Immediate injuctions on all new gun laws?

[Untamed1972]

Reading all of these different threads today had me wondering. With the Heller and Nordyke decisions in place now, does that make it possible for injuctions to be immediately filed against any new gun/ammo laws that are passed to hold them off from being put into effect until a court review can be done?

Like that ammo bill that made it out of committee today? If that bill passes in the legislature, could an injuction be filed based on Heller protecting ammo as part of fundamental 2A rights? Or the High-Cap mag bill, or any of the other pending bills on the table right now?

At least it would be something to keep new laws off the books so they don't have to be fought later after someone has been charged with a crime.

[Dr Rockso]

From what I've read this is indeed part of the plan.

This is a major concern. Unless and until we get federal preemption of large swaths of firearms regulation the legislature may well just keep passing laws they know will not withstand constitutional scrutiny and then just force us to challenge them and live with them until we do.

[Dr Rockso]

Originally Posted by DDT

This is a major concern. Unless and until we get federal preemption of large swaths of firearms regulation the legislature may well just keep passing laws they know will not withstand constitutional scrutiny and then just force us to challenge them and live with them until we do.

My understanding is that usually an injunction means that the law does not go into effect until a court rules on its constitutionality.

[bwiese]

This can be addressed thru the budget process for new legislation.

Very legit concerns can be raised by even non-gun parties as to the cost of fighting for each and every new (as well as old) law, and the whole appeals chain.

[bruss01]

This is the sort of thing I expect my NRA contribution dollars to go towards. Fighting legislation by challenging and filing injunctions. This is a worthwhile cause, and now that Nordyke has opened the doors I am hopeful in seeing a lot of this kind of action. If they just sit on their hands, I will be very very disappointed and left wondering why I was duped into giving them another chance. I am a bit jaded at this point in my life, but cautiously optimistic. Go NRA! Do us proud.

Originally Posted by bwiese

This can be addressed thru the budget process for new legislation.

Very legit concerns can be raised by even non-gun parties as to the cost of fighting for each and every new (as well as old) law, and the whole appeals chain.

Never underestimate the willingness of an elected official to spend other people's money.

Originally Posted by bruss01

This is the sort of thing I expect my NRA contribution dollars to go towards. Fighting legislation by challenging and filing injunctions. This is a worthwhile cause, and now that Nordyke has opened the doors I am hopeful in seeing a lot of this kind of action. If they just sit on their hands, I will be very very disappointed and left wondering why I was duped into giving them another chance. I am a bit jaded at this point in my life, but cautiously optimistic. Go NRA! Do us proud.

I felt the same way but I had a very long conversation with some of the folks at the dinner last night and they made some excellent points. The NRA is not a judicial lobbying organization. They are a legislative organization.

This means that you can expect other groups to lead the charge for judicial changes and the NRA would be more likely to work for legislative changes. I think a Federal Preemption law would be awesome. I don't think that some of the free states would be too fond of that idea but it would be good for CA and good for those who have to battle bad legislation.

If bad legislation is only coming from the feds the whole gun-toting nation can fight it rather than having to deal with it on a state by state, county by county, city by city basis.

[SwissFluCase]

Originally Posted by DDT

I think a Federal Preemption law would be awesome. I don't think that some of the free states would be too fond of that idea but it would be good for CA and good for those who have to battle bad legislation.

I don't think it would hurt free states at all. Pre-emption would mean that a state cannot pass a more restrictive law than fed.gov.

Is this not what we are already trying to accomplish in the courts? We are going to get some sort of preemption one way or another.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[artherd]

...not really but it makes it much more difficult.

[wash]

What was the legal device used to stop the SF handgun ban?

That worked pretty well.

What are the requirements to do the same thing on the next B.S. law?

[Untamed1972]

When I posted this thread the thought in my mind was the prop. that passed in CA a few years back about not letting illegals attend public schools. The minority groups said upfront that if it passed they'd take it to court, and pretty much the next day they were filing injuctions in court and tied it up until the prop. finally got struck down.

Can't the same thing be done with the gun laws? Just start filing injunctions on everything that gets passed to force them all into court review immediately rather then having to wait for someone to get charged with a crime under the new law to bring the issue up then.

[SwissFluCase]

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

When I posted this thread the thought in my mind was the prop. that passed in CA a few years back about not letting illegals attend public schools. The minority groups said upfront that if it passed they'd take it to court, and pretty much the next day they were filing injuctions in court and tied it up until the prop. finally got struck down.

Can't the same thing be done with the gun laws? Just start filing injunctions on everything that gets passed to force them all into court review immediately rather then having to wait for someone to get charged with a crime under the new law to bring the issue up then.

My prediction is that some pretty nasty laws will get passed this session, and we will get injunctions, and then get them struck down. This will be part of the anti's trying to get one more lick in.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by SwissFluCase

My prediction is that some pretty nasty laws will get passed this session, and we will get injunctions, and then get them struck down. This will be part of the anti's trying to get one more lick in.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

I would think giving 2 or 3 new laws the immediate smack down would start sending the message that the Leg. will have to start being very careful where they tread.

Not to mention is seems like a Rep/State senator who either authored or voted for numerous bills that got struck down would impair their reputation as a law maker after awhile and send the message that you're a politician who doesn't know or care about the constitution.

[SwissFluCase]

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

I would think giving 2 or 3 new laws the immediate smack down would start sending the message that the Leg. will have to start being very careful where they tread.

Not to mention is seems like a Rep/State senator who either authored or voted for numerous bills that got struck down would impair their reputation as a law maker after awhile and send the message that you're a politician who doesn't know or care about the constitution.

True. I'm still expecting the anit's last stand. We already had Normandy, now we are off to the Ardennes. After that, I expect smooth sailing.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[bellson]

Originally Posted by SwissFluCase

True. I'm still expecting the anit's last stand. We already had Normandy, now we are off to the Ardennes. After that, I expect smooth sailing.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

I agree, but we still NEED Strict Scrutiny!!!! That is the Preemption device that has the most power and the heaviest force of LAW.

[RomanDad]

Suffice it to say, no gun control law will be passed in the 9th without an immediate challenge.

Good thing California's budget is running record surpluses to deal with the added litigation costs.

[lasereye]

Originally Posted by SwissFluCase

True. I'm still expecting the anit's last stand. We already had Normandy, now we are off to the Ardennes. After that, I expect smooth sailing.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Anti's last stand= Battle of the Bulge?

[lioneaglegriffin]

Originally Posted by SwissFluCase

True. I'm still expecting the anit's last stand. We already had Normandy, now we are off to the Ardennes. After that, I expect smooth sailing.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

smooth sailing, what?

Battle of the buldge? Bagstone the death throes of the Wehrmacht was anything but smooth. even crossing the Rhine had issues (as well as Operation Varsity the last drop by the airborne.)

[lioneaglegriffin]

Originally Posted by lasereye

Anti's last stand= Battle of the Bulge?

they are desperate and will lash out with all fury, remember a scared animal trapped in a corner will fight harder because it cannot run.

[SwissFluCase]

Originally Posted by lioneaglegriffin

smooth sailing, what?

Battle of the buldge? Bagstone the death throes of the Wehrmacht was anything but smooth. even crossing the Rhine had issues (as well as Operation Varsity the last drop by the airborne.)

The point I was trying to make is that we already broke the back of gun control. The anti's are going to fight like heck in this state, before they give up.

Once we beat them, I think things will get easier.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

[lioneaglegriffin]

Originally Posted by SwissFluCase

The point I was trying to make is that we already broke the back of gun control. The anti's are going to fight like heck in this state, before they give up.

Once we beat them, I think things will get easier.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

i agree, the flag of victory is when NJ becomes #1 on the brady list. the official surrender is when we tie (or pass) our sister state Nevada.

[Rhys898]

One thing that may work in our favor is as the anti's get more and more shrill in their cries, more normal people will begin to see the anti's for what they are, people that distrust themselves with guns so much that they project that distrust onto everyone else.

Jer

[Ford8N]

Originally Posted by lioneaglegriffin

they are desperate and will lash out with all fury, remember a scared animal trapped in a corner will fight harder because it cannot run.

I really hope they do. That's when the mistakes happen.

[Jarrod]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Suffice it to say, no gun control law will be passed in the 9th without an immediate challenge. ...

Don't want to make this thread drift, but I always wondered where different circuits had jurisdiction. Here is a link to a pdf file that shows all this. Click here.

Just FYI.

[Kid Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by DDT

This is a major concern. Unless and until we get federal preemption of large swaths of firearms regulation the legislature may well just keep passing laws they know will not withstand constitutional scrutiny and then just force us to challenge them and live with them until we do.

The strategy is "death by a thousand cuts".

[Kid Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by DDT

I think a Federal Preemption law would be awesome.

WRONG!! The whole idea is to DECREASE the size and power of the federal gov't, not INCREASE it!!

[SwissFluCase]

Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus

The strategy is "death by a thousand cuts".

The anti's strategy so far seems to be along the lines of throwing diapers on the wall to see if any stick. It will be a mess, but eventually we should be able to wash all of the... residue ...off.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Originally Posted by Untamed1972

The minority groups said upfront that if it passed they'd take it to court, and pretty much the next day they were filing injuctions in court and tied it up until the prop. finally got struck down.

Can't the same thing be done with the gun laws? Just start filing injunctions on everything that gets passed to force them all into court review immediately rather then having to wait for someone to get charged with a crime under the new law to bring the issue up then.

Yes, and as RomanDad said that is very likely but..... it costs a lot of money to "just start filing;" if you are going to do it right.

My point was that if CA starts dumping anti-gun laws weekly someone will have to foot the bill and do the groundwork to file all the suits. I think eventually there will be a judicial smackdown but it could get very ugly until then.

I don't have Bill's faith that the legislature will be willing to back off just because it is costing millions of tax-payers dollars. MAYBE a governor Brown would do the rational thing and not sign laws that are clearly unconstitutional.

Is there any standard due diligence that is done by some CA agency to warn the Legislature when a bill is clearly unconstitutional? I know that there are some good legislators who will make the argument but they don't carry much weight there now.

Will 2A be the issue that gets rid of the ideologues in the legislature? Their constituents might just get tired of paying for the legislators unconstitutional ideology.

[nick]

Can we go after the legislators passing these laws now that the 2nd Amendment enumerates a civil right in CA?

I'm just a great believer in the fact that nothing teaches dishonest people better than personal troubles as a result of their actions.

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by nick

Can we go after the legislators passing these laws now that the 2nd Amendment enumerates a civil right in CA?

I'm just a great believer in the fact that nothing teaches dishonest people better than personal troubles as a result of their actions.

Bingo! I am with you sir! This would really help stop frivolous bills from being voted on, if we made them pay for it.

[lioneaglegriffin]

Originally Posted by Ford8N

I really hope they do. That's when the mistakes happen.

yes thats true but wll need some neosporin and a rabies shot when were done.

[Nodda Duma]

Originally Posted by DDT

I felt the same way but I had a very long conversation with some of the folks at the dinner last night and they made some excellent points. The NRA is not a judicial lobbying organization. They are a legislative organization.

Is this something written into law? That the NRA cannot adjust itself to fit the changing circumstances? Why exactly can they not reorganize themselves to file injunctions? What prevents it? Unwillingness to?



-Jason

Originally Posted by Nodda Duma

Is this something written into law? That the NRA cannot adjust itself to fit the changing circumstances? Why exactly can they not reorganize themselves to file injunctions? What prevents it? Unwillingness to?

Not anything written into law and I know that they have joined a number of cases, they gave a little to the Nordykes and to Heller I believe. It is just a matter of what their goals and purposes are. Expect their main pushes to be in the area of legislation.

Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus

WRONG!! The whole idea is to DECREASE the size and power of the federal gov't, not INCREASE it!!

It's not necessary to yell to be heard.

I agree that decreasing the size and power of the federal government is a good and noble cause. I would just like to see the power of the state government, in this instance, be even more greatly restricted.

[gunsmith]

Originally Posted by wash

What was the legal device used to stop the SF handgun ban?

That worked pretty well.

What are the requirements to do the same thing on the next B.S. law?

1st question, would be preemption....at least I suppose it is spelled that way.

2nd question, we'll know in two weeks.

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by lioneaglegriffin

yes thats true but wll need some neosporin and a rabies shot when were done.

Just put on one of those padded suits the guys wear when training police dogs to attack!