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

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1361  
Old 10-10-2019, 7:32 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,173
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Because NYSRPA is about guns, not about ineffective little zap toys.

Filling in for KCbrown.
Caetano v. Massachusetts wasn't about stun guns...

...it was about Heller v. DC, and those particulars such as future arms, suitable arms for self defense and in this case the self defense right as exercised by a homeless person - concealed without a permit I might add.

A reminder that not all cases of CCW without a permit end up in a criminal conviction.

Try not to get hung up on the trivial dude...

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #1362  
Old 10-10-2019, 8:24 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Normally SCOTUS holds off on releasing decisions on controversial topics until June. But that will be in the thick of the campaign and conventions next year. Plus, SCOTUS is already dealing with what this term: LGBetc “rights”, abortion “rights”, and 2nd A rights and maybe even impeachment? Will they really hold those first three to deliver them in June and think that won’t turn a spotlight (and political heat) on the Court?

While I don’t see them delivering an opinion in NYSRPA before the holidays, I could see it after February.

But who knows? I won’t put money on anything in 2020....
I should add: If NYSRPA is held until June, why are they not acting upon Pena, Rogers, Gould and, IIRC, a few more 2nd A cases that have already been to 1 conference and are being held in limbo (not granted, not denied, and not re-distributed for new conferences)?

Will they release NYSRPA late in the term and GVR the others at the same time? Or will they pull a Caetano with NYSRPA early and then, maybe, take one or more of the others to orals in winter or spring 2020? (That first part is unlikely, IMO, since NYSRPA is set for orals and Caetano was never scheduled for orals.)

The fog is thick and I can't see through it....

2020 is going to be an interesting year judicially, not to mention politically.

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 10-10-2019 at 8:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1363  
Old 10-10-2019, 8:34 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Caetano v. Massachusetts wasn't about stun guns...

...it was about Heller v. DC, and those particulars such as future arms, suitable arms for self defense and in this case the self defense right as exercised by a homeless person - concealed without a permit I might add.

A reminder that not all cases of CCW without a permit end up in a criminal conviction.

Try not to get hung up on the trivial dude...

=8-|
Oh. So the future arm was about a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range?

No? It was about a less lethal arm that has to be used at contact distance?

Are you telling me that the “public safety” crowd feels significantly less threatened by stun guns than they do actual guns, and so might actually rule in such a case because it doesn’t make them fearful of proles being able to shoot them or defend against their ever advancing tyranny?

Wait, no, you’re right, it’s about principles of the second amendment.

O’rourke said “consistent with the second amendment, Hell yes we’re taking your At-15s and AK-47s, and all other weapons including stun guns because the left is a principled party, not an outcome oriented one, and we will treat both weapons that can actually overthrow tyranny and ones only dumb drug addicts are afraid of the same way.”

How did I miss that rally?

Of course, that’s the position the right has taken for decades and failed terribly. You might almost accuse me, if you’re a paranoid conspiracy theorist, of accusing the right of not knowing themselves and their own intentions fully; and not really knowing the left either, and as Sun Tzu said, you will lose every time, and that predictive advice has made me question and try to force others to check if we have lost due to false understandings.

But never mind, clearly Ruth Bader Ginsburg cares more about law than her side winning, and Stevens didn’t publish a memoir openly stating that the outcome mattered to him and their side and the law was just justification to reach their preconceived notions.

I’m sure the right case and a 5 minute presentation would leave RBG ready to vote for letters of marque and unregistered custom pathogens because she just didn’t understand “shall not be infringed”.”
/sarc
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 10-10-2019 at 8:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1364  
Old 10-11-2019, 5:03 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just a reminder: Months ago, Roberts came out and pushed that the Court isn't political. Trump pushed back. In return, Roberts voted AGAINST Trump in seeking a citizenship question on the decennial census.

Roberts swung left to show the Court isn't political, that justices can't be counted on according to the party of the pres. who nominated them. He'll do it again. (Of course, Dems NEVER swing "right" to show this....)

A month or two ago Gorsuch also claimed the justices aren't political. Have any of the 4 Dems come out with statements like this? IIRC, only RBG gave some weak suggestions along those lines. Again, will any of them swing right during an actual vote/opinion?

The question is on which controversial case/s will Roberts swing left again: abortion? homo rights? 2nd A? Impeachment??? (whatever role he/the Court plays)

https://theweek.com/articles/870886/...berts-sweating

ETA: Even if Roberts votes with the other GOPers he could do what Kennedy did (because of J. Stevens' pressure) in Heller: get the majority opinion watered down.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 10-11-2019 at 6:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1365  
Old 10-11-2019, 6:55 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Just a reminder: Months ago, Roberts came out and pushed that the Court isn't political. Trump pushed back. In return, Roberts voted AGAINST Trump in seeking a citizenship question on the decennial census.

Roberts swung left to show the Court isn't political, that justices can't be counted on according to the party of the pres. who nominated them. He'll do it again. (Of course, Dems NEVER swing "right" to show this....)

A month or two ago Gorsuch also claimed the justices aren't political. Have any of the 4 Dems come out with statements like this? IIRC, only RBG gave some weak suggestions along those lines. Again, will any of them swing right during an actual vote/opinion?

The question is on which controversial case/s will Roberts swing left again: abortion? homo rights? 2nd A? Impeachment??? (whatever role he/the Court plays)

https://theweek.com/articles/870886/...berts-sweating

ETA: Even if Roberts votes with the other GOPers he could do what Kennedy did (because of J. Stevens' pressure) in Heller: get the majority opinion watered down.
Wait, you mean when Obama criticized the court for Citizen’s United and the right tilt of the court left-wing judges didn’t vote right wing to demonstrate there isn’t political party on the court?

That would almost mean that democrats have always played hardball with the court, like Borking or Thomas-ing or Kavanaughing nominees whereas the right never has done the same.

That would almost mean the right has always given up and expected good faith from the left which is never returned.

Maybe Orwell was wrong.

Tyranny isn’t a boot stamping on a face for all eternity.

It’s Charlie Brown believing Lucy will hold the ball this time and tripping and falling for eternity.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1366  
Old 10-15-2019, 10:04 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 854
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

US solicitor general

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...itedStates.pdf

A.This Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause to forbid States and municipalities from discriminating against interstate commerce. Under this Court’s prec-edents, “[d]iscrimination against interstate commerce in favor of local business or investment is per se invalid, save in a narrow class of cases in which the municipality can demonstrate, under rigorous scrutiny, that it has no other means to advance a legitimate local interest.” C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 392 (1994). And “local governments may not use their regulatory power to favor local enterprise by prohib-iting patronage of out-of-state competitors.” Id.at 394


boy that amicus from the us solicitor general, who was granted 10 minutes in the arguements sure sounds like a whole lot of nails in a bunch of state regulations that CA has imposed. if the court follows that direction out of state ammo purchases and importation of privately owned ammunition isnt going to stand much of a chance.
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Reply With Quote
  #1367  
Old 10-15-2019, 10:45 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
US solicitor general

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...itedStates.pdf

A.This Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause to forbid States and municipalities from discriminating against interstate commerce. Under this Court’s prec-edents, “[d]iscrimination against interstate commerce in favor of local business or investment is per se invalid, save in a narrow class of cases in which the municipality can demonstrate, under rigorous scrutiny, that it has no other means to advance a legitimate local interest.” C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 392 (1994). And “local governments may not use their regulatory power to favor local enterprise by prohib-iting patronage of out-of-state competitors.” Id.at 394


boy that amicus from the us solicitor general, who was granted 10 minutes in the arguements sure sounds like a whole lot of nails in a bunch of state regulations that CA has imposed. if the court follows that direction out of state ammo purchases and importation of privately owned ammunition isnt going to stand much of a chance.
I am glad to see this was granted. Also note that they don’t care to hear anymore from Neal Goldfarb as his request to speak was denied
Reply With Quote
  #1368  
Old 10-15-2019, 2:25 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 1,006
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Please refresh my memory. Who is Neal Goldfarb?
Reply With Quote
  #1369  
Old 10-15-2019, 4:13 PM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 969
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
Please refresh my memory. Who is Neal Goldfarb?
Quote:
That evidence provides compelling reason to believe that that when the Second Amendment was framed and ratified, the right to bear arms it was understood as the right to serve in the militia, not a right of individual self-defense.
That answer your question?
Reply With Quote
  #1370  
Old 10-15-2019, 8:24 PM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 147
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
Please refresh my memory. Who is Neal Goldfarb?
He is a lawyer mostly concerned with linguistics. See his post here about his opinion that Heller was wrong based on the definition of “bear arms”.

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=38422

Given his amicus brief and what other materials I have read online, it makes me think the court doesn’t intend to rehash anything from Heller, but build upon it.
Reply With Quote
  #1371  
Old 10-16-2019, 7:10 AM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,760
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

What's 'rigorous scrutiny'?
Reply With Quote
  #1372  
Old 10-16-2019, 7:16 AM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 1,006
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

He sounds like a lawyer . If you have enough data you can manipulate it to say whatever you want it to say. Thanks for posting that. Thank our lucky stars the court doesn't want to here from him.
Reply With Quote
  #1373  
Old 10-16-2019, 3:21 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 231
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
What's 'rigorous scrutiny'?
It's what your in-laws apply when you visit for holidays.

For those interested, in the amici from the Solicitor General, it is important to note that *NO* FOPA claims have been raised and they were dismissed in the District Court!
Reply With Quote
  #1374  
Old 10-16-2019, 8:45 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 879
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
The Police Commissioner has not established comparable exceptions for the transportation of handguns to and from the license-holder’s other residences, or to and from firing ranges outside the City. The transportation of handguns to and from these locations thus remains forbidden to premises license-holders, even if the owner carries the gun unloaded, locked, and separate from the ammunition. Pet. App. 94-96.
Pretty sure the SG made reference to FOPA, pp.10, statement section 1, paragraph 4. The meat of the amici is what can be carried without FOPA’s purview. NYC bans both, so I expect SCOTUS to recognize that NYC can not override the existing federal code protecting unloaded, cased and locked transport.
Reply With Quote
  #1375  
Old 10-16-2019, 10:48 PM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 231
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Splitting hairs a bit, but the issue the DC addressed is summarized here from a footnote:

“Petitioners raised an alternative claim under this provision in the district court. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the statute applies where a person may “ ‘lawfully possess and carry’ ” the firearm at both the origin and destination of the trip, but petitioners lacked the right to “carry” firearms in New York City because they lacked a carry license. Pet. App. 67-68 (quoting 18 U.S.C. 926A). Petitioners did not appeal that decision, which is not at issue here.”

Would it be likely SCOTUS would argue that FOPA is relevant since case law says “well, duh?”
Reply With Quote
  #1376  
Old 10-17-2019, 5:24 AM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 879
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

SCOTUS has every right to untangle the spaghetti however they see fit. Most of the fury is going to come down on CA2 for upholding this nonsense and ignoring Helier. I’m sure they will save some fire for the DC as well.

They can’t undo Revell without addressing how FEDLAW and states’ laws are at odds, here.
Reply With Quote
  #1377  
Old 10-17-2019, 8:57 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 290
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'd rather see them use the 2A and not FOPA as basis for pretty much anything they do... FOPA can be undone, 2A cannot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
Splitting hairs a bit, but the issue the DC addressed is summarized here from a footnote:

“Petitioners raised an alternative claim under this provision in the district court. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the statute applies where a person may “ ‘lawfully possess and carry’ ” the firearm at both the origin and destination of the trip, but petitioners lacked the right to “carry” firearms in New York City because they lacked a carry license. Pet. App. 67-68 (quoting 18 U.S.C. 926A). Petitioners did not appeal that decision, which is not at issue here.”

Would it be likely SCOTUS would argue that FOPA is relevant since case law says “well, duh?”
Reply With Quote
  #1378  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:53 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
“Petitioners raised an alternative claim under this provision in the district court. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the statute applies where a person may “ ‘lawfully possess and carry’ ” the firearm at both the origin and destination of the trip, but petitioners lacked the right to “carry” firearms in New York City because they lacked a carry license. Pet. App. 67-68 (quoting 18 U.S.C. 926A). Petitioners did not appeal that decision, which is not at issue here.”
Wait, let me get this straight. The DC concluded that FOPA allows you to posses firearms at any permissible location but not the right to transport them in between without a carry license? 'Scuse me? I have not read the DC decision, but this lacks any sort or credible legal argument about a law designed to protect carry between places.
Reply With Quote
  #1379  
Old 10-17-2019, 8:00 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 879
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
I'd rather see them use the 2A and not FOPA as basis for pretty much anything they do... FOPA can be undone, 2A cannot.
Can’t do that. Then we’d get MGs back.
Reply With Quote
  #1380  
Old 10-19-2019, 11:25 AM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 854
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
Can’t do that. Then we’d get MGs back.
I’m still waiting for someone to say to the court. “Hello ..... machine guns aren’t banned. They never have been, public citizens own them all over”. “Even the Nfa & gca didn’t ban em”. “The ban on new manufacturing in 1986 is not narrowly tailored, not long standing nor are there many historical cases of a class of firearms manufacturing prohibitions other than the flawed 10 year assault weapons ban”.

if the public still owns, sells, trades and uses fully automatic weapons then it is hard to say they prohibit them and their continued refusal to issue new tax stamps might someday be in the cross hairs of debate

Maybe Some day one can dream that conversation will happen
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Last edited by ddestruel; 10-19-2019 at 11:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #1381  
Old 10-21-2019, 10:21 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 643
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddestruel View Post
I’m still waiting for someone to say to the court. “Hello ..... machine guns aren’t banned. They never have been, public citizens own them all over”. “Even the Nfa & gca didn’t ban em”. “The ban on new manufacturing in 1986 is not narrowly tailored, not long standing nor are there many historical cases of a class of firearms manufacturing prohibitions other than the flawed 10 year assault weapons ban”.

if the public still owns, sells, trades and uses fully automatic weapons then it is hard to say they prohibit them and their continued refusal to issue new tax stamps might someday be in the cross hairs of debate

Maybe Some day one can dream that conversation will happen
Well. I can't buy one here in CA, so yes, they are banned. No, in no way banning common soldier personal weapon is compatible with the second amendment, but here we are.
Reply With Quote
  #1382  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:50 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,278
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

6 weeks until oral arguments!

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #1383  
Old 10-21-2019, 1:50 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 854
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Well. I can't buy one here in CA, so yes, they are banned. No, in no way banning common soldier personal weapon is compatible with the second amendment, but here we are.
That gets to the state's right to prohibit anything firearms related, semi automatic rifles, standard capacity or larger drum magazines how far can a state roll back or restrict availability?

The way CA law reads i thought it sounded like the DOJ has May issue discretion for Dangerous Weapons permits but chooses not to, so the law sounds narrowly tailored to match that federally MG's are legal if a process for qualifications and purchasing is followed but in practice they are executing a ban in CA by not issuing permits to most all private.

And so if federally MG's still have never been confiscated or prohibited, all that existed before 1986 in private hands for the most part still are in private hands around the country. So they still arent nationally banned as so many people and the media claim


I agree its an issue directly tied to CA but if we accept the common national argument that heller permits a MG ban.... it gets to the weeds of conditions on sale and Time place and manner ....I see numerous briefs where anti gun states or the anti gun groups constantly argue that MG's are banned, or that jurisdictions can BAN .... I always feel as though when we agree then we've allowed them to claim what isnt fully true.

So are they banned or is the state engaging in unfair practices of not issuing a permit that the law requires but the administrative body is refusing through fiat to just not grant? when the citizen meets the legal qualifications of the law for possession and qualification?

CA's MAY issue permitting practices for MG's Sure sounds alot like a premises and transportation permitting in NY to me.

But then again im just dreaming that some day .... someone on our side will say in the SCOTUS oral arguments, your honor's MG's arent banned there are over 630000 of them in private hands bought and sold daily. I just want to hear that said in the court room and see the reaction some day lol
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Reply With Quote
  #1384  
Old 10-21-2019, 2:42 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My recollection is that California allowed grandfathering of MGs to persons owning them before the ban, but subject to registration as an "assault weapon." Just as with the most recent registration law, a registered AW/MG cannot be sold or otherwise transferred to any resident of California.
Reply With Quote
  #1385  
Old 10-21-2019, 7:13 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 643
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

They are banned since I can’t get them.
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 2:14 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.