half Cocked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Socialist Republik of Kalifornistan
Posts: 631
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
So you want to end ALL exemptions to the roster?

Don't blame LEO's for the laws it's your friends, neighbors, relatives and coworkers who passed the latest laws by a wide +60% margin. Leo's also didn't support the laws, just like the didn't support the lessening of the criminal penalties for crimes or the legalization of marijuana...

But all those silly bills were passed by CA. voters.

Face it it's the people who live in CA and who vote for these laws who are responsible. not the LEO's.
Absolutely! There should be no carve-outs for special groups. The roster exemption was written by corrupt politicians and not by a voter approved proposition. The Excremento politicians don't want to lose the support of LEO unions so they grant special favors to this group.
__________________

Last edited by Half Cocked; 08-11-2018 at 10:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-11-2018, 10:36 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,596
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If the roster is ever sent to the SCOTUS (which it won't) it would be upheld.

I don't like SCOTUS cases, they rarely solve anything and leave the issues ripe for contention. It becomes a settled case yet it never really is.

However, with a dysfunctional Congress with no signs of life, courts will be the place where future decisions are made. Or overturned, or re-instated, or.... endless litigations.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-11-2018, 10:38 AM
bootstrap bootstrap is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 909
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Face it it's the people who live in CA and who vote for these laws who are responsible. not the LEO's.
IIRC, there was somewhat recent legislation where LEOs opposed a bill until they received exemptions. Once exemptions were given, they no longer opposed it.

I don't blame the LEOs, but they expect carve-outs.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-11-2018, 12:10 PM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 5,955
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FISHNFRANK View Post
The liberal political world cares nothing for logic or common sense. Their laws are designed to fool people and provide a clever, underhanded rationale for an entirely different objective. Almost any law that comes from a democratic legislator is designed this way.
Some here still believe they can make a difference as a gun owner in California.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz Maurer View Post
we should fight to close the loophole
all LEO should be subject to the roster, no exceptions.
True, but they will not give up their special status voluntarily. No way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by javaduke View Post
MV,

I'm afraid you are making the same mistake that I believe all of us have made at some point. You are trying to find any logic in California gun laws. Well, if I may suggest - don't. There is no logic there. There's only one goal - to push the ruling party's political agenda, to disarm CA citizens, to get more votes, to stay in power as long as possible. That's it. Unfortunately at some point I came to realization that there's absolutely nothing I personally can do about it (yes, I have contributed to all 2A organizations, NRA, CRPA, etc., and yes, I participated in several political events, and yes, I wrote to my reps, yada, yada, yada) and I moved to Arizona where at least for now we have a pretty darn good simulation of freedom as we know it (of course, nobody guarantees that the present state will stay forever - just look at Nevada, Florida, some other formerly red states). Of course, gun laws was not the only reason, but it was a major factor that influenced my decision.

Unfortunately I never met you in person, but based on your posts and videos that I enjoy watching over and over and over again, we have a lot in common, so I think it would make sense if you consider moving from the People's Republic of California to the United States of America

Just my 2 US cents
You were smart to get out.

Let the youngsters stay and fight the good fight. When they get older, they will realize the majority of voters hate their guts for being gun owners.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-11-2018, 2:36 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,815
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

More discussion here:

https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1066800

.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-11-2018, 2:37 PM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,815
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Seem fitting to post this here too:



I was always under the impression that this would be argued that California has no true “compelling and extraordinary condition” to enforce such a obscure and unique law in the face of Federal laws about firearms, where requiring such an onerous and nearly impossible feature to achieve, neither promotes features of safety (the original reason for that bill SB-15 that led to the Roster in the first place) or proves to be a useful tool for law-enforcement to solve crimes.

What is the indisputable and 100% reliable perceived result, that is so much a benefit outside of current Federal laws on common firearms, that California is so special to get a pass on applying its opinion of an unproven technology, one that is not available at all, that it gets to make its own regulations that ban the sale of common firearms that are available to nearly all other law-abiding US Citizens outside of California?

It's a ruse technology merely being used to reduce/decrease sales of otherwise safe and common firearms. Microstamping as Mike Feuer concocted it:

�� This doesn't make guns safer to use.

�� There is enough evidence that the microstamping feature can easily be defeated in minutes to seconds by the swap of a firing pin, barrel, whole slide, or merely a file and/or Dremel.

�� It does little to nothing to give investigators any kind of "tool" to investigate crimes because this would be the first thing any criminal would do no matter how they come into possession of that firearm.

�� Without a doubt, the majority of even law-abiding gun owners would do any of the above as well, guaranteed, because it's not akin to destroying the serial number on a firearm. I would without a second thought.

Then there is the factor that Microstamping itself is not available on common firearms. In fact, it's not available at all. So this essentially bans the ability to acquire common firearms that are available to nearly every law-abiding citizen outside of the state of California.

Doesn't that fly in the face of Heller, and prohibits common firearms? These aren't falsely vilified "assault-weapons" with uncommon features which they've used in the past to uphold erroneous assault-weapon bans, so they can't use that angle.

These are common firearms being banned because California wishes to apply an unfounded belief in a disproved and easily defeated technology. Meanwhile that intent is less about keeping people safe and helping law-enforcement than it is solely about banning the sale of semi-automatic handguns with a smoke-and-mirrors caveat.

I also am quite sure, like with so many other Anti-2nd Amendment laws, that those writing them have little to no knowledge of firearm technology and merely author such legislation with the motive to prohibit, reduce, or simply ban the legal sale and ownership of firearms any way they can.

Likewise, those who sit to opine and judge the credibility of these unjust and anti-constitutional laws often lack the same understanding of firearms and the fake technology that is presented to them.

I could describe the legitimacy of technology, capability, results, and efficiency of an adjustable ray "stun-gun" comparable to those in the fictional Star Trek depicted 50 years ago on network TV, and these sots would pass a bill on the merits of that idea alone; whether actually available, capable, practical efficacy, or even how you build it is beyond their need to understand or even give concern.

.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-11-2018, 3:52 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,563
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MosinVirus View Post
Oh, by the way, if it wasn't clear from my posts, I am not anti-cop. I do believe that if they become as restricted as we (non-LE) are, they will be more vocal about these issues
The more we treat our civilian LE like we treat the rest of civilian society, the better we will relate to each other. This elitist caste system the lefties and immigrants fall into so comfortably promotes a them-vs.-us mindset that breeds resentment and mistrust.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-11-2018, 3:59 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 8,957
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Cocked View Post
Absolutely! There should be no carve-outs for special groups. The roster exemption was written by corrupt politicians and not by a voter approved proposition. The Excremento politicians don't want to lose the support of LEO unions so they grant special favors to this group.
What about the exemption for PPT's?

What about the special exemptions for people moving into CA? Or the special exemption for inter family transfers?

So you are saying you believe ALL "off roster" transfers should be illegal?

It's not the "unions" who pass these silly bills it's your friends, neighbors family members and coworkers.

They voted by over 60% to pass the latest round of stupid gun laws. In fact there was opposition from LEO Associations. But the voters of CA. don't care.

Just like they don't care that LEO's opposed the propositions for early release from prison and the basic decriminalization of most misdemeanors...

Just like they didn't care about LEO's opposing marijuana..

Keep blaming LEO's but you are blind to the fact that most Californians by a wide margin want these laws and more to come in the future.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-11-2018, 4:12 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,364
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franz Maurer View Post
we should fight to close the loophole
all LEO should be subject to the roster, no exceptions.
If that was achieved we all wouldn't have any guns in the future. Cutting your nose to spite your face ISN'T the solution by a long shot.
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman


Quote:
It’s always seemed to me absurd that you make 100% of the people to do something, in order to make sure that 1 or 2% of the people don’t behave badly.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-11-2018, 5:09 PM
Half Cocked's Avatar
Half Cocked Half Cocked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Socialist Republik of Kalifornistan
Posts: 631
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
What about the exemption for PPT's?

What about the special exemptions for people moving into CA? Or the special exemption for inter family transfers?

So you are saying you believe ALL "off roster" transfers should be illegal?

It's not the "unions" who pass these silly bills it's your friends, neighbors family members and coworkers.

They voted by over 60% to pass the latest round of stupid gun laws. In fact there was opposition from LEO Associations. But the voters of CA. don't care.

Just like they don't care that LEO's opposed the propositions for early release from prison and the basic decriminalization of most misdemeanors...

Just like they didn't care about LEO's opposing marijuana..

Keep blaming LEO's but you are blind to the fact that most Californians by a wide margin want these laws and more to come in the future.
What about the exemptions? So what? These are for already purchased handguns. The common people cannot buy new off roster handguns from their local FFL like LEOs. Anyone legally able to purchase a handgun via PPT can do so including LEOs. Not everyone can purchase a new off roster handgun from their FFL; that right is reserved for the "special people."

And once again you are trying to obfuscate the issue by saying that the voters passed anti gun laws that are not related to the roster. So what if they did? The voters passed prop 47. So what? That is not related to the roster which was created by Excremento politicians.

The fact is that LEOs are given special privileges by the politicians that are not given to the citizens at large. There is no reason to do so. If the handguns available on the roster are good enough for the common man, they are good enough for the LEO community.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 08-11-2018, 5:21 PM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,818
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Cocked View Post
If the handguns available on the roster are good enough for the common man, they are good enough for the LEO community.
Even more so, why would we want LEOs using "unsafe" guns?
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-11-2018, 5:58 PM
wannabefree wannabefree is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is a general question related to Off Roster sales.
Instead of making it more restrictive and eliminating the PPT , Intrafamilial & Leosa exemptions why not try to add CCW permit holders to the exempted class since they are all supposed to have passed background checks and have been trained in the safe use of handguns.
I know this is going to trigger the ire of a lot of folks that live where its near impossible to get a permit but its better than killing all exemptions and its at least a small step forward instead of backwards.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-11-2018, 9:41 PM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,818
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wannabefree View Post
This is a general question related to Off Roster sales.
Instead of making it more restrictive and eliminating the PPT , Intrafamilial & Leosa exemptions why not try to add CCW permit holders to the exempted class since they are all supposed to have passed background checks and have been trained in the safe use of handguns.
I know this is going to trigger the ire of a lot of folks that live where its near impossible to get a permit but its better than killing all exemptions and its at least a small step forward instead of backwards.
I ask again, why would we want people using "unsafe" handguns? Any people...

Point here is to illustrate that the law calls all non-restored guns "unsafe", yet people charged with keeping the public safe are doing so with so-called "unsafe" handguns.

If these guns can be used to keep the public safe how can they be inherently "unsafe"?

And if the answer to that is anything like training, then we can have a different discussion, but I think first and foremost the question about "unsafe" handguns keeping us "safe" has to be brought up. Because it invalidates the supposed purpose of the Roster.
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-12-2018, 7:27 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 727
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wannabefree View Post
...folks that live where its near impossible to get a permit...
You can drop the “near.” It’s just plain old impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-12-2018, 7:52 AM
wannabefree wannabefree is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
You can drop the “near.” It’s just plain old impossible.
I understand yours and many others situation. I lived in Southern Ca. for most of my life and had to live under the same hopeless situation. Then a few years ago I moved and retired to a small Northern Ca. community that has a very pro 2a Sheriff. I was amazed at how easy it was to get a permit. So its not impossible everywhere in this State Just the Coastal/Socialist like LA & SF.
Living where I live now its like Two different States which is what folks up here are hoping for in the State of Jefferson 51st State movement.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 08-12-2018, 8:19 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,099
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MosinVirus View Post
I ask again, why would we want people using "unsafe" handguns? Any people...

Point here is to illustrate that the law calls all non-restored guns "unsafe", yet people charged with keeping the public safe are doing so with so-called "unsafe" handguns.

If these guns can be used to keep the public safe how can they be inherently "unsafe"?

And if the answer to that is anything like training, then we can have a different discussion, but I think first and foremost the question about "unsafe" handguns keeping us "safe" has to be brought up. Because it invalidates the supposed purpose of the Roster.

Coupla things

First, a law is not unconstitutional just because the name of the law is stupid, or different than what the law does or says.

Second, you are assuming the purpose of the Roster is safety, because you are falling into the trap of reading the name of the law, and thinking it must have some relationship to the law's text. Change your thinking in this way: The name of the law is like propaganda. It's all for show. The "Patriot" Act was the least patriotic thing ever done.

Go back and re-read the decision. The State's interest is alleged to be gun violence, and the 9th is going to take that in one hand, and in the other they will take the law, and they will ask "Is there even the slightest possible superficial relationship between these two things?". If so, the 9th will be satisfied that an anti-2A law is perfectly constitutional.
But calling it "safety" on the surface is what makes their base of drooling idiots happy, and doesn't trigger the snowflakes to scramble into their safe places with scary words like "gun" and "violence".

So don't let them distract you and don't focus on things that don't matter. The state can call their anti-2A law "death metal music rocks!" and it's perfectly fine.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 08-12-2018, 9:31 AM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,818
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Coupla things

First, a law is not unconstitutional just because the name of the law is stupid, or different than what the law does or says.

Second, you are assuming the purpose of the Roster is safety, because you are falling into the trap of reading the name of the law, and thinking it must have some relationship to the law's text. Change your thinking in this way: The name of the law is like propaganda. It's all for show. The "Patriot" Act was the least patriotic thing ever done.

Go back and re-read the decision. The State's interest is alleged to be gun violence, and the 9th is going to take that in one hand, and in the other they will take the law, and they will ask "Is there even the slightest possible superficial relationship between these two things?". If so, the 9th will be satisfied that an anti-2A law is perfectly constitutional.
But calling it "safety" on the surface is what makes their base of drooling idiots happy, and doesn't trigger the snowflakes to scramble into their safe places with scary words like "gun" and "violence".

So don't let them distract you and don't focus on things that don't matter. The state can call their anti-2A law "death metal music rocks!" and it's perfectly fine.
Right.

It is illegal to import for sale, keep for sale, manufacture unsafe handguns.

Yet unsafe handguns can still be used by LE and the public.

Playing devil's advocate:

I feel unsafe. It is a public safety issue because the guns are clearly referred to as unsafe. Forgetting for a second that we can still get those unsafe handguns through PPT, the state government is using UNSAFE handguns by placing UNSAFE handguns into the hands of LEOs.

As in, the LEOs are using UNSAFE guns.

I wanted to see if a public safety challenge could be used to throw away the "safety" reasoning. Then, when the roster is classified as anything but, it should be easier to attack in on an unconstitutional basis.

That was the idea.
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 08-12-2018, 9:49 AM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,818
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Let me try to state my thinking in a different way. Also please understand that I am not confused at all about why we have the Roster and that I understand that the language used has no relation to the actual purpose of the roster.

Here is what I was thinking.

1. I have a concern for public safety, because LEOs can use UNSAFE handguns.
2. A lawsuit is brought against the State for allowing LEOs to use UNSAFE handguns.
3. Unfortunately, LEOs would be placed in the spotlight over using UNSAFE handguns in their duties, and various anti-cop organizations would probably jump on that.
4. State will have to either stop calling those guns UNSAFE, or block LEOs from using UNSAFE handguns.
5. If they stop LEOs from using UNSAFE handguns they would be admitting that the guns were indeed UNSAFE and that various police shootings happened with UNSAFE handguns, and various anti-cop organizations will jump on that, so that would not be great for the state.
6. If they stop calling these off-roster guns as UNSAFE, then they will have to state another reason for the roster. And that could potentially open up another window into unconstitutionality of the roster suit.

Because, like you all said, currently when the State argues they always say that the public safety is a concern, and that while we can get some handguns they are not infringing our rights. Well, I want to take away the public safety reasoning, hitting them with using UNSAFE handguns and therefore making the public unsafe, using their own language.
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...

Last edited by MosinVirus; 08-12-2018 at 9:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 08-12-2018, 10:09 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,099
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MosinVirus View Post
Well, I want to take away the public safety reasoning, hitting them with using UNSAFE handguns to police the people.
That's fine, they don't need the safety angle, and didn't use it in this case.
They used the "gun violence" angle. And if they didn't choose gun violence, they can choose all kinds of nebulous, hand-wavy BS terms and the 9th will not challenge them on it. They can also choose a combination of interests. There's no requirements in this area...they can choose nothing at all, and the court still has to assume they are acting the generalized public interest.

It's not the job of the court to determine which of the state's many interests the state has to select, or say if the state selected the most appropriate one, or anything like that. I'm largely trying to say that this isn't productive legal footing from which to challenge a law, because you can't win any legal arguments, and legal arguments are all that matters before the court. So what if it's not "safe"? The law does not have to be, and isn't, about "safe".

The court does not care if police get "unsafe" guns, this law is about the reduction of gun violence in the inner city underprivileged minority lesbian illegal alien sportfishing community, so the court says, "Why are you talking about police equipment?" In any event, as you mentioned, they can fall back to the "police training" angle.

Quote:
If they stop calling these off-roster guns as UNSAFE, then they will have to state another reason for the roster.
No, this is not the case. They are under no obligation to provide you with a reason why they are doing anything, and the court will not require one from them. The court is under a bit of an obligation to explain why they ruled they way they did, because the court is appointed, not elected. Note that even the court is not required absolutely to explain "why" -- SCOTUS routinely hands down per-curiam decisions with no explanation whatsoever. However, the court generally feels that because they are appointed, they owe the public an explanation.

The approach you're taking isn't a productive legal approach, but it might be, as mentioned above by big red, an effective political approach, if this weren't California. Because it's obviously ridiculous, you might be able to convince some voters of the stupidity of their elected legislators, and get them voted out.
__________________

Last edited by speedrrracer; 08-12-2018 at 10:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 08-12-2018, 10:25 AM
MosinVirus's Avatar
MosinVirus MosinVirus is offline
Happily Infected
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 4,818
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Thank you.

I realize that I dont have the level of understanding of the legal system. Your post clears some things up.

Just thought maybe there was another angle.
Since it is not one, /close thread.
__________________
Hobbies: bla, bla, bla... Bought a Mosin Nagant... Guns, Guns, Guns...
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 11:29 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.