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
  #361  
Old 07-13-2018, 11:02 AM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 455
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Was this case sent back to lower courts or can we appeal to SCOTUS now?
This is definitely not the case you would want to go to scotus. This one should just be left to die
Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 07-13-2018, 11:19 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,775
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Last thing we need is a bad case in front of scotus
Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 07-13-2018, 11:23 AM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 382
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
This is definitely not the case you would want to go to scotus. This one should just be left to die
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.
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 07-16-2018, 11:46 AM
bobbodaggit bobbodaggit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Roseville
Posts: 256
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing today before the California Supreme Court. Anyone have a copy of it?
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 07-16-2018, 12:26 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbodaggit View Post
Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing today before the California Supreme Court. Anyone have a copy of it?
En banc motions at the federal appellate level have a low probability of success. Anyone track the success rate for the CA Supremes?
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 07-16-2018, 12:43 PM
B.J.F. B.J.F. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Mira Loma, CA
Posts: 167
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 07-16-2018, 1:41 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 382
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B.J.F. View Post
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.
That is not what the decision says. They said that the rule of impossibility is not a substantive rule of law but merely an aid to the interpretation of statutes. It is not a mechanism for overturning a statute, as NSSF had argued. The problem for NSSF was that the statute involved is not ambiguous, and rules of interpretation of statutes are of no relevance.
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 07-16-2018, 6:27 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 744
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
That is not what the decision says. They said that the rule of impossibility is not a substantive rule of law but merely an aid to the interpretation of statutes. It is not a mechanism for overturning a statute, as NSSF had argued. The problem for NSSF was that the statute involved is not ambiguous, and rules of interpretation of statutes are of no relevance.
This.

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**.
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 07-16-2018, 6:51 PM
ojisan ojisan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,501
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

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."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 07-17-2018, 4:15 PM
erik_26's Avatar
erik_26 erik_26 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,987
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by B.J.F. View Post
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.
Really?

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.
__________________
Diversity = Non-white and in some cases more specifically, non-white-male.

Another word that has the same meaning is, Inclusion.
Reply With Quote
  #371  
Old 07-17-2018, 4:31 PM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,811
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 08-05-2018, 11:55 AM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,853
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
I finally got to read the briefs, and this is a strange case indeed. Instead of arguing that the AG abused her discretion in certifying that the technology existed that was generally available that complied with the law, the NSSF instead mounted a facial challenge to the statute on the basis that complying with the technological mandate of stamping in two locations is impossible. Therefore, the argument goes, the statute is invalid since it requires an impossibility. According to the maxims of jurisprudence, the law can never require impossibilities. The court of appeal agreed. Now we have to see what the Supremes will do. But then, I do not think that the maxims of jurisprudence are "aspirational."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen_B View Post
Just saw the orals and don't feel to good about our side. I'm a bit late to this case, but I just don't understand why the maxim of impossibility is the angle being argued? I suppose my issue is I don't see how they can prove dual-site micro stamping is an "impossibility". Expensive, reduced safety/functionality, questionable profitability, a destruction of image/reputation of a gun mfg, stupid business decision, highly likely a product failure, sure... but I think strictly technologically "impossible" is a term too far. This isn't comparable to Lazarus and raising the dead. One of the Justices even acknowledged that expensive etc etc does not mean impossible.

I understand that going after the constitutionality, while purer and cleaner, would likely end poorly at the 9th. I also understand they left the door open to redirect on constitutionality. What am I missing here with this approach?

I 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.

.
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 08-05-2018, 12:47 PM
Citizen_B's Avatar
Citizen_B Citizen_B is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 947
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 08-06-2018, 8:15 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,374
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CALI-gula View Post
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.
That's clearly the goal - technical accuracy is not required to get re-elected.
__________________
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
  #375  
Old 08-06-2018, 11:39 PM
Kevfin's Avatar
Kevfin Kevfin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: California
Posts: 203
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
That's clearly the goal - technical accuracy is not required to get re-elected.
I sometimes wonder if another goal is to have pro-2nd amendment citizens leave the state.
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
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 08-07-2018, 12:43 PM
B.J.F. B.J.F. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Mira Loma, CA
Posts: 167
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevfin View Post
I sometimes wonder if another goal is to have pro-2nd amendment citizens leave the state.
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.
Could very well be the case... I’ve had enough and am only staying long enough for my wife to finish her degree and were gone to Texas.
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 08-07-2018, 5:40 PM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 13,244
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevfin View Post
I sometimes wonder if another goal is to have pro-2nd amendment citizens leave the state.
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.
I believe that is the primary goal.

However, I am not going anywhere.
__________________
Just taking up space in the second-worst small town in California.
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 6:32 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.