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
  #321  
Old 05-03-2018, 12:04 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As a caveat, noted by CA, the AG simply stated the patents expired not that the technology was mature. Nothing here was about engineering.
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 05-03-2018, 1:57 AM
solidfreshdope solidfreshdope is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 600
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deschoots View Post
Here you go fellas, the 4/4 recording is now available:
http://jcc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer....12&clip_id=688


We need better representation. Although half the time it felt like the state was arguing in our favor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Welcome to the United Snakes.
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 05-03-2018, 11:50 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,014
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidfreshdope View Post
We need better representation. Although half the time it felt like the state was arguing in our favor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
The guy arguing is one of the top lawyers in the country and the NSSF's lawyer. None of your money is gong to fund him either. The NSSF's lawyers are all paid by gun companies.
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 05-05-2018, 10:52 AM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just saw the orals and don't feel to good about our side. I'm a bit late to this case, but I just don't understand why the maxim of impossibility is the angle being argued? I suppose my issue is I don't see how they can prove dual-site micro stamping is an "impossibility". Expensive, reduced safety/functionality, questionable profitability, a destruction of image/reputation of a gun mfg, stupid business decision, highly likely a product failure, sure... but I think strictly technologically "impossible" is a term too far. This isn't comparable to Lazarus and raising the dead. One of the Justices even acknowledged that expensive etc etc does not mean impossible.

I understand that going after the constitutionality, while purer and cleaner, would likely end poorly at the 9th. I also understand they left the door open to redirect on constitutionality. What am I missing here with this approach?
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 05-06-2018, 11:14 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 513
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I just got around to watching the oral args and WOW.... that was embarrassing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidfreshdope
Although half the time it felt like the state was arguing in our favor.
Not really. That state was essentially asking the lawyer "Why didn't you file a constitutionality challenge. Or a due process challenge. Or ANY other challenge. Are you that dumb?"
And the lawyer's response? "We'd be happy to amend our complaint if possible [we done effed up]"

The justices are going to tear this case a new punch-hole. Precisely because, as one pointed out, if the state has the authority to issue a complete ban, why can it not issue a ban with [impossible] conditionals? It's equivalent in every way. Assuming the conditionals are impossible. A key moment was when the judge mentioned "we assume it's constitutional until proven otherwise". He's telegraphing. They will, similarly, assume dual microstamping is possible until proven otherwise. Like his analogy of the state only certifying self-driving cars that have been to the moon and back. Economically impossible? Yes. Impossible? No. The judge also asked "how much money has been invested into researching dual microstamping?" Lawyer response? "I don't know". That video was the 20 minute professional equivalent of laughing the NSSF lawyer out of the room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood
The guy arguing is one of the top lawyers in the country and the NSSF's lawyer.
If that's the best we have, God help us.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 05-07-2018, 2:16 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 403
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
Just saw the orals and don't feel to good about our side. I'm a bit late to this case, but I just don't understand why the maxim of impossibility is the angle being argued? I suppose my issue is I don't see how they can prove dual-site micro stamping is an "impossibility". Expensive, reduced safety/functionality, questionable profitability, a destruction of image/reputation of a gun mfg, stupid business decision, highly likely a product failure, sure... but I think strictly technologically "impossible" is a term too far. This isn't comparable to Lazarus and raising the dead. One of the Justices even acknowledged that expensive etc etc does not mean impossible.

I understand that going after the constitutionality, while purer and cleaner, would likely end poorly at the 9th. I also understand they left the door open to redirect on constitutionality. What am I missing here with this approach?
I couldn't make it to the end of the argument. Too depressing. And I agree. Now maybe I am an idiot (please don't tell my boss), but I interpret the "certification" issue completely differently than the NSSF counsel, who siad it was "just a patent issue not relevant here." Wait, doesn't it make sense to read the statute in its entirety to suggest that the certification was supposed to occur, not just when ANY microstamping technology was generally available, but technology that complied with the dictates of the statute, i.e. that stamps in two places? And since that tech does NOT exist, didnt't the AG's office abuse its discretion in certifying that the conditions of the statute had been met?
Whatever. I also think that there was a disconnect between what NSSF wanted and what the Court seemed to think it wanted. NSSF appears to be seeking to enjoin application of the statute until the requisite technology,. unencumbered by patents, is available, but it not a facial attack on the entire statute as requiring an impossibility. The former is comprehensible, the latter clearly not. And the latter is a loser, imho.
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 05-11-2018, 1:49 PM
bobbodaggit bobbodaggit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Roseville
Posts: 256
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It's not all bad. The Court wasn't buying the impossibility argument standing alone. They'll probably dismiss the complaint with opportunity to amend in a constitutional or statutory challenge in conjunction with the impossibility one, or in a worse case, the court would dismiss it outright with no opportunity to amend, in which case the plaintiffs could just file a new lawsuit and make the impossibility, constitutional, and regulatory challenges.

DOJ, being aggressive as they are, asked for the supreme court to dismiss the lawsuit, without leave to amend the complaint AND with a legal finding - pre trial - that the law withstands any constitutional challenge on the extremely high rational basis deference standard - basically if the government has a 'rational basis' for doing something, it could. With no evidence taken. What chutzpah. The likelihood of that happening is slim, despite it being Gavin Newsom's wet dream.

Last edited by bobbodaggit; 05-11-2018 at 8:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 06-08-2018, 1:52 AM
JaredKaragen JaredKaragen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 187
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

do we have to break down to the argument over assumptions now?

Is there evidence, and proof to back up it CAN be done...


With guns being a part of any equation; why do people all the sudden flip a retard reverse-logic switch? I just don't get it. Arguments and everything. The uneducated have a literal inverse of logic. It's astounding.
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 06-26-2018, 7:56 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,014
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I couldn't make it to the end of the argument. Too depressing. And I agree. Now maybe I am an idiot (please don't tell my boss), but I interpret the "certification" issue completely differently than the NSSF counsel, who siad it was "just a patent issue not relevant here." Wait, doesn't it make sense to read the statute in its entirety to suggest that the certification was supposed to occur, not just when ANY microstamping technology was generally available, but technology that complied with the dictates of the statute, i.e. that stamps in two places? And since that tech does NOT exist, didnt't the AG's office abuse its discretion in certifying that the conditions of the statute had been met?
Whatever. I also think that there was a disconnect between what NSSF wanted and what the Court seemed to think it wanted. NSSF appears to be seeking to enjoin application of the statute until the requisite technology,. unencumbered by patents, is available, but it not a facial attack on the entire statute as requiring an impossibility. The former is comprehensible, the latter clearly not. And the latter is a loser, imho.
I thought that the CA supreme court had to rule within 3 months? Is it normal for them to take this long?
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 06-27-2018, 11:07 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 403
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
I thought that the CA supreme court had to rule within 3 months? Is it normal for them to take this long?
I received notice just now that the opinion will be filed this Thursday at 10 a.m.
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 06-27-2018, 1:20 PM
Diamondi88 Diamondi88 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Wildomar
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I received notice just now that the opinion will be filed this Thursday at 10 a.m.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...NSTDtKCg%3D%3D
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 06-28-2018, 9:05 AM
adamkdoiron adamkdoiron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Quincy, CA
Posts: 149
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Not seeing anything yet on their website for the opinion

EDIT:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S239397.PDF

Looks like it was reversed?

Last edited by adamkdoiron; 06-28-2018 at 9:10 AM.. Reason: Found
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 06-28-2018, 9:14 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,014
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

loss that is to bad
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 06-28-2018, 9:18 AM
adamkdoiron adamkdoiron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Quincy, CA
Posts: 149
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
loss that is to bad
After reading through it all that is what I gathered as well.
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 06-28-2018, 9:27 AM
FlyingShooter FlyingShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 355
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I am at work and don’t have time to read through it right now, so micro-stamping has to stay then is what your saying?
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 06-28-2018, 9:35 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 513
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
We understand Civil Code section 3531 just as Civil Code section 3509 provides: It is an interpretative canon for construing statutes, not a means for invalidating them. Impossibility can occasionally excuse non compliance with a statute, but in such circumstances, the excusal constitutes an interpretation of the statute in accordance with the Legislature’s intent, not an invalidation of the statute.
Woooooowwwwwww...... I knew they would reverse the court of appeals, but not like this.

Quote:
Neither the text nor the purpose of the [Unsafe Handgun] Act contemplates that a showing of impossibility can excuse compliance with the statutory requirement once the statute goes into effect.
Uhh..... So Civil code 3531 can only apply to a law where the law specifically states that CC 3531 shall apply? Can anyone give a single example where that is the case?

Quote:
But Civil Code section 3531’s maxim that “[t]he law never requires impossibilities” is an interpretive aid that occasionally authorizes an exception to a statutory mandate in accordance with the Legislature’s intent behind the mandate.
So there you have it. Instead of simply saying "we consider requirements to be possible until proven otherwise", they went full banana republic and insisted that when a law is impossible, you must still comply and only after you are dragged in front of a judge may the judge excuse you for noncompliance on the basis of CC 3531. Un-flipping-believeable
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 06-28-2018, 9:36 AM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Bay
Posts: 397
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Kangaroo Court: Just because it's impossible to do doesn't make it unlawful.

Next step, all firearm transfers must be completed on Mars.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:24 AM
FlyingShooter FlyingShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 355
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Geeze we can’t win a damn thing in this wretched socialist state.
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:34 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,716
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Does it matter that we lost?

Win, loss... either way, we'd still have the microstamping requirement today, while we wait for the next court up the ladder to deal with the appeal filed by whoever the losing party was.

What is the next step of the ladder, anyways? 9th circus?
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses


Last edited by cockedandglocked; 06-28-2018 at 10:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:46 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 807
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Does it matter that we lost?

Win, loss... either way, we'd still have the microstamping requirement today, while we wait for the next court up the ladder to deal with the appeal filed by whoever the losing party was.

What is the next step of the ladder, anyways? 9th circus?
How do we get out of state of CA jurisdiction (have to do that to get to CA9)? My understanding is that the micro stamping requirement was purely a state of CA requirement.
Reply With Quote
  #341  
Old 06-28-2018, 11:32 AM
canopis's Avatar
canopis canopis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 238
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post

What is the next step of the ladder, anyways? 9th circus?
No, I don't think the federal courts will hear appeals of state-law questions, unless there is some sort of Constitutional issue involved. The plaintiffs here did not make a Second Amendment (or other Constitutional) claim, so I don't think there is any further avenue for appeal.

In other words, I think we're done here.

Last edited by canopis; 06-28-2018 at 11:33 AM.. Reason: Corrected typo.
Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 06-28-2018, 11:59 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,716
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Well if that's true, then that sucks...
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 06-28-2018, 6:40 PM
Kimbals-chosen Kimbals-chosen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Is there something we can do in the Courts
Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 06-28-2018, 6:48 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,716
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimbals-chosen View Post
Is there something we can do in the Courts
That's what this thread is about... Or are you suggesting we file suit against the judges who ruled on this? I guess that's something new we haven't tried yet
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 06-28-2018, 7:07 PM
bobbodaggit bobbodaggit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Roseville
Posts: 256
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Lets all calm down. It's not a final determination on the legality of microstamping - although we're stuck with the requirement for now.

The Court determined that a violation of the impossibility provision, alone, can't invalidate the microstamping regulation or any regulation for that matter.

It did not reach any determination whether the microstamping regulation is constitutional, despite DOJ's request at oral argument that it should find it to be under the highly deferential to government rational basis standard.

The plaintiffs could potentially refile their lawsuit alleging constitutional and other challenges in either state or federal court - which at the SCOTUS level may, when the case would be heard, actually accept cert on a 2A case. We'll have to wait and see what they decide to do.
Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 06-28-2018, 7:32 PM
Skip_Dog's Avatar
Skip_Dog Skip_Dog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 1,013
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Well I guess we will just have to hurry up and wait some more. Time for another donation.
Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 06-29-2018, 12:53 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Now that a CA law cannot be invalidated due to impossibility that its requirements can be met, I sent a note to my representative in Sacto that they pass a law that pigs must fly, for delivery from farms to the packing houses. They will fly no more than 500 feet above ground and will require navigational and flight skills training.

This has numerous advantages: fewer trucks on the road, less emissions, less road wear and a leaner product for consumers to extend their lifespans and health.

Everyone will have to be a little heads up due to excrement coming from the sky but it is a small price to pay for the children.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 06-29-2018, 5:56 PM
Wolverine's Avatar
Wolverine Wolverine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 740
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canopis View Post
No, I don't think the federal courts will hear appeals of state-law questions, unless there is some sort of Constitutional issue involved. The plaintiffs here did not make a Second Amendment (or other Constitutional) claim, so I don't think there is any further avenue for appeal.

In other words, I think we're done here.
I think you are right here.

A new case (in federal court) would need to be brought that makes a 2nd amendment claim. Say, the 2nd amendment protects ownership of firearms in common use -> ownership requires the ability to acquire them -> firearms without micro stamping are in common use -> California’s ban on sales of firearms without micro stamping infringes on the plaintiff’s 2nd amendment rights.

Might work after Trump fills Kennedy’s seat on SCOTUS.
Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 06-30-2018, 8:48 PM
Master_P Master_P is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
I think you are right here.

A new case (in federal court) would need to be brought that makes a 2nd amendment claim. Say, the 2nd amendment protects ownership of firearms in common use -> ownership requires the ability to acquire them -> firearms without micro stamping are in common use -> California’s ban on sales of firearms without micro stamping infringes on the plaintiff’s 2nd amendment rights.

Might work after Trump fills Kennedy’s seat on SCOTUS.
Isn't that part of Pena v. Cid? That case was accepted at 9CA over a year ago. IIRC from that thread, the speculation was that 9CA was waiting for the CA Supreme Court to resolve this case before 9CA issues its holding in Pena.

The CA Supreme Court effectively admitted micro-stamping is not possible, but that impossibility doesn't invalidate the statute. If they viewed micro-stamping as achievable, that would be dispositive. Discussing compliance impossibility becomes a non-sequitur.

Thus, 9CA should declare micro-stamping unconstitutional under 2A grounds in Pena, since that case involves a 2A claim.
Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 06-30-2018, 10:44 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 513
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_P View Post
The CA Supreme Court effectively admitted micro-stamping is not possible, but that impossibility doesn't invalidate the statute.
Uh... citation please? I agree that they asserted that impossibility doesn't invalidate a law in a general sense, but I don't see where they implicitly agreed microstamping was impossible.
Reply With Quote
  #351  
Old 07-01-2018, 8:55 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Well, I hope taking this impossibility maxim approach likely resulting in a loss was part of a larger master plan... Otherwise the trouble could have been saved and originally filed on constitutional grounds. SCOTUS is not yet ready for 2A cases, but getting closer.
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 07-01-2018, 9:39 PM
bobbodaggit bobbodaggit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Roseville
Posts: 256
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Generally speaking, federal claims - ie a 2A constitutional challenge, and state law claims - ie a state regulatory challenge like the present lawsuit, could be brought in either court subject to the limitations below.

A federal court (United States District Court > 9th Circuit> SCOTUS) could have jurisdiction to hear a state law claim either under diversity jurisdiction (ex citizens of multiple states sue each other) or under supplemental jurisdiction (ie you bring a 2A claim and a related regulatory challenge which would make sense for the federal courts to hear) Potentially, if guidance is needed from the state as to interpreting it's regulation, the federal court could ask the California Supreme Court to provide an interpretion of state law.

Or you could bring both federal and state claims in state court (Superior Court > Court of Appeal > California Supreme Court) There, the CA Supreme Court would have the final say unless SCOTUS had grounds (and wanted to) hear an appeal of its determination under again Federal Question or Diversity Jurisdiction.

Here a state claim challenging the regulation based on the impossibility regulation was brought in state court. The California Supreme Court told the Court of Appeal to affirm the superior court's judgment on the pleadings (a pretrial judgment) for the DOJ.

The plaintiffs potentially have other claims that they could allege in either the state or federal courts. Both have their pros and cons.

Last edited by bobbodaggit; 07-01-2018 at 9:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 07-01-2018, 9:40 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 807
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Out of curiosity, what is the practical implication of the loss? That all handguns sold in CA from now on must provide micro stamping functionality? If so, that would seem to provide immediate 2A injury. Or?
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 07-01-2018, 10:02 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 31,864
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Out of curiosity, what is the practical implication of the loss? That all handguns sold in CA from now on must provide micro stamping functionality? If so, that would seem to provide immediate 2A injury. Or?
The microstamping addition to the roster requirements stands.
The law does not retroactively de-roster non-compliant designs.
This roster requirement only applies to semiautomatics, not revolvers.

So far, the only roster requirement that applies to revolvers is to pass the drop test.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 07-01-2018, 10:13 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 948
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
The microstamping addition to the roster requirements stands.
The law does not retroactively de-roster non-compliant designs.
This roster requirement only applies to semiautomatics, not revolvers.

So far, the only roster requirement that applies to revolvers is to pass the drop test.
That's why this case should be argued on the constitutionality basis. The level of 2A infringement is arbitrary and discretionary. Outside of the 9th, the level of infringement would be too great.
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 07-05-2018, 11:45 PM
mooseboy84 mooseboy84 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Impossibility is a doctrine to excuse someone from performing a contract, e.g., a gun manufacturer can't sell 50 bmg rifles because the law changed, making it impossible for anyone to perform selling the rifles because it's illegal.

Impossibility as an argument of non compliance with a law doesn't make sense, especially if it is possible for any manufacturer to microstamp bullets. Again, very very poor legal reasoning.

Impossibility literally means, it would be impossible for anyone to comply, which isn't true. Because of that, the argument fails. Furthermore, this type of stretching of a doctrine, a legal fiction, is something judges don't hold in high regard and easily tear apart and dismiss, though they do it themselves when they want to justify an opinion that's not legally following precedent.

Last edited by mooseboy84; 07-05-2018 at 11:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 07-06-2018, 12:20 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 513
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseboy84 View Post
Impossibility literally means, it would be impossible for anyone to comply, which isn't true. Because of that, the argument fails.
In this specific instance, I agree. Complying with the law is not adding any pistol to the roster which does not incorporate microstamping technology (aside from renewals).

In a broader sense, the below quote terrifies me in its literal implications.
Quote:
CC 3531’s maxim that “[t]he law never requires impossibilities” is an interpretive aid that occasionally authorizes an exception to a statutory mandate in accordance with the Legislature’s intent behind the mandate.
It would have been much more consistent and accurate for the court to rule that an impossible condition on the sale of something is analagous to a ban on the sale of said thing. If the latter is legal, so id the former- impossibilities becoming irrelevant. The court then takes the opinion that because some arms are available for purchase, the 2nd has not been infringed. For the court to (effectively) broadly decree "laws requiring impossibilities cannot be invalidated" is a world of difference.
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 07-06-2018, 5:09 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I see these trucks taking pigs from farms to slaughterhouses. It's offensive, especially if you are downwind.

I believe the solons of Sacto should decree that pigs learn to fly from farm to slaughterhouse, any other transfer method being declared illegal.

There would be logical restrictions on flight by pigs. No more than 500 feet above ground level, no supersonic flight, they must follow strict corridors which other aircraft must avoid. Pigs would not be allowed to fly under instrument conditions, only clear daylight. Pigs shall not be held liable for voiding their cavities while airborne.

At a certain age, pigs would enter school to learn flight and navigational skills. Each pig shall carry electronics identifying it on radar as a pig so a stray pig could be seen by radar-equipped aircraft so the aircraft can change course to avoid collision. Eventually, formation flight by pigs will may mitigate this requirement, so that only the flight leader shall be instrumented. Pigs that graduate from flight school shall be given appropriate medals reflecting the achievement.

Pigs that wash out of flight school be consigned to pastures selected by a committee of the CA Senate to receive remedial flight training. Pigs that fail the remedial flight training will be provided a 60-day opportunity to learn opera. Pigs failing all opportunities shall be transferred to state control at a value fixed at 5 year intervals by the aforementioned Pig Committe.

Pigs given up to state control shall be transferred by any means deemed expedient by the state to a facility operated by the state and rendered to useful products. Such products shall be provided to state employees, illegal immigrants, welfare recipients and/or others, at the discretion of the Pig Committee described above, at no cost to the recipient.

Failure by farmers to properly train pigs to fly or sing may result in fines and/or imprisonment to be determined by the above named Pig Committee, if the Committee finds the farmer ran substandard programs and denied pigs the opportunities offered by this law.

Goodwin Liu should have no problems at all upholding the "constitutional" compliance of such a law. Stare decisis, after all.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 07-13-2018, 9:44 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,782
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Was this case sent back to lower courts or can we appeal to SCOTUS now?
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 07-13-2018, 10:48 AM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 31,864
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Was this case sent back to lower courts or can we appeal to SCOTUS now?
This was California Supreme Court... we are effectively done. A new case needs to be brought up challenging Constitutionality to get it through the 9th and on to SCOTUS.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
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 4:59 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.