|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#361
|
||||
|
||||
This is definitely not the case you would want to go to scotus. This one should just be left to die
|
#363
|
|||
|
|||
I agree. The oral arguments were painful to watch. Instead of arguing that the law requierd an impossibility, I believe--though admittedly many disagree with me--that the attack should have focused on the certification by the AG as an abuse of discretion. In my view, the law had a delay built into it to allow for the development of the technology required to comply with the statutory mandates. The certification by the AG was supposed to be that the technology needed to comply with the statute existed and was unencumbered by patent. The fact is, as NSSF would readily agree, that such technology does not exist. The only technology that did exist stamps a number in only one location, not two as required by the statute. I've read the statute, and I still do not know why NSSF conceded that the certification was proper.
|
#365
|
|||
|
|||
En banc motions at the federal appellate level have a low probability of success. Anyone track the success rate for the CA Supremes?
|
#366
|
||||
|
||||
We all know that if a technology doesn't exist even though the idea of it does, if it presently is not feasible said law should not exist.
I simply cannot wrap my head around any judge's ruling that if it is thought up it must be possible so therefore the law stands. Judges like this should be removed never to have a ruling on any bench again. The state had time to develop this technology with manufacturers and failed. The law should go away with it by default. |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#368
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It’s analogous to Murphy’s law: “If there’s more than one way to do something, and one of those ways will result in catastrophe, someone will do it that way.” “If there’s more than one way to interpret a law, and one of those ways results in an impossibility, that isn’t the correct way to interpret the law.” Neither Murphy’s law nor the rule of impossibility come into play for a design nor law that is simply sh**. |
#369
|
||||
|
||||
From today's NSSF email:
"NSSF FILES MOTION IN MICROSTAMPING CASE … NSSF has filed a motion asking the California Supreme Court to allow for re-argument in the foundation's microstamping statute challenge, following the court’s recent dismissal of the complaint, that the law seeks the impossible. The motion is based chiefly on any future impossibility claim or defense to the enforcement of the statute."
__________________
|
#370
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Try this one on, it is legal, for illegals, to take the bar and practice law in California. That is a mind blower. So after that, I knew we were done. Nothing surprises me now other than the fact we haven't been asked to turn them all in yet.
__________________
Signature required |
#371
|
|||
|
|||
The Marxists own the educational system and this is the fruit it bears.
Let us hope the recent SCOTUS ruling weakens the Teachers Unions.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez |
#372
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
I was always under the impression that this would be argued that California has no true “compelling and extraordinary condition” to enforce such a obscure and unique law in the face of Federal laws about firearms, where requiring such an onerous and nearly impossible feature to achieve, neither promotes features of safety (the original reason for that bill SB-15 that led to the Roster in the first place) or proves to be a useful tool for law-enforcement to solve crimes. What is the indisputable and 100% reliable perceived result, that is so much a benefit outside of current Federal laws on common firearms, that California is so special to get a pass on applying its opinion of an unproven technology, one that is not available at all, that it gets to make its own regulations that ban the sale of common firearms that are available to nearly all other law-abiding US Citizens outside of California? It's a ruse technology merely being used to reduce/decrease sales of otherwise safe and common firearms. Microstamping as Mike Feuer concocted it: 🔴 This doesn't make guns safer to use. 🔴 There is enough evidence that the microstamping feature can easily be defeated in minutes to seconds by the swap of a firing pin, barrel, whole slide, or merely a file and/or Dremel. 🔴 It does little to nothing to give investigators any kind of "tool" to investigate crimes because this would be the first thing any criminal would do no matter how they come into possession of that firearm. 🔴 Without a doubt, the majority of even law-abiding gun owners would do any of the above as well, guaranteed, because it's not akin to destroying the serial number on a firearm. I would without a second thought. Then there is the factor that Microstamping itself is not available on common firearms. In fact, it's not available at all. So this essentially bans the ability to acquire common firearms that are available to nearly every law-abiding citizen outside of the state of California. Doesn't that fly in the face of Heller, and prohibits common firearms? These aren't falsely vilified "assault-weapons" with uncommon features which they've used in the past to uphold erroneous assault-weapon bans, so they can't use that angle. These are common firearms being banned because California wishes to apply an unfounded belief in a disproved and easily defeated technology. Meanwhile that intent is less about keeping people safe and helping law-enforcement than it is solely about banning the sale of semi-automatic handguns with a smoke-and-mirrors caveat. I also am quite sure, like with so many other Anti-2nd Amendment laws, that those writing them have little to no knowledge of firearm technology and merely author such legislation with the motive to prohibit, reduce, or simply ban the legal sale and ownership of firearms any way they can. Likewise, those who sit to opine and judge the credibility of these unjust and anti-constitutional laws often lack the same understanding of firearms and the fake technology that is presented to them. I could describe the legitimacy of technology, capability, results, and efficiency of an adjustable ray "stun-gun" comparable to those in the fictional Star Trek depicted 50 years ago on network TV, and these sots would pass a bill on the merits of that idea alone; whether actually available, capable, practical efficacy, or even how you build it is beyond their need to understand or even give concern. .
__________________
------------------------ |
#373
|
||||
|
||||
My problem with the case was they decided to take the approach on microstamping’s technical feasibility and whether the state can indeed pass impossible statutes. It’s a flawed approach IMO.
Now if the constitutionality approach was taken, you can say: 1) Microstamping has not been proven to be a public safety benefit. The counter argument will be with irrelevant subjective evidence, and primarily argued that it’s a forecasted benefit to aid law enforcement and reduce violence in aggregate. Weak counter argument on its face, but combined with the fact the technology doesn’t exist, the burden is on the state (not plaintiff) to show a compelling case for claiming it’s public benefit justification. 2) Little to no public safety benefit does not justify infringing on a constitutional right. Rights are not unlimited, but the line crossing into infringement is lower for rights than other civil privledges. If the State cannot provide a strong justification, it has no standing to infringe on the 2A so blatantly. 3) Heller made it clear that firearms in common use are protected. Modern handguns available to the rest of the country clearly pass that test. This is the supplemental wrapper to show that the requirement does indeed infringe on the 2A. Some might be thinking, “the State isn’t the plaintiff and have no requirement to prove anything”. True, but if the plaintiffs approach is the 2A has been infringed upon without any good reason, the State must defend their justification. In any case, I’ve never had high expectations the 9th would rule in accordance with the constitution on 2A cases. SCOTUS is our only hope. |
#374
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#375
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That actually accomplishes two goals: 1) People that are pro-gun leave the state and take their guns 2) Although, not the rule, most pro-gun people tend to lean right. Having right leaning citizens leave makes state law makers happy too.
__________________
The race is not won to the swift or the strong, but to the one who endures until the end. Safety Rule #1: 1) Treat all tweakers like they are loaded |
#376
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#377
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
However, I am not going anywhere.
__________________
Just taking up space in (what is no longer) the second-worst small town in California. |
#378
|
|||
|
|||
Who certified that the technology is viable and available for any manufacturers and can't someone just patent the design and shelve it like the big boys do? Anyone know where this lawsuit stands today? more guns dropping from the roster, G26.
Quote:
|
#379
|
|||
|
|||
The statute required a certification by the Attorney General. At the time, that happened to be (now Senator and failing Presidential candidate) Kamala Harris.
|
#380
|
||||
|
||||
Proponents and authors of the law knew very well the technology was/is unavailable and unworkable. Its tru but unstated true purpose is to slowly but surely over time whittle the roster down to only a handful of revolvers. My guess is that when that happens the leftists who run the state will then seek to impose the law on revolvers.
__________________
Paul S “Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman |
#381
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
- The original patent owner let his claim expire. CGF renewed the patents in CGF's name and held them for another year. But once the manufacturers all threw in the towel since nobody can make the microstamping work, it was pointless to keep holding the patents. - The suit is over unless appealed to the Supreme Court if you read through this thread. - All semi auto pistols will eventually drop off the Roster. Without a change in the law, you might want to think about revolvers, derringers and other guns using late 19th century designs as that will be all that is available anymore.
__________________
|
#382
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#383
|
|||
|
|||
The law is disingenuous at best. I've heard lawmakers basically laughing on camera saying "if the gun doesn't exist you can't buy it" It's like saying if we can't get what we want (gun control) we'll cheat.
I'll move to another state or PPT before I cave in to their stupid laws. There has to be a way to overturn this. By the way anyone who is charging double for an off roster firearm in CA seems to be capitalizing off the anti-gun roster law. Too bad. Quote:
|
#384
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for that information, good to know the background. Kamala Harris is the Devil!
Quote:
|
#385
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
...That and to also dry up the supply of the variety of firearms you can buy so that enthusiasts like us will not be apt to buy anymore and in the long term the viability of the retail market whose thin choice of products would become saturated eventually resulting in fewer and fewer retailers carrying such products.
__________________
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|