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
  #721  
Old 05-14-2018, 3:34 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,239
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Wow council for Duncan was soooo much better than opposition.
Reply With Quote
  #722  
Old 05-14-2018, 4:01 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 297
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
It would be very delightful if the State's and Newsom's attempt to ban possession of the LCMs that have been illegal to acquire for almost 2 decades inadvertently caused the whole law to to get tossed That would be quite the embarrassing backfire, and perhaps a lesson to leave "good enough" alone.
This is what we need to push for. Each new ban is another chance to set what the laws should be not out rights up to a popular vote. I don't think Newsome will ever get over his grandfather complex. He will only stand down it he thinks he has something to lose.
Reply With Quote
  #723  
Old 05-14-2018, 4:49 PM
SAD338 SAD338 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 289
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks for the link, guys. Hoping it goes our way. We need good news on the legal front.
Reply With Quote
  #724  
Old 05-14-2018, 6:04 PM
ojisan ojisan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,513
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

2:07:30

Judge touches on an important issue that I was wondering about.
Very interesting to see him bring it up.
One taking leads to another.
If they take the mags, then they can take the guns.
If they can't take the mags, they can't take the guns either.
While a gun taking is not the issue in the case, I was wondering what protection for gun possession might be if mags are protected.
Both guns and mags are property.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #725  
Old 05-14-2018, 7:19 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Its good that a judge is seeing the progressive incrementalism at work as well.
That's how we could lose it all...one little bite at a time until there's nothing left of the right except some words on paper that everyone ignores.
At least we're not the only ones noticing it happening.
Reply With Quote
  #726  
Old 05-14-2018, 8:16 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 297
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
2:07:30

Judge touches on an important issue that I was wondering about.
Very interesting to see him bring it up.
One taking leads to another.
If they take the mags, then they can take the guns.
If they can't take the mags, they can't take the guns either.
While a gun taking is not the issue in the case, I was wondering what protection for gun possession might be if mags are protected.
Both guns and mags are property.
I think one complication is that the state is suggesting a permanent change to the property (magazine) then it isn't a taking. If a forced modification isn't a taking them how do they force a semiautomatic to be modified?
Reply With Quote
  #727  
Old 05-14-2018, 9:27 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,528
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
2:07:30

Judge touches on an important issue that I was wondering about.
Very interesting to see him bring it up.
One taking leads to another.
If they take the mags, then they can take the guns.
If they can't take the mags, they can't take the guns either.
While a gun taking is not the issue in the case, I was wondering what protection for gun possession might be if mags are protected.
Both guns and mags are property.
The state wants the injunction gone. They want the precedence to ban the possession so they can ban the possession of our RAW's. Then ban possession of all semi automatic weapons in the state. Doesn't matter if it's Constitutional or not they want to do it and will if this injunction fails.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Thank your neighbor and fellow gun owners for passing Prop 63. For that gun control is a winning legislative agenda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #728  
Old 05-15-2018, 7:51 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 41
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Court video here: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/v...vid=0000013644

My observations from watching it:

- 1 judge did not ask one question or make one statement
- other two judges fully engaged
- No iPads in front of judges!
- State's argument to reverse the injunction is that the court abused it's discretion...I think this argument is annoying the 9th circuit...
- Judges were pushing back saying this case is on a faster track...so why not just wait for it to play out
- Judges were trying to avoid getting into the merits of the original case (with respect to 2A and Takings)
- Both attorneys were prepared and well spoken

I was shocked by a couple of lines from the state attorney:

1. They called the grandfathering idea a "possession loophole" and referenced something Sunnyvale did long before the fed ban of 94
2. The state is taking anything from you since you can modify your magazine and keep it

I think you'll see these arguments become more mainstream if they work ultimately in this case.

BTW: State keeps refering to an exhibit called Mayors Against Illegal Guns Survey as their main comprehensive analysis (that's how I understood it). Never heard of it before. I think some digging is needed.

Update, with respect to the "mayors" org, the injunction footnote says the following:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns is apparently not a pro-gun rights organization. According
to Wikipedia, it was formed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Mayor John Tkazik of
Poughkeepsie, New York, resigned along with fifty others in 2014, explaining that the
organization: “under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic,
MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.” Later in
2014, it merged with another group and became “Everytown For Gun Safety.”

I would read this to say that the judge discounted their work. Also, in the injunction there is a section with the title of this organization.

Last edited by nikonmike5; 05-15-2018 at 8:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #729  
Old 05-15-2018, 8:53 PM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 223
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

At about 15:10 the State explains that the reason we need a new law preventing anyone from having these magazines is because the state was incapable of enforcing the law they wrote the last time around.

Also at one point he makes the argument that all the grandfathered mags have to go because even if the owner does not use them for a crime they might be stolen. Well, THAT argument applies equally to the standard capacity mags owned by LEO and former LEO and yet I believe they will still get to keep theirs, or am I wrong on that?
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #730  
Old 05-15-2018, 9:05 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,829
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
Also at one point he makes the argument that all the grandfathered mags have to go because even if the owner does not use them for a crime they might be stolen.
It also would apply to guns, and cars, and knives, and baseball bats, and.....
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #731  
Old 05-15-2018, 11:24 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My Magic 8-Ball says the DoJ loses on the appeal of the PI.
Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 05-16-2018, 8:17 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 213
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yes, those were the two things that stuck out for me as well. Both are piss poor excuses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
At about 15:10 the State explains that the reason we need a new law preventing anyone from having these magazines is because the state was incapable of enforcing the law they wrote the last time around.

Also at one point he makes the argument that all the grandfathered mags have to go because even if the owner does not use them for a crime they might be stolen. Well, THAT argument applies equally to the standard capacity mags owned by LEO and former LEO and yet I believe they will still get to keep theirs, or am I wrong on that?
Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 05-16-2018, 10:19 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
Yes, those were the two things that stuck out for me as well. Both are piss poor excuses.
Yep.

"It's too hard to enforce the first version of the law." - Well, you should've thought about that when you passed the law. You made your bed, now lay in it.

"People shouldn't own things that could cause harm if someone were to steal them." - It's complete insanity to start banning things simply because of what might happen if an unauthorized person stole it.

I have an idea. How about a mandatory 20 year prison sentence for people who steal "large capacity" magazines. Life sentence for a second conviction. I wonder how many stolen magazines there would be after that.

They give all these criminals a light slap on the wrist and set them free and then they wonder why guns still get stolen and crime doesn't go down. Then, instead of being harder on crime, they try to solve it by making everyone get rid of everything that might be tempting for criminals to steal.

It's apparently our fault, for having stuff. It's not the criminals' faults that they stole it. Just ask their parents and the progressive liberals that stand behind them - they'll universally tell you that they're "good boys that took a wrong turn and just need a little guidance."

No, they don't need guidance, they need a justice system that doesn't let them get away with it the first few times they get caught.
__________________



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-16-2018 at 10:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 05-16-2018, 3:52 PM
RANGER295's Avatar
RANGER295 RANGER295 is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Rural California
Posts: 3,273
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Yep.

"It's too hard to enforce the first version of the law." - Well, you should've thought about that when you passed the law. You made your bed, now lay in it.

"People shouldn't own things that could cause harm if someone were to steal them." - It's complete insanity to start banning things simply because of what might happen if an unauthorized person stole it.

I have an idea. How about a mandatory 20 year prison sentence for people who steal "large capacity" magazines. Life sentence for a second conviction. I wonder how many stolen magazines there would be after that.

They give all these criminals a light slap on the wrist and set them free and then they wonder why guns still get stolen and crime doesn't go down. Then, instead of being harder on crime, they try to solve it by making everyone get rid of everything that might be tempting for criminals to steal.

It's apparently our fault, for having stuff. It's not the criminals' faults that they stole it. Just ask their parents and the progressive liberals that stand behind them - they'll universally tell you that they're "good boys that took a wrong turn and just need a little guidance."

No, they don't need guidance, they need a justice system that doesn't let them get away with it the first few times they get caught.
The 20 year sentence thing would be just as unenforceable as the original law unless they required us to put identifiable markings on each mag which is a road I do not want to go down.

As far as the things that bad guys could steal and do bad things with argument... that is a dangerous slippery slope... just items on my property alone that come to mind as I type... guns, ammo, standard cap mags, fertilizer (could be used as an oxidizer), a tank of diesel (ironically right next to the fertilizer storage right now), Phos-Toxin (poison gas tablets for killing squirrels), knives (stabbings are on the rise), two diesel trucks (a lot of vehicle attacks going on in Europe), hammers (bludgeoning), pipe tobacco (someone could give it to kids )... the list goes on
__________________
WTB : A cheap beater .44 mag lever action rifle or carbine. Cosmetics do not matter, function and price are more important.

159

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

- Mark Twain

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 05-16-2018, 7:46 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 482
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I was thinking how they asked repeatedly about why California is even trying to appeal the PI, since the district judge was pushing the the case thru rather quickly. They said something like a couple months there would be a final decision.

I suspect it's because there's a big election coming up, and one of the people who got the law on the 2016 ballot is running. Gavin wants to claim victory, and start saying that his laws are reducing crime or some other lies.

Otherwise, the oral arguments seemed like a slam dunk. The state seemed the have little to stand on. The three judge panel has their hands tied because they have to find "abuse of power" which seems to be a high bar.
Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 05-16-2018, 8:36 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 892
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any guesses as to when they will give their decision. I know 2 weeks. Bla Bla, Bla
Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 05-17-2018, 7:36 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
Any guesses as to when they will give their decision. I know 2 weeks. Bla Bla, Bla
In this case that's probably a pretty accurate guess actually. Maybe a month. This is a case the 9th didn't even want to hear, and has a really low priority/relevence, they probably just want to get it off their desk.

On the plus side, for once, the 9th dragging their feet actually doesn't hurt us at all, they can take as long as they want for all I care.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 05-17-2018, 8:39 AM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 223
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Returning to the State's silly argument that all the grandfathered mags owned by mere citizens have to go because of the hazard of them being stolen, yet LEO and former LEO get to keep theirs, I'd love to know just what percentage that is.

Given that in the last 18+ years, the only legal 10+mags have been brought into the state by LEO and former LEO, while at the same time the pool owned by non-LEO has been deprecated by people dying, moving, or modifying their mags in anticipation of the law, I would not be surprised if the majority of the 10+ mags in people's homes are not even touched by this law.

Does anybody have any info or even an educated guess on this?
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 05-17-2018, 1:55 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 405
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
Returning to the State's silly argument that all the grandfathered mags owned by mere citizens have to go because of the hazard of them being stolen, yet LEO and former LEO get to keep theirs, I'd love to know just what percentage that is.

Given that in the last 18+ years, the only legal 10+mags have been brought into the state by LEO and former LEO, while at the same time the pool owned by non-LEO has been deprecated by people dying, moving, or modifying their mags in anticipation of the law, I would not be surprised if the majority of the 10+ mags in people's homes are not even touched by this law.

Does anybody have any info or even an educated guess on this?
That is impossible to ascertain. I own none, but just think about it, how hard is it to throw a couple (dozen) in your trunk when passing through Nevada or Arizona? It isn't as if the DA can tell the difference between one made in 1999 and one or more recent vintage (absent obvious markers such as that style of mag wasn't produced back then). Do you really think that when a legal owner dies those mags actually make it to the police for destruction? Or how about people who took those pinned mags and unpinned them?
Reply With Quote
  #740  
Old 05-17-2018, 3:20 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,528
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
That is impossible to ascertain. I own none, but just think about it, how hard is it to throw a couple (dozen) in your trunk when passing through Nevada or Arizona? It isn't as if the DA can tell the difference between one made in 1999 and one or more recent vintage (absent obvious markers such as that style of mag wasn't produced back then). Do you really think that when a legal owner dies those mags actually make it to the police for destruction? Or how about people who took those pinned mags and unpinned them?
The rebuild issue also complicates things, and IIRC, up until a few years ago, wasn't it in theory legal to retain magazines that you found abandoned and also not technically illegal to receive or purchase, but only to manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, lend, give, or cause these things to happen? That would further muddy the waters if that was indeed the case.
Reply With Quote
  #741  
Old 05-17-2018, 3:23 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
not technically illegal to receive or purchase, but only to manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, lend, give, or cause these things to happen? That would further muddy the waters if that was indeed the case.
The law specifically says it is illegal to receive them (which, by definition, includes buying, finding on the ground and keeping, and whatever other creative ways you can invent to find yourself in possession of magazines that you did not previously have. Even if they hypothetically materialized in your gun safe out of thin air, you still "received" them because "you did not have them before, but now you do."

If there were sneaky ways to legally get LCMs that you didn't own before 2000, it would be pretty well known by now.
__________________



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-17-2018 at 3:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 05-17-2018, 4:16 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,528
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
The law specifically says it is illegal to receive them (which, by definition, includes buying, finding on the ground and keeping, and whatever other creative ways you can invent to find yourself in possession of magazines that you did not previously have. Even if they hypothetically materialized in your gun safe out of thin air, you still "received" them because "you did not have them before, but now you do."

If there were sneaky ways to legally get LCMs that you didn't own before 2000, it would be pretty well known by now.
I could've sworn that up until a few years ago that language was absent from the law. I could've swornt hat I read that here, actually.
Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 05-17-2018, 4:17 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
I could've sworn that up until a few years ago that language was absent from the law. I could've swornt hat I read that here, actually.
Ah, you may be correct, I only know how it's written currently
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 05-17-2018, 4:57 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,528
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Ah, you may be correct, I only know how it's written currently
My recollection could be totally incorrect. I keep thinking that 2014 is when the language was updated, but I could be confusing that with other bad legislation we got that year.
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 05-17-2018, 5:43 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,442
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Ah, you may be correct, I only know how it's written currently
Yes, 'receive' was added to the law: 2013's AB 48, effective for 2014.
__________________
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
  #746  
Old 05-18-2018, 4:16 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 482
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Yes, 'receive' was added to the law: 2013's AB 48, effective for 2014.
Does there need to be an intent element ? I would think that you couldn't be guilty of that law if you did not intend to violate it. So for example if the magazine broke in some way and suddenly accepted 11 rounds.

I was thinking about it in relation to Hillary's "gross negligence" regarding classified documents and top secret documents. Comey cleared her because she had no intent to break the law. In that case tho the "gross negligence" doesn't require intent.
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 05-18-2018, 8:59 AM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
Does there need to be an intent element ? I would think that you couldn't be guilty of that law if you did not intend to violate it. So for example if the magazine broke in some way and suddenly accepted 11 rounds.

I was thinking about it in relation to Hillary's "gross negligence" regarding classified documents and top secret documents. Comey cleared her because she had no intent to break the law. In that case tho the "gross negligence" doesn't require intent.
Librarian will probably clarify, but there was also a three year statute of limitation to part of the law. So you would have to prove any of the above occurred within the last 36 months.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 05-18-2018, 9:13 AM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 767
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It all depends if they make it a general intent vs. specific intent provision.

General intent requires no specific actions in order to be a violation - mere possession would be enough.
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 05-18-2018, 9:25 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 297
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
Librarian will probably clarify, but there was also a three year statute of limitation to part of the law. So you would have to prove any of the above occurred within the last 36 months.
Gross negligence without intent is crap. It would require Hillary to prove that instead of just doing nothing that she did something to uphold what was required of her. So did she have backups of her email server? Did she have a security audit? What steps did she take to insure a high level of security? Oh none, ya there is your intent.
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 05-19-2018, 12:03 PM
disintelligentsia's Avatar
disintelligentsia disintelligentsia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

My take on why the state wants to eliminate the PI -- it wants to take advantage of Heller's statement that you can ban "dangerous and unusual" weapons.

Specifically, if the PI is lifted then the magazines become instantly "unusual" in CA because they're illegal (just as machine guns weren't "unusual" before the NFA (sold in Sears catalogs to the public) and FOPA's ban on new automatics in '86, but are considered "unusual" now).
__________________
"All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife."
Daniel Boone

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
Janet Reno, former US Attorney General, 1993
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 05-19-2018, 12:31 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 482
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by disintelligentsia View Post
My take on why the state wants to eliminate the PI -- it wants to take advantage of Heller's statement that you can ban "dangerous and unusual" weapons.

Specifically, if the PI is lifted then the magazines become instantly "unusual" in CA because they're illegal (just as machine guns weren't "unusual" before the NFA (sold in Sears catalogs to the public) and FOPA's ban on new automatics in '86, but are considered "unusual" now).
I think dangerous and unusual would have to apply across the U.S. not just inside California. Magazines would never be considered this since the vast majority of guns use 10+ round magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 05-19-2018, 3:04 PM
disintelligentsia's Avatar
disintelligentsia disintelligentsia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Riverside County
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I think dangerous and unusual would have to apply across the U.S. not just inside California. Magazines would never be considered this since the vast majority of guns use 10+ round magazines.
While that would be my argument and I think Heller is in accord, this state's Legislature and Judges (and the 9th's judges) don't seem to care about the actual meaning of Scalia's opinion in Heller, they just pick and choose what fits their end-goal, context and meaning be damned.

My observation is kind of the inverse of what Justice Stevens wrote about the "dangerous and unusual" verbiage -- his dissent in Heller objected to the "dangerous and unusual" verbiage used because he thought it was a step too far to keep legislatures from banning new guns or gun tech just because they became popular or common because that would lead to a result where a company would push hard to get people to adopt its tech widely before legislatures could act. I'd lay odds that he'd look at bump stocks as a prime example -- when there was talk about making them illegal, people started buying them up like crazy. My take is that this is the opposite situation, the legislature pushing for quickly outlawing something and get the court to refuse a PI so that later in the litigation they could take the position that the banned gun or tech was "unusual" by virtue of its very illegality.
__________________
"All you need for happiness is a good gun, a good horse, and a good wife."
Daniel Boone

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
Janet Reno, former US Attorney General, 1993
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 05-19-2018, 4:21 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 297
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If the PI goes away doesn't that end the case? All the magazines will need to be out of the state, destroyed or permanently shortened. Then suppose we go ahead and win the case and the limit is thrown out. What magazines exist to continue to hold the grandfather exemption? Ones that were out of state? You think they won't block the return of those? The ones that have their less than permanent change? that law rights itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by disintelligentsia View Post
My take on why the state wants to eliminate the PI -- it wants to take advantage of Heller's statement that you can ban "dangerous and unusual" weapons.

Specifically, if the PI is lifted then the magazines become instantly "unusual" in CA because they're illegal (just as machine guns weren't "unusual" before the NFA (sold in Sears catalogs to the public) and FOPA's ban on new automatics in '86, but are considered "unusual" now).
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 05-19-2018, 4:39 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
If the PI goes away doesn't that end the case? All the magazines will need to be out of the state, destroyed or permanently shortened. Then suppose we go ahead and win the case and the limit is thrown out. What magazines exist to continue to hold the grandfather exemption? Ones that were out of state? You think they won't block the return of those? The ones that have their less than permanent change? that law rights itself.
Doesn't matter, the PI isn't going to get tossed
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 05-22-2018, 10:12 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,015
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I got the transcript from the Duncan MSJ hearing

https://www.scribd.com/document/3798...-05-10-Part-01
this is the best part
The Court- BUT MILLER SAID THAT WEAPONS BECAUSE --
THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS SO THAT IF WE
WERE REQUIRED TO DEFEND OURSELVES FROM ENEMIES, FOREIGN OR
DOMESTIC, IT WOULD CALL UPON THE CITIZENRY -- THE FARMERS, THE
BLACKSMITHS, THE TEACHERS, THE LAWYERS, THE DOCTORS -- TO PICK
UP WHATEVER THEY HAD AND TO GO OUT AND DEFEND THE FREE STATE.
RIGHT?

Last edited by wolfwood; 05-22-2018 at 10:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 05-22-2018, 10:51 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That entire transcript was amazing. I cannot wait for a recording.

THE COURT: THEY USUALLY COME IN WITH MANY WEAPONS.
AND SO NOW THE ARGUMENT IS GOING TO COME AND THE STATE IS GOING
TO COME IN AND THE STATE IS GOING TO SAY, LOOK, JUDGE, WE NEED
TO PASS A LAW, AND THE LAW IS YOU CAN'T OWN MORE THAN -- PICK A
NUMBER -- 10 GUNS BECAUSE IF YOU GOT MORE THAN 10 GUNS, THE
CHANCES ARE YOU'RE GOING TO KILL AND INJURE MORE PEOPLE,
ASSAULT MORE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND SO ON. WE'RE GOING
TO GET DOWN, DOING THE SAME PROGRESSION, UNTIL WE'RE AT THE
POINT WHERE YOU HAVE MAYBE ONE GUN WITH ONE ROUND, AND YOU
BETTER HOPE TO HECK THAT WHOEVER IS BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE TO
RAPE YOUR WIFE OR RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER THAT YOU CAN HIT HIM OR
HER WITH THAT ONE ROUND AND HIT HIM CENTER MASS.

Last edited by BryMan92; 05-22-2018 at 11:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 05-22-2018, 12:22 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just getting into it, seems like the judge is a very thoughtful man really trying to nail facts down. This might go better than I expected.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 05-22-2018, 1:50 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,810
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I read the whole thing... Benitez really makes some of the best 2-A arguments I have ever seen both with respect to the Heller wording and on his own. It is obvious which way he leans but he is aware of the "uphill battle" he would be waging if he were to find for the plaintiff.

He had the state over a barrel with the exemptions to the law, and the response was "the fit doesn't have to be perfect". The state actually believes that "intermediate scrutiny" involves "deference" to the legislature which we all know is "rational basis".

I actually thought that the lawyer for the state was decent and fairly well prepared, except for the part about exemptions to the law, he should have had the reference available.
__________________
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
  #759  
Old 05-22-2018, 2:45 PM
ECG_88's Avatar
ECG_88 ECG_88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 601
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Yea the Echeverria is good, but the Judge is better and asks some tough questions. My favorite so far (I am not finished reading the whole thing) but the part about the slippery slope and how many rounds is enough and when will the state stop passing laws?

Quote:
MR. ECHEVERRIA: SO WHEN THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA ENACTED PROPOSITION 63 THEY CLOSED A LOOPHOLE THAT MADE ENFORCEMENT OF THE EXISTING LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE RESTRICTIONS THAT YOUR HONOR REFERRED TO MORE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE BECAUSE LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES, UNLIKE FIREARMS, DON'T BEAR UNIQUE IDENTIFYING NUMBERS. SO WHEN LAWENFORCEMENT COMES ACROSS A LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEMTO DETERMINE THAT THIS LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE WAS NOT GRANDFATHERED IN UNDER THE PRIOR LAW. AND THE PEOPLE CLOSED THAT LOOPHOLE NOT TO JUST ENABLE THE MORE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE EXISTING RESTRICTIONS BUT BECAUSE LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES CAN BE STOLEN. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT --

THE COURT: DID THEY THINK OF THAT -- DIDN'T THE LEGISLATURE THINK ABOUT THAT WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY PASSED LEGISLATION BANNING THE SALE, TRANSFER, OR WHAT? DID THEY FALL ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH OR --

MR. ECHEVERRIA: PRESUMABLY, BUT THE LEGISLATURE WASN'T REQUIRED IN 2000 TO ENACT A PERFECTLY COMPREHENSIVE LAW. THE LEGISLATURE IS ENTITLED TO ACT INCREMENTALLY AND TO EXPERIMENT. AND EXPERIMENTATION --

THE COURT: INCREMENTALLY CAN ALSO DRIVE YOU TO THE POINT WHERE YOU COMPLETELY EXTINGUISHED OR DESTROYED THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

MR. ECHEVERRIA: IN THAT CASE, IF THE LEGISLATURE OR THE PEOPLE WENT TOO FAR AND COMPLETELY EVISCERATED A SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION, THEN THE COURT WOULD STEP IN, POSSIBLY UNDER HELLER, SAY THIS WAS A POLICY CHOICE OFF THE TABLE. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE POSSESSION BAN DID.

THE COURT: DO YOU SEE -- WHEN I SAID I WANTED TO CUT TO THE CHASE, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. SO WHAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE COURT SAYING: YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR?

MR. ECHEVERRIA: THE COURT SHOULD NOT SAY THAT WITH RESPECT TO A LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE BAN. NO COURT HAS.

THE COURT: I HEAR YOU. I HEAR YOU. BUT YOU'RE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION BECAUSE MY QUESTION IS: WHEN AND HOW WILL THE COURT MAKE THE DECISION THAT THE STATE HAS GONE TOO FAR?

MR. ECHEVERRIA: WHEN THE STATE FAILS TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: WHAT WOULD THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BE?

MR. ECHEVERRIA: EXACTLY WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PRESENTED TO YOUR HONOR IN THIS CASE.

...


THE COURT: NOWTOMORROWI'MGOING TO ISSUE A DECREE. THE DECREE IS THAT ANYONE WHO HAS A MAGAZINE OF MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS HAS TO GET RID OF THEM. TURN THEMIN. "A," IT'S NOT GOING TO STOP PEOPLE LIKE THE SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTERS FROMENGAGING IN MASS SHOOTINGS. YOU KNOWTHAT, AND I KNOWTHAT. RIGHT?

MR. ECHEVERRIA: CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS EXIST, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: EXACTLY.

MR. ECHEVERRIA: THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE STATE IS FORBIDDEN FROMTRYING TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR INDIVIDUALS TO OBTAIN THOSE DANGEROUS MAGAZINES.

THE COURT: I GOT YOU. I UNDERSTAND.
THE COURT: THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET TO -- I WAVE MY MAGIC WAND. I MAKE ALL THE MAGAZINES WITH MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS GO AWAY. THEY WENT AWAY. THEN THE NEXT PERSON WHO IS DERANGED OR DECIDES THAT HE OR SHE WANTS TO FOR WHATEVER REASON KILL PEOPLE, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO USE A GUN THAT HAS A MAGAZINE THAT HOLDS 10 ROUNDS. AND THE NEXT PERSON THAT COMMITS A MASS SHOOTING IS GOING TO USE A WEAPON THAT CONTAINS 10 ROUNDS. AND THE NEXT PERSON AFTER THAT IS GOING TO USE A WEAPON THAT CONTAINS A MAGAZINE THAT HOLDS 10 ROUNDS. NOWALONG IS GOING TO COME THE STATE, AND THE STATE IS GOING TO USE THE VERY SAME TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE HAS USED IN THIS CASE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, LOOK, JUDGE, POLICE OFFICERS ARE BEING ASSAULTED ALL THE TIME WITH THESE WEAPONS THAT HOLD 10 ROUNDS, AND THEY WILL BECOME THE NEWLARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE. AND THE STATE WILL SAY, JUDGE, WE HAVE TO TAKE THESE OFF THE STREETS BECAUSE LAWENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE BEING ASSAULTED WITH THESE AND PEOPLE ARE BEING KILLED, AND YOU KNOW, GUESS WHAT, YOU ONLY NEED 2.2 ROUNDS FOR SELF-DEFENSE. OKAY. NOWWHAT? I HAVE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME SITUATION I HAVE TODAY ONLY YOU WILL BE ARGUING THAT SOMETHING WHICH IS 10 ROUNDS IS A LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE THAT OUGHT TO BE BANNED, AND THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE ITS POLICY DECISION AND I SHOULD DEFER TO IT, AND SECOND AMENDMENT BE DAMNED. RIGHT?

MR. ECHEVERRIA: I'MNOT GOING TO PREDICT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE --

THE COURT: WELL, I AM BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE INCREMENTAL WAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING THE SECOND AMENDMENT, LOGIC AND REASON TELLS US THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
__________________
Emotional appeal is a marketing tactic and not a foundation for effective argument.

Nulla Fatere, Omnia Nega, Accusatorem Accusa
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 05-22-2018, 2:54 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

That is spectacular! For some reason I don't remember hearing any that when I watched the arguments live, it's good to read the transcript for a refresher. It's full of good stuff!
__________________


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 3:26 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.