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
  #2361  
Old 06-27-2018, 2:40 PM
jj8325 jj8325 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wonder how likely the SCOTUS is to hear this now that Kennedy is retiring....

Last edited by jj8325; 06-27-2018 at 2:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2362  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:33 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 406
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj8325 View Post
I wonder how likely the SCOTUS is to hear this now that Kennedy is retiring....
Let's not jump the gun. First there has to be a decision by the Ninth Circuit, and second, Trump has to be able to replace one of the justices. With Flake blocking hearings on nominees and the democrats out for blood, do not expect a replacement prior to the midterms, and probably not for some time after.
Reply With Quote
  #2363  
Old 06-27-2018, 4:38 PM
jj8325 jj8325 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 16
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Let's not jump the gun. First there has to be a decision by the Ninth Circuit, and second, Trump has to be able to replace one of the justices. With Flake blocking hearings on nominees and the democrats out for blood, do not expect a replacement prior to the midterms, and probably not for some time after.
True. But it seems like the 9th has a history of upholding these type of cases, and I'm hopeful that IF a pro 2A replacement for Kennedy gets in before the midterms, then the SCOTUS will be more inclined to hear these type of cases. Perhaps too optimistic, and time will tell, I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #2364  
Old 06-29-2018, 4:02 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,708
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Like poll taxes, the roster was designed to keep poor minorities from exercising a constitutional right.
Not really. The roster includes the Accu-Tek AT-380 which is an ok stainless steel gun, under $300 out the door. A Hi Point 380 is under $150. And used guns are still available. And long guns are still avaiable, including plenty of inexpensive and used shotgun options under $200. I don't think poor minorities are having any problems affording guns here. I think the roster and restrictions on ammo sales is more about ending gun culture, particularly among whites.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2365  
Old 06-29-2018, 5:48 AM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 6,042
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Not really. The roster includes the Accu-Tek AT-380 which is an ok stainless steel gun, under $300 out the door. A Hi Point 380 is under $150. And used guns are still available. And long guns are still avaiable, including plenty of inexpensive and used shotgun options under $200. I don't think poor minorities are having any problems affording guns here. I think the roster and restrictions on ammo sales is more about ending gun culture, particularly among whites.
True. But also racism. Most of the rich liberal elite that run things are white, as are the Rulers and law enforcement, they need to destroy the gun culture. Since the majority of the California population is minority(other than white), the elite white ruling class fear minority gun owners.
Reply With Quote
  #2366  
Old 06-29-2018, 7:25 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,753
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Is it wrong that I'm not upset about the judical sandbagging on this case now with all the SCOTUS developments? Here's to hoping they shot themselves in the foot.
Reply With Quote
  #2367  
Old 06-29-2018, 8:34 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 482
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It seems like they were waiting for the NSSF case to complete before they gave a ruling on this one. Now the NSSF case is complete, so I would think they would be movement on this.
Reply With Quote
  #2368  
Old 06-29-2018, 9:00 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,545
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
Is it wrong that I'm not upset about the judical sandbagging on this case now with all the SCOTUS developments? Here's to hoping they shot themselves in the foot.
From Proverbs:

22 His own iniquities entrap the wicked man, and he is caught in the cords of his sin. (5:22)

3 The Lord will not let good people go hungry, but he will keep the wicked from getting what they want. (10:3)
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Custom 3rd Gen 5.9 Cummins Diesel and 48RE Transmission Tuning- PM Me

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #2369  
Old 06-29-2018, 9:17 AM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Win win win win
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 8,120
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
It seems like they were waiting for the NSSF case to complete before they gave a ruling on this one. Now the NSSF case is complete, so I would think they would be movement on this.
I don't think NSSF case is "complete." That recent ruling from CA Supreme Court was overturning a motion the state had submitted. The "trial" hadn't even started, IIRC.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by teg33 View Post
Welcome, don't listen to readysetgo.
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac

Reply With Quote
  #2370  
Old 06-29-2018, 9:45 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 482
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by readysetgo View Post
I don't think NSSF case is "complete." That recent ruling from CA Supreme Court was overturning a motion the state had submitted. The "trial" hadn't even started, IIRC.
They overturned an order allowing the trial to continue, which means the trial can't continue, or that's my understanding.
Reply With Quote
  #2371  
Old 06-29-2018, 9:51 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,446
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Not really. The roster includes the Accu-Tek AT-380 which is an ok stainless steel gun, under $300 out the door. A Hi Point 380 is under $150. And used guns are still available. And long guns are still avaiable, including plenty of inexpensive and used shotgun options under $200. I don't think poor minorities are having any problems affording guns here. I think the roster and restrictions on ammo sales is more about ending gun culture, particularly among whites.
The expressed hope had been that the Lorcins and Ravens and Davis (from the family of Jason Davis, attorney) would fail the tests, taking the really inexpensive handguns off the market.
__________________
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
  #2372  
Old 06-29-2018, 10:03 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,708
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
True. But also racism. Most of the rich liberal elite that run things are white, as are the Rulers and law enforcement, they need to destroy the gun culture. Since the majority of the California population is minority(other than white), the elite white ruling class fear minority gun owners.
That is true. A lot of gun control is rich liberal whites hating non-rich whites. They somehow think that non-rich whites with AR15s are bad, while MS13 members walking around armed is no problem. They're not thinking things through all the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
The expressed hope had been that the Lorcins and Ravens and Davis (from the family of Jason Davis, attorney) would fail the tests, taking the really inexpensive handguns off the market.
Interesting, didn't know that Jason Davis was connected to that.

The cheapest CA legal gun I found was the wonderful Phoenix Arms HP22A, at about $130. I guess they did succeed in getting rid of the sub-$100 guns, but it's not pricing anyone out of the market.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2373  
Old 06-29-2018, 11:14 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,259
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Let's not jump the gun. First there has to be a decision by the Ninth Circuit, and second, Trump has to be able to replace one of the justices. With Flake blocking hearings on nominees and the democrats out for blood, do not expect a replacement prior to the midterms, and probably not for some time after.
McConnell said a day or two ago that he expects the new justice to be on the Bench by Nov 6th elections.

Going from the linked article below, I expect the nominee to be announced before Trump leaves for Europe. July & Aug will be spent with "meet & greet" Q&A between nominee and various Senators. Official hearings and vote will be in Sept. Nominee will be on the Bench to start the Court's new term come first Monday in Oct. (Not sure they'll be on the Bench in time for the Long Conference, last Monday in Sept.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Labor-Day.html

Of course, that is the Dems' worst nightmare, so they'll do everything they can to derail it. But given how many Dem senate candidates are running in states Trump won, they can't get too extreme. IOW, Dems/antis are caught between a rock and a hard place....

There is a God after all!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 06-30-2018 at 2:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2374  
Old 07-04-2018, 12:55 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,708
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Looking at the panel on this we have:

Interestingly, 2/3 of the panel are MORMONS! Yes, right here in the 9th circuit, in a gun case, we got a panel with two Mormons appointed by Republicans. What are the odds?

I'm sure we will win at the panel level, 2-1. Really hope Wallace retires immediately after.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2375  
Old 07-04-2018, 2:16 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,259
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Looking at the panel on this we have:
[LIST][*]Wallace (Nixon, please retire ASAP dude)
...
Really hope Wallace retires immediately after.
Wallace has already taken "senior" status. His "seat" on CA9 has been considered open since 1996....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_status
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #2376  
Old 07-05-2018, 7:24 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,107
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Wallace has already taken "senior" status. His "seat" on CA9 has been considered open since 1996....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_status
Kim Wardlaw filled his seat when Clinton appointed her.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #2377  
Old 07-17-2018, 8:20 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,016
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well Wallace was the only disent in the CA mag case Duncan. I am pretty worried now in light of the fact a Clinton Dem upheld the injunction in Duncan and Wallace disented
Reply With Quote
  #2378  
Old 08-03-2018, 9:11 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,016
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have just read the summary. Its a loss. I am to angry to deeply read the opinion. Everything else I can understand but the microstamping requirement? Come on

I hope a en bacn petition get filed just to kill time. Once that is denied hopefully Kavanaugh will be on the bench


http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...3/15-15449.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #2379  
Old 08-03-2018, 9:35 AM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 733
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Yes, it sounds like a 2-1 loss.

It's my opinion that all gun laws are a violation of the 2nd amendment. Having said that, in the context of the current way of interpreting things, they at least agreed with the concept that guns were still available that had chamber indicators and mag disconnects. However, they completely ignore the fact that not one single company makes a gun with micro-stamping.

This ruling just shows once again that the 9th circuit is not a law abiding entity and will do whatever they want regardless of what the law says. All of them should be removed and imprisoned for miscarriage of justice.
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #2380  
Old 08-03-2018, 9:36 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,747
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Hmm... Do you think SCOTUS would take this case? Being a pretty CA-specific law, I'm concerned that they'd pass.

What's next, en banc?
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #2381  
Old 08-03-2018, 9:45 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,107
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Clifford Wallace is a huge disappointment.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #2382  
Old 08-03-2018, 9:46 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,107
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I have just read the summary. Its a loss. I am to angry to deeply read the opinion. Everything else I can understand but the microstamping requirement? Come on

I hope a en bacn petition get filed just to kill time. Once that is denied hopefully Kavanaugh will be on the bench


http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...3/15-15449.pdf
SCOTUS gives you 90 days to ask for cert. That takes us to early November. Kavanaugh should be confirmed by then, God willing.
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #2383  
Old 08-03-2018, 10:27 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
SCOTUS gives you 90 days to ask for cert. That takes us to early November. Kavanaugh should be confirmed by then, God willing.
Trying to find it now, just read yesterday they were anticipating an Oct 1 confirmation date, where the heck did I read that?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2384  
Old 08-03-2018, 10:40 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 216
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It was a recent Chuck Grassley interview:

"If we could get this all done by October 1 when the Supreme Court starts its new fall session it would be ideal, but I think we can get it done soon after that if we don't get it done by October the first," Grassley told Hewitt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Trying to find it now, just read yesterday they were anticipating an Oct 1 confirmation date, where the heck did I read that?
Reply With Quote
  #2385  
Old 08-03-2018, 10:43 AM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,971
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I want two-tone, wah wah!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2386  
Old 08-03-2018, 12:23 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **Appealed to 9th 2/26/15** Oral args 3/16/17

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
I want two-tone, wah wah!
The rational basis for forbidding two-tone and not single color is ... ?

So it’s Constitutional for the government to forbid you from selling books with black covers ... right?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 08-03-2018 at 12:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2387  
Old 08-03-2018, 1:00 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,971
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The rational basis for forbidding two-tone and not single color is ... ?

So it’s Constitutional for the government to forbid you from selling books with black covers ... right?
The proof is in the pudding lol.

It would be nice to go on a trip down memory lane to read my original criticisms of this massive turd of a case, but they seem to have vanished into the ether unfortunately. This was a textbook example of what not to do, you could not have crafted this any more carefully to ensure a loss even if you tried.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2388  
Old 08-03-2018, 1:09 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,016
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The proof is in the pudding lol.

It would be nice to go on a trip down memory lane to read my original criticisms of this massive turd of a case, but they seem to have vanished into the ether unfortunately. This was a textbook example of what not to do, you could not have crafted this any more carefully to ensure a loss even if you tried.
You have to admit the microstamping requirement is pretty crazy though. It appears impossible to comply with. The 51 page disent lays out why it is unconstitutional better than I ever can.
Reply With Quote
  #2389  
Old 08-03-2018, 1:22 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
You have to admit the microstamping requirement is pretty crazy though. It appears impossible to comply with. The 51 page disent lays out why it is unconstitutional better than I ever can.
But california is saying it will only cost 10 per gun and can be done. They sided with their evidence apparently.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #2390  
Old 08-03-2018, 1:24 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,971
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
You have to admit the microstamping requirement is pretty crazy though. It appears impossible to comply with. The 51 page disent lays out why it is unconstitutional better than I ever can.
The evidence of "impossibility" fell short, it was essentially a litigation posture and the majority saw through that and was generally not impressed by the manufacturers' deliberate non-compliance with the roster. (I made similar observations here and here.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2391  
Old 08-03-2018, 1:25 PM
cire raeb cire raeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Kalfornia
Posts: 916
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Let SCOTUS settle it once for all with a 6-3 ruling. I see Ginburgs or one of the fat girls leaving for a health reason.
Reply With Quote
  #2392  
Old 08-03-2018, 1:40 PM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 339
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Sigh.
Reply With Quote
  #2393  
Old 08-03-2018, 1:48 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Hmm... Do you think SCOTUS would take this case? Being a pretty CA-specific law, I'm concerned that they'd pass.

What's next, en banc?
Its going to be interesting isn't it. If SCOTUS passes, I would assume more states start to pick this law up. If more states pick this law up, do manufacturers blink first and start implementing?

(I'll mention that my view is it probably is feasible to implement)
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #2394  
Old 08-03-2018, 1:54 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The proof is in the pudding lol.



It would be nice to go on a trip down memory lane to read my original criticisms of this massive turd of a case, but they seem to have vanished into the ether unfortunately. This was a textbook example of what not to do, you could not have crafted this any more carefully to ensure a loss even if you tried.

Oh I quite agree, the approach is lacking.

But let me put it this way: if the court will uphold a law on an as-applied basis even though it fails rational basis in that circumstance, how can you possibly expect to win under ANY circumstances?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #2395  
Old 08-03-2018, 1:56 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
The evidence of "impossibility" fell short, it was essentially a litigation posture and the majority saw through that and was generally not impressed by the manufacturers' deliberate non-compliance with the roster. (I made similar observations here and here.)


Then explain how the dissent is incorrect as a matter of law.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #2396  
Old 08-03-2018, 1:59 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 297
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So you think it is possible to stamp make model and serial number in two places at the time of firing a cartridge? And further you think it is possible for a handgun to do this reliably how many times it for how long?

Then when someone replaces a slide, barrel, firing pin, this will continue to work?

I'm calling bs. This is more magical thinking from the anti gun folks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
Its going to be interesting isn't it. If SCOTUS passes, I would assume more states start to pick this law up. If more states pick this law up, do manufacturers blink first and start implementing?

(I'll mention that my view is it probably is feasible to implement)
Reply With Quote
  #2397  
Old 08-03-2018, 2:11 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
So you think it is possible to stamp make model and serial number in two places at the time of firing a cartridge? And further you think it is possible for a handgun to do this reliably how many times it for how long?

Then when someone replaces a slide, barrel, firing pin, this will continue to work?

I'm calling bs. This is more magical thinking from the anti gun folks.
Its possible to do...badly.

The firing pin stamp would be pretty consistent. Probably 98% of the time.

The headstamp would be inconsistent. If you look at the samples they always stamp in a clear spot away from the ammo manufacturer label. Real world situations you'd hit the label and mess up the print. Steel cases would be another common failure. (And yes, we all know this could be bypassed easily...just like now where you can remove a magazine disconnect etc.)


Hindsight is 20/20, but this case may have been stronger had a few manufacturers submitted inconsistent guns to california for approval and they fail. Over and Over. Then you have solid evidence.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder

Last edited by Sousuke; 08-03-2018 at 2:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2398  
Old 08-03-2018, 3:06 PM
command_liner command_liner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Heart of the Valley, Oregon
Posts: 901
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
The rational basis for forbidding two-tone and not single color is ... ?

So it’s Constitutional for the government to forbid you from selling books with black covers ... right?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Call me "Mr. Two Tone".

The state's position is that when *some* people buy the two-tone version, the firearm is "not unsafe". Further, the state's position is that it is OK to buy the two-tone variant, as long as you do so making two separate purchases. The state agrees that slide of another color is not the firearm, and thus that the firearm has not changed, and agrees that the statute requires the state to approve the sale of the gun. But the state refuses to do so. Even worse, when the actual firearm changed, from black to green, the state contradicted itself and approved the sale.

Exactly how does the method of purchase change the unsafe-ness of a handgun? Or one's vocational background?

Talk about inconsistent and irrational.... it is hard to imagine a less rational argument from a state actor. Yet the court see this as proper behavior?
__________________
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
  #2399  
Old 08-03-2018, 3:18 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 482
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
... the substantial problem of untraceable bullets at crime scenes ...
It's clear these are not gun owning judges.

Quote:
... the statute limits commercial sales of new models of semiautomatic pistols ...
They refer a few times to how the law doesn't stop possession only commercial sales. Again they don't own guns because if they did they would know that the law regulates commercial sales, and possession. I can't just buy a gun on the used market if it's not commercially available inside California. Maybe they think you can just buy the gun out of state, or import it, which of course they would know you can't if they owned guns.
Reply With Quote
  #2400  
Old 08-03-2018, 3:24 PM
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!'s Avatar
FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
Posts: 2,971
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Where the rubber hits the road is how the regulations affect one's exercise of the right to self-defense and the "it's irrational because it's the same firearm just a different color" etc. arguments are precisely why this turd was doomed to be flushed into oblivion. It is by far the worst argument that could possibly have been made under the circumstances lol. "I want two-tone" who gives a sh*t?!
__________________

Last edited by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!; 08-03-2018 at 3:29 PM..
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 1:07 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.