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
  #2241  
Old 01-29-2018, 9:51 AM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
It's indeed a common propaganda technique, to subtly make those opposed to an idea sound evil and/or ignorant. ....
They know exactly what to say to get people riled up against what we believe in, and frankly they've been better at it than us for a long time, which is why we are where we are.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
This is absolutely true, however, when the right does it (eg. #ReleaseTheMemo) even the right itself says it hurts the cause to conflate the evidence or cherry pick statistics. Its a complete double standard when Feinstein says "people will die because of the shutdown" and Pelosi says the tax cuts will cause "armagedon" and yet the Republicans write a memo that "might" indicate that the DOJ went soft on Hillary and its "overstating the facts".
/rant
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #2242  
Old 01-29-2018, 10:01 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,633
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
This is absolutely true, however, when the right does it (eg. #ReleaseTheMemo) even the right itself says it hurts the cause to conflate the evidence or cherry pick statistics. Its a complete double standard when Feinstein says "people will die because of the shutdown" and Pelosi says the tax cuts will cause "armagedon" and yet the Republicans write a memo that "might" indicate that the DOJ went soft on Hillary and its "overstating the facts".
/rant
Ya, I think that's largely due to the mainstream media liberal bias - unfortunately there's not much we can do about that, other than trying to discredit them, which fortunately has been one of Trump's top priorities since taking office. With any luck, hopefully he'll make a dent in it.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #2243  
Old 01-29-2018, 8:43 PM
Ultralight's Avatar
Ultralight Ultralight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Los Angeles, Kalifornia
Posts: 64
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Roster roll offs

Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?
__________________
“The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right.” – Justice Clarence Thomas
Reply With Quote
  #2244  
Old 01-29-2018, 8:50 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,374
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?
Sound observations.

Add to those the exemptions for law enforcement put the families of those officers who choose off-Roster handguns at risk, and of course should they carry them on duty, that puts the public at risk from these 'unsafe' guns.

That should lead you to conclude the Roster has nothing at all to do with safety.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

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

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #2245  
Old 01-29-2018, 9:25 PM
Ultralight's Avatar
Ultralight Ultralight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Los Angeles, Kalifornia
Posts: 64
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I love cops. I know how hard their jobs can be (especially with those unsafe off roster handguns), and how at times they can be severely underappreciated. I have several friends who come from LEO families. I support LEOs all the way.
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.

Merriam Websters defines Equal Protection as:
"a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances"

All I know is I really dislike this roster BS.
__________________
“The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right.” – Justice Clarence Thomas
Reply With Quote
  #2246  
Old 01-30-2018, 8:28 AM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,775
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
I love cops. I know how hard their jobs can be (especially with those unsafe off roster handguns), and how at times they can be severely underappreciated. I have several friends who come from LEO families. I support LEOs all the way.
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.

Merriam Websters defines Equal Protection as:
"a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances"

All I know is I really dislike this roster BS.
"classes in like circumstances" - that right there allows those in charge to define, and redefine, the term "like circumstances". To some it means we are all "alive and living in the state of California", to others it means a "level of (perceived) risk".
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #2247  
Old 01-30-2018, 11:31 AM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,056
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
I love cops. I know how hard their jobs can be (especially with those unsafe off roster handguns), and how at times they can be severely underappreciated. I have several friends who come from LEO families. I support LEOs all the way.
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.

Merriam Websters defines Equal Protection as:
"a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances"

All I know is I really dislike this roster BS.
Its easy to understand when you realize that we are living under Tyranny by Law under a bureaucratic state.
Typically Tyranny is recognized by violent acts to keep people in line.
However, since we are a "civilized" society of law abiding people they are able to practice Tyranny by Law without resorting to as much violence as would be needed otherwise.

You, and most of us here, discuss using sound logic and reason, but these are not relevant in this discussion because those in power are rationalizing to get the result they want.
People like us bang our heads in disbelief because we do not suffer from a mental disorder.
__________________
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
  #2248  
Old 01-30-2018, 11:42 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 787
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
"classes in like circumstances" - that right there allows those in charge to define, and redefine, the term "like circumstances". To some it means we are all "alive and living in the state of California", to others it means a "level of (perceived) risk".
^^^This. If you are a LEO, you get to buy off roster and high-cap mags. The rest of the un-washed masses have to make do with whatever the roster permits and absolutely not any high-cap mags.
Reply With Quote
  #2249  
Old 01-30-2018, 11:45 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,633
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.
All animals deserve equal protection. But some animals deserve more equal protection than others.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #2250  
Old 01-30-2018, 12:40 PM
justwanaride's Avatar
justwanaride justwanaride is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 99
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Yet the day an officer retires they are no longer able to purchase either off roster handguns or standard capacity magazines. Nothing to do with safety just extortion and control.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
They don't care about Russia and Trump, they just want to scare you into believing there is something there so you join their side. They don't want Trump fixing anything they worked so hard to break.
Reply With Quote
  #2251  
Old 01-30-2018, 3:25 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Bybee was a GWB appointee, so that's one likely anti (McKeown) and one likely pro (Bybee), so I won't even guess if we'll win or not with Wallace.

ETA: Watched (rewatched?) the oral arguments. I am more optimistic. From 30:00 onward is the meat. Wallace cuts to the core re. microstamping not being a safety per se issue, but an aid to LE investigators. So I'm putting him on our side.

Depending upon how the court chooses to approach the case (42:25 and following), I could see microstamping shot down (not consumer safety of gun, but public safety of aiding LE), CLI upheld (via "evolving" standards of safety), but not sure which way they (the majority?) will go on MDM.
I have a question for anyone who's up-to-speed on our side's briefs.

I was thinking about how they'd rule on the MDM when I realized that if they uphold the CLI (which I think they will), that makes the need even less for the MDM, because anyone will be easily able to know if the chamber is loaded or not, whether the magazine is inserted or not. Not knowing/realizing that a semi's chamber is still loaded after the magazine is removed is the whole raison d'être of the MDM.

Does anyone know if Gura/others pointed that out in the briefing? I did not hear Gura point that out during oral arguments.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 01-31-2018 at 7:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2252  
Old 01-31-2018, 3:35 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?
It is called grandfathering. Once on the roster, a gun stays on the roster as long as the manufacturer continues to pay the annual fee, and as long as there are no material changes to the firearm. My Kahr does not have an LCI, a manual safety or a magazine disconnect, but as long as Kahr continues to make the same model, it stays on the list because it was on the list before those requirements were imposed. Glock can sell Gen 3s for the same reason, but cannot sell Gen 4s (or later) because they do not comply with Roster requirements in existence at the time it was brought to market.

The "material change" deal can be a pitfall. Ruger changed a takedown pin from forged to MIM, and Kamala said that this was a material change and the pistol could not be sold without including microstamping. Colt went from an old production facility to a new CNC facility--and that is why it sells no pistols in this state, because that was a "material change."
Reply With Quote
  #2253  
Old 01-31-2018, 3:39 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I have a question for anyone who's up-to-speed on our side's briefs.

I was thinking about how they'd rule on the MDM when I realized that if they uphold the CLI (which I think they will), that makes the need even less for the MDM, because anyone will be easily able to know if the chamber is loaded or not. Not knowing/realizing that a semi's chamber is still loaded after the magazine is removed is the whole raison d'être of the MDM.

Does anyone know if Gura/others pointed that out in the briefing? I did not hear Gura point that out during oral arguments.
The flaw in your argument, if my recollection is correct, is that the mag disconnect requirement was imposed AFTER the LCI requirement. Because people are stupid, and the Legislature has deemed it in the public interest to stop Darwinism in its tracks. Go figure. It is the same reason so many products and hot food items have all those warnings plastered all over them. And why we have the FSC.

Personally, I think the safety aspects of the Roster aren't going anywhere, any more than seat belts and airbags aren't going anywhere. But the microstamping rule is likely on the rocks.

Last edited by TruOil; 01-31-2018 at 3:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2254  
Old 01-31-2018, 3:53 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,512
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The flaw in your argument, if my recollection is correct, is that the mag disconnect requirement was imposed AFTER the LCI requirement. Because people are stupid, and the Legislature has deemed it in the public interest to stop Darwinism in its tracks. Go figure. It is the same reason so many products and hot food items have all those warnings plastered all over them. And why we have the FSC.

Personally, I think the safety aspects of the Roster aren't going anywhere, any more than seat belts and airbags aren't going anywhere. But the microstamping rule is likely on the rocks.
One judge actually mentioned that the mag disconnect actually takes the 2A from the user in the name of safety.

He deemed this safety feature as a way to remove ones 2A rights.
Reply With Quote
  #2255  
Old 01-31-2018, 3:55 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,633
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
It is called grandfathering. Once on the roster, a gun stays on the roster as long as the manufacturer continues to pay the annual fee, and as long as there are no material changes to the firearm. My Kahr does not have an LCI, a manual safety or a magazine disconnect, but as long as Kahr continues to make the same model, it stays on the list because it was on the list before those requirements were imposed. Glock can sell Gen 3s for the same reason, but cannot sell Gen 4s (or later) because they do not comply with Roster requirements in existence at the time it was brought to market.

The "material change" deal can be a pitfall. Ruger changed a takedown pin from forged to MIM, and Kamala said that this was a material change and the pistol could not be sold without including microstamping. Colt went from an old production facility to a new CNC facility--and that is why it sells no pistols in this state, because that was a "material change."
I agree with what you are saying, but I think the point Ultralight was trying to make was that the DOJ using the payment of their annual fee as their SOLE criteria to decide if an otherwise-unchanged pistol is still safe or not, is absolute evidence that the roster has zero to do with actual safety.
__________________
DOJ has only processed 20% of 69k BBRAW apps. Your pending app will take ... "definitely between 2 weeks and 2 years." -Discogodfather

If DOJ visits you regarding your RAW application: Avoid opening your door if they don't have a warrant. Don't consent to a search. Don't "talk your way out of it". Assert your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #2256  
Old 01-31-2018, 4:05 PM
ojisan ojisan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,501
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The flaw in your argument, if my recollection is correct, is that the mag disconnect requirement was imposed AFTER the LCI requirement. Because people are stupid, and the Legislature has deemed it in the public interest to stop Darwinism in its tracks. Go figure. It is the same reason so many products and hot food items have all those warnings plastered all over them. And why we have the FSC.

Personally, I think the safety aspects of the Roster aren't going anywhere, any more than seat belts and airbags aren't going anywhere. But the microstamping rule is likely on the rocks.
Initially it was the manufacturer's choice between LCI (Loaded Chamber Indicator, all types accepted) or a MDS (Magazine Disconnect Safety).

Then it was changed to both being required, with the LCI now changed to a much bigger and larger CLI (Chamber Loaded Indicator).

Then after Kamala made her decision that microstamping was available; CLI, MDS and microstamp are all required.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2257  
Old 01-31-2018, 4:11 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,374
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The flaw in your argument, if my recollection is correct, is that the mag disconnect requirement was imposed AFTER the LCI requirement.
Nope - 31910(b)
Quote:
(4) Commencing January 1, 2006, for a center fire semiautomatic pistol that is not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have either a chamber load indicator, or a magazine disconnect mechanism.

(5) Commencing January 1, 2007, for all center fire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have both a chamber load indicator and if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism.

(6) Commencing January 1, 2006, for all rimfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism, if it has a detachable magazine.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

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

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #2258  
Old 02-01-2018, 12:41 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Nope - 31910(b)
So I WAS right. Kinda. Although the statute was enacted at one time, the mag disconnect was mandated a year later. It seems to me manufacturers chose the LCI over a mag disconnect first, and then both a year later.
Reply With Quote
  #2259  
Old 02-06-2018, 10:04 AM
JackRydden224's Avatar
JackRydden224 JackRydden224 is offline
Single stack pistol guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Irvine
Posts: 7,084
iTrader: 83 / 100%
Default

It's almost 1 year after the oral arguments made last year so I'm hoping we get a conclusion pretty soon.
Reply With Quote
  #2260  
Old 02-06-2018, 1:52 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackRydden224 View Post
It's almost 1 year after the oral arguments made last year so I'm hoping we get a conclusion pretty soon.
Give it another six months to a year. Personally, I think the Ninth will wait to see what the California Supreme court does in the NSSF v. Becerra case before issuing its decision. I believe that the Ninth is bound by the decisions of the state's highest court on issues of interpretation and application of state law.
Reply With Quote
  #2261  
Old 02-28-2018, 12:13 AM
BrotherSharp's Avatar
BrotherSharp BrotherSharp is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 85
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

(Crap, I originally posted it the wrong place I think. This is a repost)

I was just wondering how long is the court going to take to make a decision on the most recent hearing concerning the microstamping law.

I figured we must be coming up on some sort of time limit.

According to the 9th circuit lawyers guide...page 17

G. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FROM THE TIME OF ARGUMENT TO THE TIME OF DECISION The Court has no time limit, but most cases are decided within 3 months to a year.

I am sad.




https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...cticeGuide.pdf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #2262  
Old 02-28-2018, 2:28 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherSharp View Post
(Crap, I originally posted it the wrong place I think. This is a repost)

I was just wondering how long is the court going to take to make a decision on the most recent hearing concerning the microstamping law.

I figured we must be coming up on some sort of time limit.

According to the 9th circuit lawyers guide...page 17

G. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FROM THE TIME OF ARGUMENT TO THE TIME OF DECISION The Court has no time limit, but most cases are decided within 3 months to a year.

I am sad.




https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...cticeGuide.pdf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You did. As to this case, I suspect the Ninth will wait to see the outcome in the NSSF case before issuing a decision, since they cover some of the same ground, and the Ninth will be bound by the California Supreme Court's decision as it respects California law.
Reply With Quote
  #2263  
Old 03-09-2018, 10:46 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,009
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
You did. As to this case, I suspect the Ninth will wait to see the outcome in the NSSF case before issuing a decision, since they cover some of the same ground, and the Ninth will be bound by the California Supreme Court's decision as it respects California law.
What state law claim were raised in Pena? It been a long time since I reviewed the briefs.

I think that we are going to get something from Pena. Maybe not a lot but something. It was a GOP majority panel and this has been taking a long time. That makes me at least want to believe they are trying to write a comprehensive opinion that won't get overturned. Its either that or there are two judges who have made up there mind and one judge in the middle who can't decide.

Isn't there one guy who is left handed that can't get a gun that he can hold right?
Reply With Quote
  #2264  
Old 03-09-2018, 1:12 PM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 898
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
What state law claim were raised in Pena? It been a long time since I reviewed the briefs.

I think that we are going to get something from Pena. Maybe not a lot but something. It was a GOP majority panel and this has been taking a long time. That makes me at least want to believe they are trying to write a comprehensive opinion that won't get overturned. Its either that or there are two judges who have made up there mind and one judge in the middle who can't decide.

Isn't there one guy who is left handed that can't get a gun that he can hold right?
Dona took my argument about 2-colored XD45s, the gent I only recall as "Gimp" (sorry) took the left-hand argument, and Ivan took some other part of the argument.

Nowhere is there a compelling state argument about the unsafe-ness of left handed models of a firearm. Neither is there a compelling argument about the color of a firearm making for unsafe-ness. {Perhaps this is why the CA DOJ is arguing both sides of the color issue! It is 'not unsafe' if the color of the serialized part changes -- the frame -- but it is 'not not unsafe' if the color of the slide changes. For the same same model of the same firearm. At least the state will always be right with this argument?}

Perhaps a left-handed, two-colored version of the XD45 would be not-not-not unsafe, making it safe for sale to non LEO in CA? Perhaps we can ask Gavin for clarity.
__________________
What about the 19th? Can the Commerce Clause be used to make it illegal for voting women to buy shoes from another state?
Reply With Quote
  #2265  
Old 03-09-2018, 1:15 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
What state law claim were raised in Pena? It been a long time since I reviewed the briefs.

I think that we are going to get something from Pena. Maybe not a lot but something. It was a GOP majority panel and this has been taking a long time. That makes me at least want to believe they are trying to write a comprehensive opinion that won't get overturned. Its either that or there are two judges who have made up there mind and one judge in the middle who can't decide.

Isn't there one guy who is left handed that can't get a gun that he can hold right?
It has been a long time for me as well. As I recall, without going back to look, is that Pena was an attack on the entire Roster and all of its requirements for safety features, while the NSSF case focused on the certification of the microstamping requirement. Further, I think that the defendant was having a hard time justifying to the panel the microstamping requirement as it really has nothing at all to do with safety.
I think Pena has some hard ground that it will not be able to overcome, but that is just my opinion. As originally cast, the Roster was for drop safety, which is hard to criticize. The subsequent amendments to the law were imposed to protect people from their own stupidity, and in that sense, are not any different than all of the safety requirements the Fed imposes on car manufacturers. Again, these are easily justified unless you believe that the State has no justifiable interest in preventing the operation of Darwin's Law.
Reply With Quote
  #2266  
Old 03-09-2018, 1:29 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
What state law claim were raised in Pena? It been a long time since I reviewed the briefs.

I think that we are going to get something from Pena. Maybe not a lot but something. It was a GOP majority panel and this has been taking a long time. That makes me at least want to believe they are trying to write a comprehensive opinion that won't get overturned. Its either that or there are two judges who have made up there mind and one judge in the middle who can't decide.

Isn't there one guy who is left handed that can't get a gun that he can hold right?
It has been a long time for me as well. As I recall, without going back to look, is that Pena was an attack on the entire Roster and all of its requirements for safety features, while the NSSF case focused on the certification of the microstamping requirement. Further, I think that the defendant was having a hard time justifying to the panel the microstamping requirement as it really has nothing at all to do with safety.
I think Pena has some hard ground that it will not be able to overcome, but that is just my opinion. As originally cast, the Roster was for drop safety, which is hard to criticize. The subsequent amendments to the law were imposed to protect people from their own stupidity, and in that sense, are not any different than all of the safety requirements the Fed imposes on car manufacturers. Again, these are easily justified unless you believe that the State has no justifiable interest in preventing the operation of Darwin's Law.
Reply With Quote
  #2267  
Old 03-09-2018, 1:33 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

P.S.: In case you hadn't noticed, the NSSF case is scheduled for hearing April 4. If the Supreme Court agrees with the state that the DOJ's certification is not subject to judicial review (unlikely as that seems), then the winning issue in Pena will be moot. Hence, and given that the Supreme Court's ruling on issues of state law is binding on federal courts, the delay in Pena is to be expected.
Reply With Quote
  #2268  
Old 03-09-2018, 4:16 PM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Bay
Posts: 391
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Isn't the roster and the associated fees violating the ruling in Brown v. Maryland. The State isn't allowed to charge a tariff (roster fee) restricting Interstate Commerce.

Nothing the Leftist say has anything to do with the real issue. Their agenda is always to gain control by any means necessary. That's why none of the Leftist ideals have ever worked anywhere other than to enslave the non-elites.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2269  
Old 03-09-2018, 11:29 PM
thedrickel's Avatar
thedrickel thedrickel is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lost in the wheels of confusion
Posts: 5,499
iTrader: 137 / 100%
Default

In hindsight the left handed argument is crap. The court will just say "there are many options on the roster sufficient for someone with only a left hand, including revolvers and various semis with ambi controls that are on the roster."

The XD bitone is weak also, the court will agree with the DOJ that if that's what you want, just buy the stainless slide and change it out yourself. Mild cost and inconvenience are minor harms compared to the "safety" provided by the institution of the roster.

I really don't see us winning this one. Microstamping has a good possibility to get tossed in the other case, but otherwise I think the roster stands. We might win with the panel but good luck at the en banc.

[/FGG]

We were still on cloud 9 after Heller/McDonald when this was filed, but now we have to understand reality.
__________________
I hate people that are full of hate.

It's not illegal to tip for PPT!

Last edited by thedrickel; 03-09-2018 at 11:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2270  
Old 03-10-2018, 7:51 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 478
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
It has been a long time for me as well. As I recall, without going back to look, is that Pena was an attack on the entire Roster and all of its requirements for safety features, while the NSSF case focused on the certification of the microstamping requirement. Further, I think that the defendant was having a hard time justifying to the panel the microstamping requirement as it really has nothing at all to do with safety.
I think Pena has some hard ground that it will not be able to overcome, but that is just my opinion. As originally cast, the Roster was for drop safety, which is hard to criticize. The subsequent amendments to the law were imposed to protect people from their own stupidity, and in that sense, are not any different than all of the safety requirements the Fed imposes on car manufacturers. Again, these are easily justified unless you believe that the State has no justifiable interest in preventing the operation of Darwin's Law.

I would disagree that it's hard to criticize the safety features.. What the roster mandates to safety features that are suppose to prevent negligent discharges, absent proof they actually do that. The vast majority of guns don't have these features.

In California you have 30-60 people who die from negligent discharges per year. In contrast you have about 3000 vehicle fatalities in California. So between the two you have much more motivation to regulate cars.

If you extend the same regulatory scheme to the first amendment, then people who read Nietzsche are much more likely to commit suicide, some small number of people a year commit suicide as a result of Nietzsche , hence we must censor books. You could also say kids watch movies, then try to do what they saw in the movie, and end up dead so we have to censor movies, etc..

Guru argued the points pretty well, IMO. The roster is a straight gun ban, nothing more nothing less.
Reply With Quote
  #2271  
Old 03-10-2018, 8:36 AM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 759
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I would disagree that it's hard to criticize the safety features.. What the roster mandates to safety features that are suppose to prevent negligent discharges, absent proof they actually do that. The vast majority of guns don't have these features.
What is comes down to is the level of scrutiny. 2A should be intermediate scrutiny, at least. The roster likely survives rational basis review.

Unfortunately, lower courts often use rational basis, but then call it intermediate scrutiny. Thomas called this out in his dissent on the denial of cert for Silvester.

The roster won’t survive legitimate intermediate or strict scrutiny. But the 9th will likely only apply rational basis review, via an en banc review if necessary. That leaves it to SCOTUS to correct, but they just failed to do so in Silvester.
Reply With Quote
  #2272  
Old 03-10-2018, 8:54 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 478
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
What is comes down to is the level of scrutiny. 2A should be intermediate scrutiny, at least. The roster likely survives rational basis review.

Unfortunately, lower courts often use rational basis, but then call it intermediate scrutiny. Thomas called this out in his dissent on the denial of cert for Silvester.

The roster won’t survive legitimate intermediate or strict scrutiny. But the 9th will likely only apply rational basis review, via an en banc review if necessary. That leaves it to SCOTUS to correct, but they just failed to do so in Silvester.
I agree .. I think the three judge panel for Peña will come back with a win for us, then En Banc will overturn it. Same pattern we've seen. Then SCOTUS denies cert.

If they are waiting for the NSSF case, I don't get that. The cases seem disconnected to me.
Reply With Quote
  #2273  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:06 AM
lawj11 lawj11 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I agree .. I think the three judge panel for Peña will come back with a win for us, then En Banc will overturn it. Same pattern we've seen. Then SCOTUS denies cert.

If they are waiting for the NSSF case, I don't get that. The cases seem disconnected to me.
In Pena it seems that that all of the judges are for requiring a LCI, even Bybee. Where they stand on mag disconnect safety is less clear, Bybee seems to be against it. I can see them overturning the roster if the NSSF case proves that microstamping is not possible. In that case, they would probably allow enforcement of the LCI requirement and mag safety disconnect. This is the impression I get from watching the recording of the oral arguments.

They are probably waiting for the NSSF ruling because whether or not the technology exists is key. They kept using the car/airbag analogy, manufacturers had to be forced to include airbags in all cars. If microstamping is possible, then they may uphold the roster because gun manufacturers can decide to play ball like the car manufacturers did. If microstamping is not possible, then the roster is unconstitutional because it essentially bans the use of common weapons used for self defense by requiring the use of a non-existent technology.

The technology is imperfect, will not help solve crimes, and is easy to circumvent, BUT, it does exist! This is what worries me.

Last edited by lawj11; 03-10-2018 at 10:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2274  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:22 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I would disagree that it's hard to criticize the safety features.. What the roster mandates to safety features that are suppose to prevent negligent discharges, absent proof they actually do that. The vast majority of guns don't have these features.

In California you have 30-60 people who die from negligent discharges per year. In contrast you have about 3000 vehicle fatalities in California. So between the two you have much more motivation to regulate cars.

If you extend the same regulatory scheme to the first amendment, then people who read Nietzsche are much more likely to commit suicide, some small number of people a year commit suicide as a result of Nietzsche , hence we must censor books. You could also say kids watch movies, then try to do what they saw in the movie, and end up dead so we have to censor movies, etc..

Guru argued the points pretty well, IMO. The roster is a straight gun ban, nothing more nothing less.
The real issue is they have changed the meaning of safety. To get the roster established safety was defined as operating as the user intended. This is how most gun owners define and expect safety. If they was the case why would anyone need to be exempt? Shouldn't government issued weapons be safe under this definition?

Over time safety with regards to the roster was redefined to be "safety from guns". One might make the argument this was the long game all along. With this new definition of safety the intent is a ban and has worked like that in slow motion.

The courts should give California the ultimatum. If this is truly safety then there should be no exceptions. California should stop issuing off roster guns and stop allowing anyone to buy them. If it is just a slow motion ban then it must be unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #2275  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:26 AM
lawj11 lawj11 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
The real issue is they have changed the meaning of safety. To get the roster established safety was defined as operating as the user intended. This is how most gun owners define and expect safety. If they was the case why would anyone need to be exempt? Shouldn't government issued weapons be safe under this definition?

Over time safety with regards to the roster was redefined to be "safety from guns". One might make the argument this was the long game all along. With this new definition of safety the intent is a ban and has worked like that in slow motion.

The courts should give California the ultimatum. If this is truly safety then there should be no exceptions. California should stop issuing off roster guns and stop allowing anyone to buy them. If it is just a slow motion ban then it must be unconstitutional.
It is definitely a slow motion semi-auto handgun ban. The problem is that if the courts rule microstamping is possible (doesn't need to be perfect), than the onus is on the manufacturers to play ball. Sucks, but that's what I think it boils down to.
Reply With Quote
  #2276  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:49 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawj11 View Post
It is definitely a slow motion semi-auto handgun ban. The problem is that if the courts rule microstamping is possible (doesn't need to be perfect), than the onus is on the manufacturers to play ball. Sucks, but that's what I think it boils down to.
There shouldn't be enough evidence to support microstamping. Further adding requirements for features that aren't available in the market can't stand.

Courts like to look at the seat belt law. But seatbelts were generally available in the market before they were required. Second there was hard data much of which produced by the government proving seat belts were cost effective and increased safety.

So far there isn't general scientific evidence that microstamping is possible nor any that is is cost effective or achieves any safety at all.

Had they offered incentives not requirements I think the government would be in a better place. A tax , deeper back ground checks, storage requirements or even training requirements for all to buy off roaster would have greatly improved the governments case this isn't just a slow motion ban.
If the roaster cases is a loss for the government expect all those and all the AW restrictions to be on your first off roaster sale from an FFL.
Reply With Quote
  #2277  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:52 AM
lawj11 lawj11 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
There shouldn't be enough evidence to support microstamping. Further adding requirements for features that aren't available in the market can't stand.

Courts like to look at the seat belt law. But seatbelts were generally available in the market before they were required. Second there was hard data much of which produced by the government proving seat belts were cost effective and increased safety.

So far there isn't general scientific evidence that microstamping is possible nor any that is is cost effective or achieves any safety at all.

Had they offered incentives not requirements I think the government would be in a better place. A tax , deeper back ground checks, storage requirements or even training requirements for all to buy off roaster would have greatly improved the governments case this isn't just a slow motion ban.
If the roaster cases is a loss for the government expect all those and all the AW restrictions to be on your first off roaster sale from an FFL.
Ummm, have you even watched the oral arguments from Pena? They use the airbag analogy, not seatbelts. Also, the NSSF lawsuit claims microstamping is impossible, which it is not. It does exist, the technology sucks and is stupid, but it exists. Why does everyone refuse to be realistic around here???
Reply With Quote
  #2278  
Old 03-10-2018, 2:33 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawj11 View Post
Ummm, have you even watched the oral arguments from Pena? They use the airbag analogy, not seatbelts. Also, the NSSF lawsuit claims microstamping is impossible, which it is not. It does exist, the technology sucks and is stupid, but it exists. Why does everyone refuse to be realistic around here???
I did not watch the Pena oral arguments, but what difference does it make if the analogy is seat belts or airbags? The only difference between them is that one is passive (the passive motorized seat belts having bit the dust). The analogy is apt either way.

The technology that exists is (a) experimental, and (b) stamps the "case" only in one place (on the primer). This is the onlytechnology the State relied upon in support of the certification. However, the statute requires that the case be stamped in two separate locations, and thus the existing technology does not comply with the statutory requirements. And THIS is what NSSF is arguing. Is this realistic enough for you?

Last edited by TruOil; 03-10-2018 at 2:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2279  
Old 03-10-2018, 2:51 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 380
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I would disagree that it's hard to criticize the safety features.. What the roster mandates to safety features that are suppose to prevent negligent discharges, absent proof they actually do that. The vast majority of guns don't have these features.

In California you have 30-60 people who die from negligent discharges per year. In contrast you have about 3000 vehicle fatalities in California. So between the two you have much more motivation to regulate cars.

If you extend the same regulatory scheme to the first amendment, then people who read Nietzsche are much more likely to commit suicide, some small number of people a year commit suicide as a result of Nietzsche , hence we must censor books. You could also say kids watch movies, then try to do what they saw in the movie, and end up dead so we have to censor movies, etc..

Guru argued the points pretty well, IMO. The roster is a straight gun ban, nothing more nothing less.
1. They are safety features. How many times have you heard of an idiot who dropped the mag, and after shooting someone declared "I thought the gun wa unloaded?" You have no idea how many lives are saved by these safety features, and you cannot extrapolate from the number of "successful" negligent discharges to someone who realized before pulling the trigger that the gun was loaded? It is like DGUs: there is no way to acscertain the effectiveness of the law.
2. Cars ARE heavily regulated. That is why we have seat belts (I am old enough to remember when cares did not even have them), air bags, DRLs, airbags, crush zones, etc. etc. etc. I don't perceive that any manufacturer thinks of these safety features being a "car ban." There would be well over 1000 handguns on the roster but for the microstamping rule, and while we may argue as to the efficacy of any particular measure, would you rather have handguns that are or are not drop safe and won't blow up in your hand under normal circumstances? This is what the original roster law was intended to accomplish and it did. In fact, drop safe features are incorporated in most new handguns 9except Series 70 Colt 1911s).

3. The microstamping rule is NOT and was never intended to be a safety feature. It is supposed to be a feature that assists law enforcement in solving crime. As such it diverges greatly from the safety aspects of the original roster law. And this, plus the lack of proof that the staute's requirements have been met, make it the most vulnerable of the roster requirements.

4. The analogy to the First Amendment is inapt. You can still have guns, and as many guns as you like, as long as they are on the Roster. Your right to keep and bear them is unaffected. The original intent, and the purpose of its requirements, is top prevent you from shooting dangerous guns. And as I said, the later requirements were to protect people from their own stupidity and/or lack of training.
Reply With Quote
  #2280  
Old 03-10-2018, 3:31 PM
lawj11 lawj11 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If dual stamping doesn’t exists (it does) than California changes the requirement to 1 stamp on one part of the casing. Duh!
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 6:29 PM.




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.