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
  #2041  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:28 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 11,526
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
So you think the Repubs may go nuclear and reduce SCOTUS appointments to simple majority votes.
I am practically certain they would (I've mentioned it in few other threads).

Once Reid went nuclear the game was over - he killed centuries of precedent. It showed the intent and the capability. At this time, there is absolutely no reason to hold back since the other side won't.

It is going to be much more interesting with Bader-Ginsburg's replacement. If Republicans are still in power at the time (knock on wood), Democrats will rue the moment they decided a shortcut around the minority was a good idea.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2042  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:36 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 11,526
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
WHERE'S THE OPPOSITION? Gorsuch confirmation fight to begin with barely a whimper from Dems
Democrats are in a very tough spot because of their election miscalculation, but the silver lining for them is that Gorsuch is replacing Scalia, not Ginsburg or Breyer.

At this time, the smartest political move they can possibly make is "barely a whimper" - Gorsuch *will* be appointed and the real battle *will be* with the next justice. Now it's a game of chicken - can political fortunes change for the Democrats soon enough to avoid the catastrophe (for them) of a SCOTUS that actually applies the Constitution instead of trying to evaluate "quality of a policy."

For us, by far the most important question is whether Trump can win the second term. Eight years would significantly shift the balance of power in this game of chicken.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2043  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:38 AM
GunsInMyEyes GunsInMyEyes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default When is the ruling ?

Oral arguments were just presented and I'm wondering when the ruling comes back and please no long winded answer is a simple question with a simple answer.

Last edited by GunsInMyEyes; 03-19-2017 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2044  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:45 AM
happy.thoughts happy.thoughts is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 97
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsim View Post
User pulls trigger, gun goes bang.

Projectile leaves the muzzle going very fast, in the direction it's pointed.

How can they be safer if PEOPLE are on the "user" position?
But then you are making a blanket statement that people are destined to fail regardless.
Reply With Quote
  #2045  
Old 03-19-2017, 11:45 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jr .gov Man ⭐
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 13,490
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default



Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsInMyEyes View Post
Oral arguments were just presented and I'm wondering when the ruling comes back
Whenever the 3 justices figure out a ruling and get their clerks to draft an opinion. Figure about a year from now.

Best to forget about the case and then be reminded when the thread gets bumped with a decision.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #2046  
Old 03-19-2017, 1:01 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 11,526
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsInMyEyes View Post
Oral arguments were just presented and I'm wondering when the ruling comes back and please no long winded answer is a simple question with a simple answer.
Peruta was a similar "gun case" so it should be a comparable timeline. From the Circuit Court's webpage:

Oral Arguments: 12/06/2012
Decision: 02/13/2014

So, realistically, we are looking at about a year. Sucks, but such is life...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2047  
Old 03-19-2017, 2:07 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,519
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsInMyEyes View Post
Oral arguments were just presented and I'm wondering when the ruling comes back and please no long winded answer is a simple question with a simple answer.

Please be willing to read at least a couple pages back in the thread to look for information you're looking for. It becomes tedious, boring to answer the same questions several times. Be willing to look for 15 or 20 minutes rather than asking for a personal spoon feed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
For all of you "How long" folks.

Experience with past 2nd Amendment cases at the 9th Circuit would suggest at least 3 to 4 months and maybe a year to a year and a half. Or longer.

Sometime in 2018 is a reasonable guess.

"This is why we need a "Two Weeks" Smilie

__________________
A Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CA Legislature Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, lots of reporting on current CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
CalGuns Foundation https://www.calgunsfoundation.org
Reply With Quote
  #2048  
Old 03-19-2017, 3:18 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,198
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsInMyEyes View Post
Oral arguments were just presented and I'm wondering when the ruling comes back and please no long winded answer is a simple question with a simple answer.
As several people have already noted, it is NOT a simple answer.

The court has no deadlines.

They'll issue an opinion whenever they get around to it.
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

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.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #2049  
Old 03-19-2017, 4:02 PM
Soginator's Avatar
Soginator Soginator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,524
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
Best to forget about the case and then be reminded when the thread gets bumped with a decision.
Personally I love to remind people of the roster case, particularly anti gun people. It traps them into admitting they aren't about "reasonable, common sense" gun laws, they're just trying to ban stuff.

And pro gun people, for whatever reason, seem to be far more motivated to donate to cgf/nra/crpa/fpc over the roster issue than anything else.
__________________
WTS HK USP45c http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1304283
WTS CA Shield 9mm
Reply With Quote
  #2050  
Old 03-19-2017, 4:19 PM
cire raeb cire raeb is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Kalfornia
Posts: 630
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Will the ruling be "all or nothing" or could the judges reject part of the roster' requirements? Sounded like they are opened to keeping the hideous LCI feature.

Last edited by cire raeb; 03-19-2017 at 4:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2051  
Old 03-19-2017, 4:35 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is online now
Banned-aid
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 916
Posts: 8,499
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cire raeb View Post
Will the ruling be "all or nothing" or could the judges reject part of the roster' requirements? Sounded like they are opened to keeping the hideous LCI feature.
I'm ok with an LCI, as long as it isn't required to be a huge hideous bright red flag that sticks up. My glocks have an LCI, and my Beretta has an LCI - both are indicated by whether or not the extractor is sticking out. The beretta extractor is even pained red on the sides, for just such a reason.

If they concede that those sorts of LCI's are fine, then I'm not totally against it. I hate having things mandated, but if that's all we have to have then I can live with it.

MY new Sig has a "california" LCI, and it's ridiculous. Bright red, takes up half the length of the slide, with giant text laser-etched into the slide that says "loaded when up" TWICE, plus a big arrow pointing at it for some reason. That's overkill and unnecessary, I think we can all agree.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 03-19-2017 at 4:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2052  
Old 03-19-2017, 5:11 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jr .gov Man ⭐
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 13,490
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I'm ok with an LCI, as long as it isn't required to be a huge hideous bright red flag that sticks up. My glocks have an LCI, and my Beretta has an LCI - both are indicated by whether or not the extractor is sticking out. The beretta extractor is even pained red on the sides, for just such a reason.

If they concede that those sorts of LCI's are fine, then I'm not totally against it. I hate having things mandated, but if that's all we have to have then I can live with it....
This can prove difficult for some manufacturers if they utilize an LCI in their design that does not meet the following criteria (Glock's LCI extractor does not meet CCR requirements...)

CCR 4060 outlines the requirements for an LCI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCR 4060
(d)(1) A functioning chamber load indicator must meet all of the following conditions:
(A) Explanatory text and/or graphics either incorporated within the chamber load indicator or adjacent to the chamber load indicator is/are permanently displayed by engraving, stamping, etching, molding, casting, or other means of permanent marking.
(B) Each letter of explanatory text must have a minimum height of 1/16 inch.
(C) The explanatory text and/or graphics shall be of a distinct visual contrast to that of the firearm.
(D) The “loaded” indication, that portion of the chamber load indicator that visually indicates there is a round in the chamber, shall be of a distinct color contrast to the firearm.
(E) Only when there is a round in the chamber, the “loaded” indication is visible on the firearm from a distance of at least twenty-four inches. When there is no round in the chamber, the “loaded” indication must not be visible.
(F) The text and/or graphics and the “loaded” indication together inform a reasonably foreseeable adult user of the pistol, that a round is in the chamber, without requiring the user to refer to a user's manual or any other resource other than the pistol itself.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #2053  
Old 03-19-2017, 5:21 PM
LowThudd's Avatar
LowThudd LowThudd is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sherman Oaks
Posts: 2,726
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I'm ok with an LCI, as long as it isn't required to be a huge hideous bright red flag that sticks up. My glocks have an LCI, and my Beretta has an LCI - both are indicated by whether or not the extractor is sticking out. The beretta extractor is even pained red on the sides, for just such a reason.

If they concede that those sorts of LCI's are fine, then I'm not totally against it. I hate having things mandated, but if that's all we have to have then I can live with it.

MY new Sig has a "california" LCI, and it's ridiculous. Bright red, takes up half the length of the slide, with giant text laser-etched into the slide that says "loaded when up" TWICE, plus a big arrow pointing at it for some reason. That's overkill and unnecessary, I think we can all agree.
This? Holy Crud, that is hideous. What makes people think that anyone not capable of handling a gun safely, will suddenly handle it safely just because of that though?

Reply With Quote
  #2054  
Old 03-19-2017, 5:42 PM
cire raeb cire raeb is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Kalfornia
Posts: 630
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Peņa v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **Appealed to 9th 2/26/15** Oral args 3/16/17

Quote:
Originally Posted by LowThudd View Post
This? Holy Crud, that is hideous. What makes people think that anyone not capable of handling a gun safely, will suddenly handle it safely just because of that though?





Indeed that is hideous. I am fine with something subtle like the LCI on the M9 Beretta and Glock's. I would then present the argument that the LCI requirement impede firearm development as we all know that in 3-5 years the majority of the firearms sold are going to have MOS plates for red dot sight. The LCI safety negates the very purpose of handguns, a self defense tool. Furthermore, if the attacking assailant can see the LCI, it may endanger the victim as Kalifornia's laws discourage keeping a firearm loaded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by cire raeb; 03-19-2017 at 5:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2055  
Old 03-19-2017, 5:43 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is online now
Banned-aid
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 916
Posts: 8,499
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LowThudd View Post
This? Holy Crud, that is hideous. What makes people think that anyone not capable of handling a gun safely, will suddenly handle it safely just because of that though?

Yep, those LCI's need to go.

So it would be nice if, at the very least, LCI's such as Glocks were approved.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.
Reply With Quote
  #2056  
Old 03-19-2017, 5:58 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,010
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javaduke View Post
Unless I'm missing something, there's absolutely no evidence that the off-roster handguns that are in common use in the rest of the states, are in fact less safe than those approved by the CA DOJ. I think that's the part that Alan Gura missed when they were talking about cars and airbags. I don't think anyone would argue that airbags and seat belts do save lives, but I think it's pretty obvious that an off-roster 1911 is by no means less safe or more dangerous than pretty much the same 1911 that is still on the roster.
Or the same exact one that fell off the roster recently only because the extortion, er, fee was not renewed.
Or somehow these off roster firearms are safe enough for law enforcement and not for us.
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.
Reply With Quote
  #2057  
Old 03-19-2017, 6:12 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,198
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Yep, those LCI's need to go.

So it would be nice if, at the very least, LCI's such as Glocks were approved.
All the LCIs need to go - as has been often advised, an LCI must be replaced by training: 'don't point guns at people'. (or at most other stuff)
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

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.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #2058  
Old 03-19-2017, 6:16 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jr .gov Man ⭐
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 13,490
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
All the LCIs need to go - as has been often advised, an LCI must be replaced by training: 'don't point guns at people'. (or at most other stuff)
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #2059  
Old 03-19-2017, 6:52 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is online now
Banned-aid
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 916
Posts: 8,499
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
All the LCIs need to go - as has been often advised, an LCI must be replaced by training: 'don't point guns at people'. (or at most other stuff)
I like my Glocks having one, personally. NOT for checking to see if the chamber is empty (that's what eyes and fingers are for), but rather for checking to make sure the chamber is loaded, before I put it in my holster. My chamber is nearly always loaded, but it's nice to be able to see at a glance that I haven't unloaded it at some point and forgotten.

In that regard, it's more of a "chamber is empty" warning
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.
Reply With Quote
  #2060  
Old 03-19-2017, 9:31 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,198
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I like my Glocks having one, personally. NOT for checking to see if the chamber is empty (that's what eyes and fingers are for), but rather for checking to make sure the chamber is loaded, before I put it in my holster. My chamber is nearly always loaded, but it's nice to be able to see at a glance that I haven't unloaded it at some point and forgotten.

In that regard, it's more of a "chamber is empty" warning
For that, we have the 'press check' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU68wjU5b80
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

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.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #2061  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:34 AM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 45
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://youtu.be/m-B_ZY9AwDs?t=25m11s

Quote:
ADA: Unlike Heller, it's not a categorical ban on an entire class..

Judge (right): Isn't it a categorical ban on any guns NOT containing the kinds of security devices that you now want, the MDM the CLI? The microstamping?

ADA: [Audibly flustered] It's not your honor. The Unsafe Handgun Act is focused on... in laymen's terms bringing new handguns to market.
Do they actually seriously believe this? Is that their official justification for passing these laws?

I have formal quotes from news interviews with some politicans who "wrote" (rather, had ghost-written) the legislation. They explicitly said it was to 'get rid of guns from our state'. If there is one thing I can not tolerate, it is blatant hypocrisy. It is fine if they have a belief in something and follow their convictions. It is another when they are in a willful state of cognitive dissonance.

I hate to make the analogy as it appears to cheapen the message, but Orwell discussed exactly this idea when he described "doublethink". I sincerely hope (and expect) these judges are at least aware of the obviousness of this from the ADA's responses. They are well read, well educated individuals. If they turn a blind eye to this it would throw any semblance of their impartiality out the window.

As a quote I heard once said, "I can live with being a pawn if the game makes sense!"
Reply With Quote
  #2062  
Old 03-20-2017, 5:27 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 613
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
All the LCIs need to go - as has been often advised, an LCI must be replaced by training: 'don't point guns at people'. (or at most other stuff)
Agreed.

But as a practical matter, the after market will largely step in to take care of our desire to remove LCI and MDM, no such possibilities with microstamping which is not commercially available.

Example of after market LCI 'upgrade' for SW Shield -- https://www.apextactical.com/blog/in...ld-sd-pistols/
__________________
-------------------------
The USA. Country #1 in gun ownership per capita, #111 in murder rate; the facts are not the perceptions the statists wish you to believe.
FactCheck.Org - Gun rhetoric vs gun facts
Stock Trader's Look at the Stats - to make money, not to make politics.
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy: 'Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?'
Reply With Quote
  #2063  
Old 03-20-2017, 9:43 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 11,526
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
But as a practical matter, the after market will largely step in to take care of our desire to remove LCI and MDM, no such possibilities with microstamping which is not commercially available.
The real problem is that LCI and MDS severely limit availability in the first place.

Remove *just* microstamping from the roster requirements and we still cannot have A SINGLE (non-grandfathered) Glock, HK, S&W semi-auto, Springfield, FNH, Beretta, etc. Not a single one!

It's similar to how the magazine capacity affects availability - it's not just that we have to have no more than 10, but there are MANY guns that don't come in restricted versions and aftermarket magazines are all but impossible to find. Akin to forcing "cars with 10 gallon or smaller tanks" - sure it would reduce bank robberies by forcing fleeing robbers to fill up more often (sarcasm), but it would also significantly limit car availability since very few have such tanks.

If we just lose the microstamping, we lost in practical terms.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2064  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:07 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,521
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen One View Post
https://youtu.be/m-B_ZY9AwDs?t=25m11s



Do they actually seriously believe this? Is that their official justification for passing these laws?

I have formal quotes from news interviews with some politicans who "wrote" (rather, had ghost-written) the legislation. They explicitly said it was to 'get rid of guns from our state'. If there is one thing I can not tolerate, it is blatant hypocrisy. It is fine if they have a belief in something and follow their convictions. It is another when they are in a willful state of cognitive dissonance.

I hate to make the analogy as it appears to cheapen the message, but Orwell discussed exactly this idea when he described "doublethink". I sincerely hope (and expect) these judges are at least aware of the obviousness of this from the ADA's responses. They are well read, well educated individuals. If they turn a blind eye to this it would throw any semblance of their impartiality out the window.

As a quote I heard once said, "I can live with being a pawn if the game makes sense!"
I was thinking this when I heard some things about the 2nd version of the Trump travel ban where the judge basically said: "Yes you addressed the previous issues, but because of what you said before about wanting a Muslim ban, I'm ruling against it anyway because that is your true intent...to ban Muslims."

Well if that's how judges are going to rule now, it shouldn't be too hard to find plenty of quotes from politicians stating what their real desire is....which is to ban guns entirely....and say in court "Here is the record of their true intentions your honor."

I loved the part in the video where it is state that even the states own safety manual says not to rely on the LCI. Not to mention the laundry list of people who are exempt from it.....if these things truly make guns safer why wouldn't everyone be required to use only guns on the roster? Answer....because doing so would remove viable options of LE and they don't like that.....so clearly the intent of the roster is to remove options from the general public, nothing more, nothing less. And that was the real intent of microstamping....eliminate options by mandating something that doesn't exist.

I think it should be illegal for the Gov't to be able to mandate the use of non-existent technology. Heck....why don't they just mandate the use of Star Trek phasers if they can mandate stuff that doesn't exist?

At least the one judge noted that microstamping does not improve firearm safety, its merely an investigative tool for the police in the event of a crime.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #2065  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:22 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jr .gov Man ⭐
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 13,490
iTrader: 57 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The real problem is that LCI and MDS severely limit availability in the first place.

Remove *just* microstamping from the roster requirements and we still cannot have A SINGLE (non-grandfathered) Glock, HK, S&W semi-auto, Springfield, FNH, Beretta, etc. Not a single one!

It's similar to how the magazine capacity affects availability - it's not just that we have to have no more than 10, but there are MANY guns that don't come in restricted versions and aftermarket magazines are all but impossible to find. Akin to forcing "cars with 10 gallon or smaller tanks" - sure it would reduce bank robberies by forcing fleeing robbers to fill up more often (sarcasm), but it would also significantly limit car availability since very few have such tanks.

If we just lose the microstamping, we lost in practical terms.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #2066  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:15 AM
GunsInMyEyes GunsInMyEyes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Actually it was a easy answer about 1 year....then the long winded blow bags came after that clogging up the feed, which is why no one looks in back pages trying to search through all the bs👍 But thankyou to the non windbags who answered question quickly and shortly
Reply With Quote
  #2067  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:47 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
rotubirtnoC NGC
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 319
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic Moran View Post
Judge on the right seemed to know his way around firearms.

That said, his comparison of the LCI to a seatbelt warning light is pretty reasonable. You always check to make sure your belt is on, the seatbelt light is just a reminder.
Only to the extent that your seatbelt light has a mechanical linkage into the vehicle, say with an extra wheel for your serpentine belt, and presents as a large metal, bright orange fin sticking out of your hood and large letters that explain to you and anyone that might be unfamiliar with cars that your seatbelt isn't on when the fin is up.
Reply With Quote
  #2068  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:05 PM
Metal God's Avatar
Metal God Metal God is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Adding to ruling based on what someone says prior to a bill . The anti's or SJW ( social just warriors) never play there wants out to the end and see what the results actually will produce . I like that idea of allowing past statements of politicians claiming they would like to see all guns banned brought up in court . The problem is those same judges that think it's ok to use it in one instance will not allow it in another completey innoring there own president .
__________________
Tolerate
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Anyone else find it sad that those who preach tolerance CAN'T allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that they do not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

If you have the time check this out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Reply With Quote
  #2069  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:59 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,521
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Adding to ruling based on what someone says prior to a bill . The anti's or SJW ( social just warriors) never play there wants out to the end and see what the results actually will produce . I like that idea of allowing past statements of politicians claiming they would like to see all guns banned brought up in court . The problem is those same judges that think it's ok to use it in one instance will not allow it in another completey innoring there own president .
It was just wishful thinking that the 2A would ever get that kinda extralegal considering by the courts. But it was the first thought that when thru my head when I heard that about the travel ban.

It would be nice if there was a way to attack the whole CA regulatory scheme as whole to show that when all of it is put together, the intent and application thereof is nearly a complete nullification of the 2A.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #2070  
Old 03-20-2017, 1:07 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 11,526
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
It was just wishful thinking that the 2A would ever get that kinda extralegal considering by the courts. But it was the first thought that when thru my head when I heard that about the travel ban.
You were far from alone in noticing it...

What's more interesting is that with polarization of the judicial system, this method can be used against any *national* AW. In 1994 it was completely different landscape, but imagine Democrats being able to force another national AWB only to have a judge in Texas pull the "political intent" card on them by playing Feinstein's infamous "turn them all in" statement from the early 90's.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2071  
Old 03-20-2017, 1:39 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is online now
Banned-aid
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 916
Posts: 8,499
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal God View Post
Adding to ruling based on what someone says prior to a bill . The anti's or SJW ( social just warriors) never play there wants out to the end and see what the results actually will produce . I like that idea of allowing past statements of politicians claiming they would like to see all guns banned brought up in court . The problem is those same judges that think it's ok to use it in one instance will not allow it in another completey innoring there own president .
Unfortunately, only quotes attributed to those who authored or signed the bills (Pete Wilson & Schwarzenegger, and whoever the roster & microstamping bill authors were) would be relevant. A quote about Feinswine wanting to "round em all up" would be awesome, except she had nothing to do with the roster or microstamping, so it would be slightly irrelevant to this particular case.

After around 20 minutes of searching, I couldn't find any particularly interesting 2a quotes by any of those involved in the roster bills. We all *know* the bill authors want to ban all guns, but sadly I just can't find any concrete evidence to prove it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by reverser View Post
As a matter of fact, the last guy I knew personally that wore a fanny pack was my brother in law. He left my sister for a guy he met at the gym.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 03-20-2017 at 1:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2072  
Old 03-20-2017, 3:33 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 7,655
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
We all *know* the bill authors want to ban all guns, but sadly I just can't find any concrete evidence to prove it.
If it is really about safe firearms, then why in the world is Law Enforcement exempted?
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #2073  
Old 03-20-2017, 4:24 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 4,389
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
If it is really about safe firearms, then why in the world is Law Enforcement exempted?
We all know that, that is a rhetorical question, that we already know the answer to. But I will answer it anyway.

[1] Money...............that is filtered through LE Unions to Dem campaign donations to pay for quid pro quo legislation.

[2] PR.............Having several "Defenders of Justice" and "Protectors of Citizens" wearing starched uniforms and shiny badges. Standing like stooges on a podium, with solemn looks and timely nods of the head, behind leftist politicos that they pimp for, telling lies to the sheeple.

That's why? It's never been about "Safety" or "Denying criminals arms".

JM2c
Reply With Quote
  #2074  
Old 03-20-2017, 4:26 PM
happy.thoughts happy.thoughts is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 97
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
If it is really about safe firearms, then why in the world is Law Enforcement exempted?
Or more illogical, widows of LE.
Reply With Quote
  #2075  
Old 03-20-2017, 4:29 PM
R-Cubed's Avatar
R-Cubed R-Cubed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 658
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

LCIs and Mag disconnects make sense to people who have little or no experience with firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #2076  
Old 03-20-2017, 4:32 PM
happy.thoughts happy.thoughts is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 97
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R-Cubed View Post
LCIs and Mag disconnects make sense to people who have little or no experience with firearms.
Nope.

Training and mindset makes sense to people who have little or no experience with firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #2077  
Old 03-20-2017, 4:39 PM
R-Cubed's Avatar
R-Cubed R-Cubed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 658
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by happy.thoughts View Post
Nope.

Training and mindset makes sense to people who have little or no experience with firearms.
If that were true more training would be legislated on the roster, rather than mechanical features that should not be relied upon. I say this implying that most of the legislature has little to no experience with firearms. And the public which perceives those features as sensible have little to no firearms experience.

I think my post was mis-interpreted.

Last edited by R-Cubed; 03-20-2017 at 5:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2078  
Old 03-20-2017, 4:40 PM
cire raeb cire raeb is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Kalfornia
Posts: 630
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R-Cubed View Post
LCIs and Mag disconnects make sense to people who have little or no experience with firearms.
No it does not. This lawsuit is about having choices as LCI and MDS only give you a false sense of security. LCI can break and there will be time when you need to throw into chamber without a to save your or a love one's life. I seen magazine go bad and needed to be thrown away.
Reply With Quote
  #2079  
Old 03-20-2017, 4:43 PM
R-Cubed's Avatar
R-Cubed R-Cubed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 658
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cire raeb View Post
No it does not. This lawsuit is about having choices as LCI and MDS only give you a false sense of security. LCI can break and there will be time when you need to throw into chamber without a to save your or a love one's life. I seen magazine go bad and needed to be thrown away.
My point was not to hold those features up as good. My point was that those features seem reasonable to the uninformed. We're on the same page.
Reply With Quote
  #2080  
Old 03-20-2017, 5:13 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 7,655
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
We all *know* the bill authors want to ban all guns, but sadly I just can't find any concrete evidence to prove it.
This is the context to what I replied to. Perhaps I should have been more clear since what I was saying is that the fact that LEO are exempt, even for personal firearms, is concrete proof of what they are doing. More than anyone else LEOs should have a "safe" firearm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
We all know that, that is a rhetorical question, that we already know the answer to. But I will answer it anyway.
You are wrong, it is not a rhetorical question at all. It is the answer to the request to concrete evidence to prove what they were doing.

You completely missed the point and your response is not even close an answer to the question since you missed the context completely, see above.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
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 9:51 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.