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
  #521  
Old 08-27-2017, 4:22 PM
pdsmith505 pdsmith505 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You have to draw the line somewhere. Bombs and grenades are "exceptionally lethal weapon of war", and I don't think just anyone should be able to get them. Granted, I definitely don't like where that line is drawn currently, but I don't think that means the line should be completely removed - and that sort of wishful thinking is simply never going to happen, we're never going to have all restrictions for all weapons removed for everyone, just ain't going to happen, so no point in wishing for it. Not even a majority of gun owners want that.
Looking back to when the 2nd Amendment was ratified... civilians were expected to be able to own cannon and shells. They had explosive shells back then.

Letters of Marque were issued to private citizens pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution all the way up to the Civil War... hard to take on another ship at sea without "weapons of war".
Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 08-27-2017, 5:27 PM
zhyla's Avatar
zhyla zhyla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,663
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdsmith505 View Post
Looking back to when the 2nd Amendment was ratified... civilians were expected to be able to own cannon and shells. They had explosive shells back then.

Letters of Marque were issued to private citizens pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution all the way up to the Civil War... hard to take on another ship at sea without "weapons of war".
Hardly relevant with our current military situation.
__________________
compromise•conformity•assimilation•submission•igno rance•hypocrisy•brutality•the elite
Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 08-27-2017, 5:40 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
Hardly relevant with our current military situation.
It's highly relevant. The founders overthrew the government here in America, and went up against that government's military. They did so with privately owned arms of all kinds.

Either the original intent behind the protection of the right to arms is what matters, or it isn't. Which is it? If it is, then you must heed what the founders intended to protect and, more importantly, why they intended to protect it. If it isn't, then your position is no different from that of the opposition, for the opposition argues precisely that the right to arms is no longer "relevant" in a society with a permanent police force.

You cannot simultaneously claim that the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment (among others) and that the government may rightfully prohibit the citizenry from owning the very weapons that it would need in order to successfully protect the 1st Amendment (and the rest) in the first place. That is an inherently contradictory stance to take. Either the government may rightfully prohibit the citizenry from owning the weapons it would need to defend and protect the Constitution from even a domestic government gone rogue, or the 2nd Amendment protects the rest of the Constitution. Which is it?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 08-27-2017 at 6:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 08-27-2017, 8:20 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,012
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
Hardly relevant with our current military situation.
The tribesmen in Afghanistan have been beating us with small arms for 15 years.

Last edited by wolfwood; 08-27-2017 at 8:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 08-27-2017, 9:25 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
The tribesmen in Afghanistan have been beating us with small arms for 15 years.

That's because we're not fighting to win over there. If we were, we'd be putting all of our resources into it and doing whatever it takes even if it weren't politically comfortable.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 08-27-2017, 10:23 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,266
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhyla View Post
Hardly relevant with our current military situation.
Absolutely relevant. Despite leftist prog claims otherwise. The "SOLE" purpose of 2A. Is to protect all other rights from government preemption.

Our military does not give oath of fielty to the US Government. But only to the protection of the "Constitution".

Hence, it is "our current military situation" that is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 08-27-2017, 10:31 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,229
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Absolutely relevant. Despite leftist prog claims otherwise. The "SOLE" purpose of 2A. Is to protect all other rights from government preemption.

Our military does not give oath of fielty to the US Government. But only to the protection of the "Constitution".

Hence, it is "our current military situation" that is irrelevant.
It's not the sole purpose, it might be the most important purpose of 2A but there are many others. We do not have a "use" based approach to gun rights, it's a universal human right to defend yourself and to own the ability to do so. It doesn't have to mean just from the government, it can be any tyranny or aggression. Whether we choose to exercise our rights to defend ourselves or for other reasons is irrelevant, we have the right regardless.

Saying it has "solely" one purpose is a slippery slope to mandating a singular reason for it to exist. It might be the most important reason to keep the governments power in check, but it's not the only reason, and the priority you place on it is also largely irrelevant. Whatever the reason, the right exists.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"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
  #528  
Old 08-28-2017, 12:10 AM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,460
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Here's to hoping that this removes all mag restrictions
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 08-28-2017, 6:57 AM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 19,093
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You have to draw the line somewhere. Bombs and grenades are "exceptionally lethal weapon of war", and I don't think just anyone should be able to get them. Granted, I definitely don't like where that line is drawn currently, but I don't think that means the line should be completely removed - and that sort of wishful thinking is simply never going to happen, we're never going to have all restrictions for all weapons removed for everyone, just ain't going to happen, so no point in wishing for it. Not even a majority of gun owners want that.
Don't move to NV with this attitude
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 08-28-2017, 2:40 PM
Undertaker's Avatar
Undertaker Undertaker is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I agree. If I could afford to own a aircraft carrier to land my fully armed
fighter jets on I should be able to buy it.
Reply With Quote
  #531  
Old 08-28-2017, 2:50 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,229
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertaker View Post
I agree. If I could afford to own a aircraft carrier to land my fully armed
fighter jets on I should be able to buy it.
Many say that, but they are in fact forgetting American history. Presser v. Illinois in 1886 was one of the biggest 2A cases ever, and it followed this narrative: Presser was part of a German workers party, and they formed in response to private companies in industrial revolution Chicago getting their own private armies to oppress and intimidate factory workers. Presser was a socialist.

Presser's group marched up and down Michigan avenue with horses and guns and some light artillery, and this was really taken poorly by the police and the private owners of the companies it intended to intimidate. The supreme court ruled that no, people as individuals and groups do not have the right to form a military entity outside of state militias.

Personally, I think this was the first great blow to the concept of 2A. I do think that Hamilton had intended to at least pay lip-service to states-righters who were looking for the right of private citizens to have military power (since some states didn't even have militias at the time).

But here is the issue- would you support a worker's movement, essentially a kind of labor union, to have a private military? How about the Black Lives Matter protesters tooling around in tanks? You must apply the concept of the right to have a military to the groups you do not like, and then ask yourself honestly if you wish to see that. Most just imagine themselves or groups they are sympathetic to having the military hardware.

How about black clad Antifa protesters protesting with RPG's promoting Marxism in America? Would you defend that right?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"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
  #532  
Old 08-28-2017, 2:55 PM
ef9boy88 ef9boy88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 609
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertaker View Post
I agree. If I could afford to own a aircraft carrier to land my fully armed
fighter jets on I should be able to buy it.
Agreed, although guiding the carrier, while operating the catapult and flying your plane might be tough.
Reply With Quote
  #533  
Old 08-28-2017, 4:23 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

People are confusing keep and bear.

It was historically understood that people could keep the heavy weapons that would be needed to fight a war. It's unlikely that said understanding extended to bear of those same weapons in public, especially since the weapons in question (most especially of the kind you guys are talking about) were really too heavy to be carried by a single individual.

You guys are essentially fighting a strawman argument. Nobody here is arguing in favor of parading around with the weapons in question. But keeping them is another matter entirely.

Even if you were talking about running around with the weapons in question, so what? Intimidation can be done in many ways, and laws against that (i.e., against credible threat of use of force) are Constitutional.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 08-28-2017 at 4:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #534  
Old 08-28-2017, 4:31 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

So you contend that "the right to keep and bear arms" really meant "the right to keep all arms, and bear small arms"? Do you have a citation for that, or is that just what you think? If you're going to pull the "straw man" card you have to follow it up with something that isn't just your opinion.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #535  
Old 08-28-2017, 4:52 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
So you contend that "the right to keep and bear arms" really meant "the right to keep all arms, and bear small arms"?
I consider it a real possibility.

Answer this: why "bear"? Why that term and not something else more inclusive of general non-criminal use of arms?


Quote:
Do you have a citation for that, or is that just what you think? If you're going to pull the "straw man" card you have to follow it up with something that isn't just your opinion.
Yeah, I do. District of Columbia v Heller:

Quote:
Originally Posted by District of Columbia v Heller
At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry." See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed.1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: `wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'" Id., at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1990)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms." Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
(emphasis mine)

Their conclusion came at least in part from a review of founding-era sources ("See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796)"). If "bear" means "carry" then "bear arms" clearly cannot include arms of the sorts you guys are talking about (good luck picking up and carrying that tank).


But the reason I say you guys are talking about a strawman argument is that nobody here is arguing in favor of parading around with the kinds of arms you're talking about, but we are talking about keeping them. If you're going to argue against something, then you should argue against what's actually proposed.

Further, if you argue against the founding-era notion on the basis of a display of those arms intended to intimidate the population, then you clearly have to argue against bearing of small arms on the very same basis. Intimidation with arms (also known as "affray") is not a Constitutionally-protected activity no matter what kind of arms you're talking about, but to insist that the possibility of such intimidation provides sufficient reason to forbid ownership of those arms is to adopt the very same argument that the opposition uses against common small arms.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 08-28-2017 at 7:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #536  
Old 08-28-2017, 8:36 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,229
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post


But the reason I say you guys are talking about a strawman argument is that nobody here is arguing in favor of parading around with the kinds of arms you're talking about, but we are talking about keeping them. If you're going to argue against something, then you should argue against what's actually proposed.

Further, if you argue against the founding-era notion on the basis of a display of those arms intended to intimidate the population, then you clearly have to argue against bearing of small arms on the very same basis. Intimidation with arms (also known as "affray") is not a Constitutionally-protected activity no matter what kind of arms you're talking about, but to insist that the possibility of such intimidation provides sufficient reason to forbid ownership of those arms is to adopt the very same argument that the opposition uses against common small arms.
Just read Presser, it covers all of this. Decided in 1876. Until then everything you said there was legal and happened all the time. People could display and parade and open carry artillery in the streets, and there was no restriction on owning anything Military.

It took a fear of a Socialist street group countering the force of the government and private corporate armies to limit the 2A to basically small arms. This is something no one on the right likes to talk about, and you will not find this at any NRA museum. It's an inconvenient truth.

Kind of like the Black Panthers being used as an excuse for the 1968 gun control act.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"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
  #537  
Old 08-29-2017, 7:03 AM
Junkie's Avatar
Junkie Junkie is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,813
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
You have to draw the line somewhere. Bombs and grenades are "exceptionally lethal weapon of war", and I don't think just anyone should be able to get them. Granted, I definitely don't like where that line is drawn currently, but I don't think that means the line should be completely removed - and that sort of wishful thinking is simply never going to happen, we're never going to have all restrictions for all weapons removed for everyone, just ain't going to happen, so no point in wishing for it. Not even a majority of gun owners want that.
In a free state you can have bombs or grenades with a $200 tax stamp per item
__________________
I will never buy another Spikes Tactical item, as I have a 5.45 marked barrel from them with a 5.56 bore that keyholed at 25 yards, and they wouldn't replace it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER View Post
A real live woman is more expensive than a fleshlight. Which would you rather have?
Reply With Quote
  #538  
Old 08-29-2017, 8:33 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,997
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
But here is the issue- would you support a worker's movement, essentially a kind of labor union, to have a private military?
"Private military" is different concept from being able to own hardware. Let's not mix the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
How about the Black Lives Matter protesters tooling around in tanks? You must apply the concept of the right to have a military to the groups you do not like, and then ask yourself honestly if you wish to see that. Most just imagine themselves or groups they are sympathetic to having the military hardware.

How about black clad Antifa protesters protesting with RPG's promoting Marxism in America? Would you defend that right?
You are making the same incorrect assumption that the anti-gun groups make - that 2A is somehow a license to intimidate, brandish, murder or act illegally.

The groups you mention virtually never assemble legally, they initiate violence and destroy property. All illegal acts, but, they are given a pass because the left considers them "underprivileged" or "social justice warriors." Remember how the mayor of Baltimore told police to "let them vent" as they destroyed the city?

If they had tanks and behaved remotely close to the way they behave now, those tanks would be confiscated and most of them would be in jail. The problem with such groups is not what kind of hardware they have, but how they use it and how they behave.

Would I defend their right to OWN arms? Yes - they can and already do own arms regardless of whether I approve or not (and I clearly approve).

The point is that "socialists" and "anarchists" already own arms. It's what they do with those arms that makes the difference, not their ideology or color of their skin.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #539  
Old 08-29-2017, 8:38 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,997
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Kind of like the Black Panthers being used as an excuse for the 1968 gun control act.
Yet it's the right that wants to correct those mistakes and the left that want's to keep minorities (and others) unarmed. Also, it's only the right that sees those actions as mistakes, while the left is happy not only to keep those laws on the books, but to expand on the ban.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #540  
Old 08-29-2017, 11:33 AM
enorbit3's Avatar
enorbit3 enorbit3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SFV
Posts: 177
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

got this in an email from CRPA today:

Quote:
Significantly, this isn’t the only recent NRA/CRPA victory in Los Angeles worth celebrating. In 2015, the City adopted an ordinance prohibiting the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. NRA and CRPA filed a lawsuit challenging the restriction. That lawsuit, titled Bosenko v. City of Los Angeles, included 30 duly elected California Sheriffs, two law enforcement organizations, CRPA, and a number of individual gun owners as plaintiffs.

The following year, both Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446 were enacted, making it a violation of state law to possess these standard capacity magazines. As a result, the City’s ordinance was duplicative of and preempted by the state laws. So in exchange for dismissal of the Bosenko lawsuit the City agreed to amend their ordinance to include a “sunset” provision so the ordinance would expire and be invalid and unenforceable after July 1, 2017, the date which the new state law were set to take effect. The city ordinance has now expired.

Both Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1446, however, suffered a major defeat in federal court after District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez issues a preliminary injunction in the NRA and CRPA supported case of Duncan v. Becerra. That injunction prohibits California from enforcing the state law banning the possession of standard capacity magazines that can hold over 10 rounds. Now that the state law has been enjoined, and because the Los Angeles ordinance is no longer in effect as of July 1, there is no law prohibiting the possession of standard capacity magazines in the City of Los Angeles.

This is welcome news for many California gun owners, including those who do not reside in Los Angeles. Thousands of law-abiding gun owners routinely travel through city limits to reach popular ranges such as the Angeles Shooting Range and other destinations that require traveling through city limits with firearms and the magazines that would have been prohibited.
does this mean we can now have standard capacity, 30 round magazines?
Reply With Quote
  #541  
Old 08-29-2017, 11:39 AM
p7m8jg's Avatar
p7m8jg p7m8jg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Modesto
Posts: 1,501
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbit3 View Post
got this in an email from CRPA today:
does this mean we can now have standard capacity, 30 round magazines?
Not in my book. The injunction is being appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and we all know how they'll rule on it.

Stay tuned...
Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 08-29-2017, 11:49 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 Jack-Booted Gov Thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 14,765
iTrader: 64 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbit3 View Post
got this in an email from CRPA today:



does this mean we can now have standard capacity, 30 round magazines?
If by "have" you mean "possess" within the LA city limits, then yes.

If by "have" you mean purchase (in state or out), or assemble from a kit (manufacture), give to your buddy, have mailed or give to you (receive), then no.


The injunction prevents the statue banning possession of once legal property from going into effect 1 Jul 2017- i.e. LCMs that typically fell under "grandfathered" category.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 08-29-2017, 1:21 PM
enorbit3's Avatar
enorbit3 enorbit3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SFV
Posts: 177
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
If by "have" you mean "possess" within the LA city limits, then yes.

If by "have" you mean purchase (in state or out), or assemble from a kit (manufacture), give to your buddy, have mailed or give to you (receive), then no.


The injunction prevents the statue banning possession of once legal property from going into effect 1 Jul 2017- i.e. LCMs that typically fell under "grandfathered" category.
ahh ok. this latter is what i meant. thank you for clarifying that for me.
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 08-30-2017, 1:38 AM
SP1200SP1200 SP1200SP1200 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OMG. I dont understand legal jargon. I've been scrolling this thread for about an hour now.

Can someone please tell me what happened with preliminary injunction?

Are standard mags legal or illegal as of today?

Sorry. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 08-30-2017, 1:57 AM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,229
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SP1200SP1200 View Post
OMG. I dont understand legal jargon. I've been scrolling this thread for about an hour now.

Can someone please tell me what happened with preliminary injunction?

Are standard mags legal or illegal as of today?

Sorry. Thanks.
Legal to posses, albeit it needed to be purchased prior to 2000. Legal until the injunction is ruled on.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"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
  #546  
Old 08-30-2017, 7:29 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SP1200SP1200 View Post
OMG. I dont understand legal jargon. I've been scrolling this thread for about an hour now.

Can someone please tell me what happened with preliminary injunction?

Are standard mags legal or illegal as of today?

Sorry. Thanks.
This was answered only a couple posts ago - still legal to own legally obtained (pre-ban) magazines, still illegal to acquire them.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 08-30-2017, 8:54 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,004
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Not to put too fine a point on it...but won't Judge Benitez be holding a trial on the merits before this goes to 9CA? Assuming he finds in our favor (which he hinted at strongly when issuing the injunction) this will be tied up for some time - right? Or am I missing something?
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 08-30-2017, 9:16 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Not to put too fine a point on it...but won't Judge Benitez be holding a trial on the merits before this goes to 9CA? Assuming he finds in our favor (which he hinted at strongly when issuing the injunction) this will be tied up for some time - right? Or am I missing something?
It can be tied up indefinitely for all I care

I'm not sure if the district court can proceed with hearings until the 9th has made a decision about the injunction appeal, but I could definitely be mistaken about that. This is the first time I've ever seen a preliminary injunction go to appeals court.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 08-30-2017, 9:21 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I just did a little light reading, and it appears that once the preliminary injunction appeal is "perfected" (everything is filed correctly with the appeals court), it stays the proceedings in the lower court - except for any other matters contained in the suit that are unaffected by the injunction, which may proceed.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 08-30-2017, 11:41 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
I just did a little light reading, and it appears that once the preliminary injunction appeal is "perfected" (everything is filed correctly with the appeals court), it stays the proceedings in the lower court - except for any other matters contained in the suit that are unaffected by the injunction, which may proceed.
This would seem to set things up for a real clusterf*ck - DC moves forward with the trial, which invariably takes its own timeline (12 - 18 months), while CA9 rules against the injunction, which leaves legal owners of magazines with a capacity > 10 rounds totally screwed because the law that is enjoined is now in full force and effect.

This is the one time that I am hoping CA9 takes more than their own sweet time to rule on the injunction.
Reply With Quote
  #551  
Old 08-30-2017, 11:43 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
It can be tied up indefinitely for all I care

I'm not sure if the district court can proceed with hearings until the 9th has made a decision about the injunction appeal, but I could definitely be mistaken about that. This is the first time I've ever seen a preliminary injunction go to appeals court.
Were you not watching what played out with the Muslim travel ban?
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 08-30-2017, 11:45 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Were you not watching what played out with the Muslim travel ban?
Nope, not really
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 08-30-2017, 11:47 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Nope, not really
That must have taken some effort on your part - it was all over the news (even conservative news media carried the story).
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 08-30-2017, 12:14 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
That must have taken some effort on your part...
Thanks, it's about time someone recognizes my effort
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 08-30-2017, 12:17 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Low-Functioning Genius
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 5,229
iTrader: 3 / 80%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Thanks, it's about time someone recognizes my effort
I knew you were responsible for the Muslim travel ban!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"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
  #556  
Old 08-30-2017, 2:57 PM
SP1200SP1200 SP1200SP1200 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 69
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
Legal until the injunction is ruled on.
Ok. It's just with all the legal discussion about cases above I though it had been ruled on already and everyone was discussing the ruling.

ugh. thank god.
It's hard for the average guy.
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 09-12-2017, 8:03 AM
CAGLS's Avatar
CAGLS CAGLS is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Socal SGV
Posts: 3,336
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Can LE still confiscate under the nuesance law?
Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 09-12-2017, 8:14 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,652
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAGLS View Post
Can LE still confiscate under the nuesance law?
Ya. It's very very rare, but theoretically possible. I dont personally worry about that.
__________________
Don't panic. MOST people who registered AWs are still waiting. They didn't lose your app or forget about you, they are just REALLY SLOW. If there's a problem with your app, they'll tell you. Otherwise, all you can do is wait.

2018 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 09-12-2017, 9:38 AM
sbrady@Michel&Associates's Avatar
sbrady@Michel&Associates sbrady@Michel&Associates is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 611
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAGLS View Post
Can LE still confiscate under the nuesance law?
If that happens to anyone, please let our office know immediately.

We would like to give that agency an education.
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 09-12-2017, 10:09 AM
CAGLS's Avatar
CAGLS CAGLS is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Socal SGV
Posts: 3,336
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
If that happens to anyone, please let our office know immediately.

We would like to give that agency an education.
Thank You.
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 3:06 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.