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
  #2801  
Old 03-06-2019, 11:38 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 924
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
It was never about safety, nor was it sold as such to the Gubernator. Instead it was sold as a way to help the police solve gun crimes by being able to identify the handguns used in shootings by the expended casings. Being a "law and order" kind of a guy, he just had to sign it. Cameltoe "determined" that he technology existed to implement the law, and no one has challenged her determination despite a lack of evidence that the technology complied with the law. The use of different machinery (CNC versus casting and finishing) was another of the Cameltoe's edicts, which expanded the use of the term "new." Because she hates guns and, Mr. and Mrs, Amrerica, if you don't turn them in, we will ban them and seize them wheneverwe can.
Wasn't the original list about being able to sustain a drop from something like 3 feet and not accidentally discharge? That sounds like being safety-related. The problem is that the original intent got perverted along the way and now the list is purely about a back-door ban.
Reply With Quote
  #2802  
Old 03-06-2019, 11:45 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,182
iTrader: 89 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Try reading the material. For court cases its imperative to help you understand what is going on.

For most people, all that we need to know is that itís only a matter of months before our rights are taken away, and years before we even MAYBE get a chance at having them restored... Thatís all most people need to know.
Reply With Quote
  #2803  
Old 03-06-2019, 11:54 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,798
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
For most people, all that we need to know is that itís only a matter of months before our rights are taken away, and years before we even MAYBE get a chance at having them restored... Thatís all most people need to know.
Uh, Ya. OK.

Lets keep people ignorant and encourage them to make false claims about what is going on. Shut up and donate attitude?
Reply With Quote
  #2804  
Old 03-06-2019, 12:40 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 603
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion726 View Post
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.

now what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
For most people, all that we need to know is that itís only a matter of months before our rights are taken away, and years before we even MAYBE get a chance at having them restored... Thatís all most people need to know.
What's next?

1) In a matter of weeks, the briefs will be distributed to the justices for them to consider at their next conference. When they briefs are distributed, the Court will update its summary page to indicate that the briefs have been distributed for a specific conference (i.e., the date of the conference will be published).

2) If we're really lucky, the Court will grant cert! The Court will then schedule the case for oral arguments. Various anti-civil liberty advocates will weep and rip hair out of the scalp and cry to the heavens that SCOTUS is endangering the safety of suckling babes.

2a) If we're lucky, the Court will relist the petition for consideration at the next conference. Go back to 2 for the next conference.

2b) If we're unlucky, the Court will deny the petition. Various freedom loving people will weep and rip hair out of their scalp and cry to the heavens that SCOTUS is treating the 2d Amendment like a red-headed step child.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #2805  
Old 03-06-2019, 1:04 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 38,156
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Wasn't the original list about being able to sustain a drop from something like 3 feet and not accidentally discharge? That sounds like being safety-related. The problem is that the original intent got perverted along the way and now the list is purely about a back-door ban.
It has long been possible to sue a manufacturer for a defective product. The idea that the state ought to get involved in certifying a gun as 'not unsafe', instead of relying on product safety laws, is nuts.

The state might, instead, have created the performance evaluation criteria, explained why those are the 'right' criteria, and sued/helped to sue manufacturers on behalf of specific injured parties.

We got lists and crimes and bureaucracy and political posturing.
__________________
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
  #2806  
Old 03-06-2019, 1:07 PM
CZebra CZebra is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
What's next?



1) In a matter of weeks, the briefs will be distributed to the justices for them to consider at their next conference. When they briefs are distributed, the Court will update its summary page to indicate that the briefs have been distributed for a specific conference (i.e., the date of the conference will be published).



2) If we're really lucky, the Court will grant cert! The Court will then schedule the case for oral arguments. Various anti-civil liberty advocates will weep and rip hair out of the scalp and cry to the heavens that SCOTUS is endangering the safety of suckling babes.



2a) If we're lucky, the Court will relist the petition for consideration at the next conference. Go back to 2 for the next conference.



2b) If we're unlucky, the Court will deny the petition. Various freedom loving people will weep and rip hair out of their scalp and cry to the heavens that SCOTUS is treating the 2d Amendment like a red-headed step child.


This.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #2807  
Old 03-06-2019, 1:23 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,182
iTrader: 89 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Uh, Ya. OK.

Lets keep people ignorant and encourage them to make false claims about what is going on. Shut up and donate attitude?

We know whatís going on. Every year we get stripped of more and more rights that people in other states continue to enjoy. Whether itís about safety, or some other reason, nothing changes here (other than getting worse). Itís gotten to the point that the reasons donít even matter anymore. If itís not a valid reason, they make up lies and the liberal lower courts agree with them. Unless the Supreme Court takes this up, we will continue to see more and more.
Reply With Quote
  #2808  
Old 03-06-2019, 1:38 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,798
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
We know whatís going on. Every year we get stripped of more and more rights that people in other states continue to enjoy. Whether itís about safety, or some other reason, nothing changes here (other than getting worse). Itís gotten to the point that the reasons donít even matter anymore. If itís not a valid reason, they make up lies and the liberal lower courts agree with them. Unless the Supreme Court takes this up, we will continue to see more and more.
Meanwhile, the left makes up lies to pass gun control and the sheep believe it all because they have been told to believe and uninformed gun people give them bad information and argue with them uninformed.
Reply With Quote
  #2809  
Old 03-06-2019, 2:16 PM
divert_fuse's Avatar
divert_fuse divert_fuse is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: SF, CA
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What concerns me in the reply is

Quote:
Petitioners do not seek this Courtís review on the
issue addressed in Judge Bybeeís dissent, namely
whether it is feasible for gun manufacturers to comply
with Californiaís microstamping requirement.
...
Petitioners litigated this case in the district
court based on their broader Second Amendment theory, not based on any challenge to the feasibility of
Californiaís microstamping requirement.
Although this strikes me as just posturing, I'm wondering if it has teeth. That is, insofar as Pena doesn't explicitly ask the court to overturn the summary judgment, it gets rejected for something analogous to "failure to state a claim." Had he both advanced his broader 2A theory and said the summary judgment was inappropriate, the court could ignore the broader 2A issues (which I imagine they will, and just deal with them in NYSRPA), and overturn the summary judgment and remand the factual stuff to the lower courts. But since he didn't, we're SOL.

This seems unlikely in a common-sense way. The feasability of microstamping and the inappropriate summary judgment are issues because of 2A, either the "broad" (i.e. accurate) theory of 2A advanced by Pena or less broad versions. I don't think SCOTUS has to (and I imagine won't) endorse Pena's particular theory in order to overturn the summary judgment. But I might be wrong about this, and I'd be interested to hear better-informed opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #2810  
Old 03-06-2019, 3:44 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,182
iTrader: 89 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
Meanwhile, the left makes up lies to pass gun control and the sheep believe it all because they have been told to believe and uninformed gun people give them bad information and argue with them uninformed.

There is no good or bad information. You dont get it yet? They donít want guns. Whether lies or truth, they donít care. You canít educate people that donít want to be educated. You really think you could present true facts to Gavin and all of a sudden because you spoke the truth, he would all of a sudden be pro gun? Thatís the same with the average idiot here in California. Well, the average idiots along the coast anyways. The only way things change significantly here is if god decides to pull the rip cord on the San Andreas fault.
Reply With Quote
  #2811  
Old 03-06-2019, 6:51 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,798
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcwatchdog View Post
There is no good or bad information. You dont get it yet? They don’t want guns. Whether lies or truth, they don’t care. You can’t educate people that don’t want to be educated. You really think you could present true facts to Gavin and all of a sudden because you spoke the truth, he would all of a sudden be pro gun? That’s the same with the average idiot here in California. Well, the average idiots along the coast anyways. The only way things change significantly here is if god decides to pull the rip cord on the San Andreas fault.
I own two gun stores. I educate new gun owners every day. Next?
Reply With Quote
  #2812  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:46 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Wasn't the original list about being able to sustain a drop from something like 3 feet and not accidentally discharge? That sounds like being safety-related. The problem is that the original intent got perverted along the way and now the list is purely about a back-door ban.
Nothing was perverted. This was the intention to control handgun availability from the get-go. They played the long game. That is what socialists do.
Reply With Quote
  #2813  
Old 03-07-2019, 12:47 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
.. of suckling babes.
I like suckling babes.
Reply With Quote
  #2814  
Old 03-08-2019, 6:57 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,953
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
It has long been possible to sue a manufacturer for a defective product. The idea that the state ought to get involved in certifying a gun as 'not unsafe', instead of relying on product safety laws, is nuts.

The state might, instead, have created the performance evaluation criteria, explained why those are the 'right' criteria, and sued/helped to sue manufacturers on behalf of specific injured parties.

We got lists and crimes and bureaucracy and political posturing.
Agreed. But how about the total lack of evidence that any banned firearm would fail the drop test or that LCIs and Mag disconnects have, in fact, prevented any actual harm? Without such actual evidence any result based on legislative intent cannot be said to be anything other than interest balancing, which is prohibited by Heller. To me, the best argument for taking Pena is to put an end to the two step approach that, although not directly prohibited by Heller, is nothing more than interest balancing, which Heller disapproved.

Last edited by BAJ475; 03-08-2019 at 6:58 AM.. Reason: correct typo
Reply With Quote
  #2815  
Old 03-08-2019, 12:10 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 533
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Agreed. But how about the total lack of evidence that any banned firearm would fail the drop test or that LCIs and Mag disconnects have, in fact, prevented any actual harm? Without such actual evidence any result based on legislative intent cannot be said to be anything other than interest balancing, which is prohibited by Heller. To me, the best argument for taking Pena is to put an end to the two step approach that, although not directly prohibited by Heller, is nothing more than interest balancing, which Heller disapproved.
Guns which do not have mag disconnects and LCIs are not "defective" within the meaning of the liability for faulty and defective products. They are defective if they do not fire or blow up in your hand when you pull the trigger. Instead, these devices are meant to protect people from the failure to comply with the four rules, i.e., their own stupidity and negligence, the "I didn't know the gun was loaded" refrain. The same is true with respect to the requirement that all handguns have manual safeties. The fact that these required features still result in the availability of thousands of handguns on the market, and therefore, according to the courts, do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, they are subject to a different level of scrutiny. The microstamping is a whole 'nother ball of wax. The device, were it to function, does not have anything to do with the safety of the product or of the persons using the product., but instead was (a) a claimed means of identifying the gun that fired spent casings found at a crime scene (since casing registries were obviously hideously expensive and complete failures) and, according to the pro-gun crowd, a back door gun ban since there are no guns produced that incorporate such a device.
Reply With Quote
  #2816  
Old 03-10-2019, 10:00 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just like seat belts or building codes compliance.

We will lose that argument. Micro stamping is the one that may hold.
Reply With Quote
  #2817  
Old 03-18-2019, 4:04 PM
CZebra CZebra is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default PeŮa v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **CERT PETITION 12/28/18**

PeŮaís reply was posted today for those who are interested.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....%5C18-843.html

Last edited by CZebra; 03-18-2019 at 5:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2818  
Old 03-18-2019, 4:16 PM
phdo's Avatar
phdo phdo is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,668
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CZebra View Post
PeŮaís reply was posted today for those who are interested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Link?
__________________
WTB:
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 19
2.5" Smith & Wesson Model 66
4" Smith & Wesson Model 19
3.5" Smith & Wesson Model 29
Marlin 1894C
Colt Python
Colt Series 70
Sig Sauer P228
Reply With Quote
  #2819  
Old 03-18-2019, 5:14 PM
CZebra CZebra is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default PeŮa v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **CERT PETITION 12/28/18**

Quote:
Originally Posted by phdo View Post
Link?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search....%5C18-843.html

Scroll down to todayís date in the timeline and youíll be able to read it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #2820  
Old 03-18-2019, 5:16 PM
CZebra CZebra is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hereís the direct link to the PDF:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...1_13-reply.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #2821  
Old 03-18-2019, 6:08 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 365
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nice read. Here is the short version.

"They say the nineth circus gave is a fair shot, we call Bull****".
Reply With Quote
  #2822  
Old 03-18-2019, 6:15 PM
Jwalt Jwalt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Monrovia, CA
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think stamping works, simply because it's motivated by pure animus against gun owners. That sticks because the technology doesn't exist.

Whether it's right or wrong, they can argue that a certain degree of drop safety or even (I'm sure it's coming) a certain minimum trigger weight serves a state interest in "increasing safety".

But requiring stuff that doesn't exist smells a lot like "Sodomy laws" only used against gays, and we saw how the court ruled on that. IANAL, very obviously.
Reply With Quote
  #2823  
Old 03-18-2019, 6:22 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 741
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
No Second Amendment case has ever survived the Ninth Circuit’s en banc gauntlet.
Umm.... isn't he making the opposition's argument for them? How is that supposed to convince the 9th to grant cert?
Reply With Quote
  #2824  
Old 03-18-2019, 7:12 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 365
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Umm.... isn't he making the opposition's argument for them? How is that supposed to convince the 9th to grant cert?
He is making the argument that the nineth doesn't treat second amendment cases as other courts and uses the 5th as an example. Where we have seen cases pushed by Chicago site Heller and win on the 2a side. He is pointing out that even when a case wins in the nineth it is a lose as it's always overturned en banc. The ninth is so wrong on Heller they tried to jump into the Duncan on their own only to get told no by the state.
Reply With Quote
  #2825  
Old 03-18-2019, 7:15 PM
gunuser17 gunuser17 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Also, the Ninth Circuit doesn't grant cert. Here, the US Supreme Court is being petitioned to review what the Ninth Circuit decided. The tactic is to simply point out that the 9th is one of the most extrene anti-gun circuits.
Reply With Quote
  #2826  
Old 03-18-2019, 9:46 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 741
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunuser17 View Post
Here, the US Supreme Court is being petitioned
Ah- thanks. Massive user error on my part. Being on the SCOTUS page should have been a clue. I'm awake now.
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 11:58 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.