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
  #161  
Old 05-06-2018, 1:54 PM
solidfreshdope solidfreshdope is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 603
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
HA! Lots of luck getting a Red State legislator to walk the plank on that idea. Their response would be to invite all refugees from CA to relocate to their state.
They know the Dems play dirty, plus, their state is in danger too if California keeps walking the same path.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Welcome to the United Snakes.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 05-06-2018, 1:57 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 861
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidfreshdope View Post
They know the Dems play dirty, plus, their state is in danger too if California keeps walking the same path.
If that was a risk for the red state legislators, the legislation would have already been passed. Somehow, I don't see your scenario playing out. Great idea though.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 05-25-2018, 7:20 AM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Argued and taken under advisement.
__________________
Watch & Pray

Last edited by Dump1567; 05-25-2018 at 12:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 05-25-2018, 1:30 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates View Post
I just wanted to give everyone who is following this case an update.

The case is completely briefed and ready for decision on the merits.

The Court continued today's hearing on the merits to May 25. The Court wanted to set it for May 11 but DOJ's counsel is unfortunately out of town for two weeks.

I informed the Court of the impending July 1 deadline and Judge Snauffer assured me that he would make a quick ruling. So we should know the outcome of this case prior to July 1.
^^^^^
Isn't there an action on this today? Is there a page we can find what happened once it makes its slow grind through the bureaucracy?
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 05-25-2018, 2:09 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
^^^^^
Isn't there an action on this today? Is there a page we can find what happened once it makes its slow grind through the bureaucracy?
My post above. Argued and taken under advisement. They are hoping for a quick opinion before July 1st.

On page 2 of this thread, you can find the case # and link to the court website. This will give you all the dates and uploaded Docs.

Maybe one of the Attorneys will come by and give an update on how argument went.
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 05-25-2018, 2:18 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 861
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
My post above. Argued and taken under advisement. They are hoping for a quick opinion before July 1st.

On page 2 of this thread, you can find the case # and link to the court website. This will give you all the dates and uploaded Docs.

Maybe one of the Attorneys will come by and give an update on how argument went.
Is there a link to a court hearing transcript or YouTube video?
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 05-27-2018, 3:37 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 396
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
Is there a link to a court hearing transcript or YouTube video?
I'll second this question for those in the know. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 05-27-2018, 4:40 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicky c View Post
I'll second this question for those in the know. Thanks.
I doubt at this level of court there is any video. If you go to the on-line case file, you can find who the court reporter is and probably order the transcript from her.
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 05-27-2018, 10:56 PM
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 531
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
I doubt at this level of court there is any video. If you go to the on-line case file, you can find who the court reporter is and probably order the transcript from her.
According to this: https://publicportal.fresno.courts.c...OkcinegKt0?p=0

Rachael Espinoza

Listing of Court Reporters:
http://www.fresno.courts.ca.gov/cour...0Directory.htm

Rachael Espinoza
CSR Lic #:13815
Fresno,CA 93711
Ph#: 559-221-9000
E-mail: rcespinoza_csr@yahoo.com

For Case #: 17CECG03093
Recorded on 5/25

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 05-27-2018 at 10:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 05-30-2018, 2:53 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

I think our Loss was just posted. I'm reading it now.

Quote:
In the Court’s opinion, Defendants’ interpretation of the authorizing statute is reasonable; Plaintiffs fail to show that
Defendants abused their discretion in the interpretation of the authorizing statute.
Quote:
Petitioners Have Not Shown that Defendants Exceeded the Scope of the APA Exemption Found in Penal Code Section 39900.
Quote:
This Court is to give “great weight” to DOJ’S interpretation of the authorizing statute. (See, e.g., Association of California
Insurance Companies, supra, 2 Ca1.5th at p. 390.) Defendant DOJ’s interpretation of the exemption from the APA requirement does not
appear to be contrary to law.
Quote:
The Court finds that the weight of the evidence supports Defendants’ position that the regulations as promulgated are
within the APA exemption provided by Penal Code section 30900, subdivision (b)(5).
Quote:
It appears that the Legislature’s intent was to cast a wider net so far as registering weapons fitted;with a
bullet button, and to permit Defendant DOJ to promulgate regulations that carry out this intent, without going through the
APA notice and comment procedures.
Didn't see anything addressing the removal of BB post registration. But from what I read, it does seem to imply BB equipped AW's are the same as any other AW. So why would we need to keep on the BB post registration? Especially since other 2001-2016 requirements can be altered ( ie: under 30" OAL, use of 10+ mags).

Case # 17CECG03093

https://publicportal.fresno.courts.c...e/Dashboard/29
__________________
Watch & Pray

Last edited by Dump1567; 05-30-2018 at 3:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 05-30-2018, 3:00 PM
glug glug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 316
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
I think our Loss was just posted. I'm reading it now.
Where? Is there a link?

Edit: Guessing it's this: https://publicportal.fresno.courts.c...4bM8femhY0?p=0

Last edited by glug; 05-30-2018 at 3:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 05-30-2018, 3:39 PM
nicky c nicky c is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 396
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dump1567 View Post
I think our Loss was just posted. I'm reading it now.









Didn't see anything addressing the removal of BB post registration. Just a blanket statement that DOJ has the right do what they want.

Case # 17CECG03093

https://publicportal.fresno.courts.c...e/Dashboard/29
That's how I read it as well.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 05-30-2018, 3:40 PM
CmdrChuch's Avatar
CmdrChuch CmdrChuch is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 389
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Yep, this was rough to read. Court gave DOJ way too much leeway to "fill in the blanks."

Quote:
This Court is to give “great weight” to DOJ’S interpretation of the authorizing statute... Defendant DOJ’s interpretation of the exemption from the APA requirement does not appear to be contrary to law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 05-30-2018, 3:49 PM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CmdrChuch View Post
Yep, this was rough to read. Court gave DOJ way too much leeway to "fill in the blanks."
Which in my opinion, now opens-up "cans of worms" in other areas.

Basically the DOJ can now write there own law.

So much for checks and balances.
__________________
Watch & Pray
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 05-30-2018, 3:59 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,662
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glug View Post
Where? Is there a link?

Edit: Guessing it's this: https://publicportal.fresno.courts.c...4bM8femhY0?p=0
Seems to be.

I had to quit reading just before the end. I am appalled.
__________________
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
  #176  
Old 05-30-2018, 4:02 PM
CmdrChuch's Avatar
CmdrChuch CmdrChuch is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 389
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

This wording on page 4 also scares me a little:

Quote:
A firearm equipped with a bullet button will be considered an assault weapon, due to it not having a fixed magazine; a “fixed magazine” means that the magazine can only be removed by disassembling the entire firearm.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 05-30-2018, 4:35 PM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,806
iTrader: 141 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CmdrChuch View Post
This wording on page 4 also scares me a little:
Page 4 is background info...keep going to the Judge's analysis to be scared...
__________________
Trump on RKBA "The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. PERIOD."

CGF Contributor
NRA, CRPA LIFE MEMBER
Beretta 90 series, GLOCK (Gen 1-5, G42/43), Colt AR15/M16/M4, Sig P320, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
Remington Nylon, 1911, HK, Ruger Armorer just for fun!
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 05-30-2018, 4:38 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is online now
🇺🇸 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: 15,045
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

So ... appeal + injunction pending appeal?
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 05-30-2018, 10:03 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 23,270
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
So ... appeal + injunction pending appeal?
More like... appeal and no injunction.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 05-30-2018, 10:30 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
An administrative agency "is not limited to the exact provisions of a statute" in adopting regulations to enforce its mandate; an absence of specific statutory provisions regarding the regulation of an issue does not mean that such a regulation exceeds statutory authority
Can someone remind me what the definition of "underground regulation" is?

By the way: the judge's interpretation implies the current AWCA fully encompasses featureless rifles as well, given that the reloading of a button-less, feature-less rifle is faster than a BB'd rifle:
Quote:
The documents submitted by Defendants [...] desire to curtail the proliferation of weapons that are able to fire large numbers of rounds in a short period of time.
Quote:
the challenged regulations appear to carry out the intention of the Legislature, i.e., to require registration of “bullet button” firearms, based on the “finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.”
I can't fathom what a winning move for us looks like here. Not when the very people we petition for redress are, themselves, our most ardent enemies.

Well.... I can fathom, but not in public
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 05-30-2018, 10:47 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,087
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CmdrChuch View Post
This wording on page 4 also scares me a little:

"A firearm equipped with a bullet button will be considered an assault weapon, due to it not having a fixed magazine; a “fixed magazine” means that the magazine can only be removed by disassembling the entire firearm."
Disassembling the entire firearm? Great, so now the courts are inventing new laws along with the DOJ.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 05-30-2018 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 05-31-2018, 8:13 AM
FlyingShooter FlyingShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 413
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So it sounds like buying even a featureless/fixed mag rifle right now is a bad idea until we see where this goes, no?
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 05-31-2018, 9:37 AM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Prietostan
Posts: 4,744
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

...the challenged regulations appear to carry out the intention of the Legislature, i.e., to require registration of “bullet button” firearms, based on the “finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.”

Yikes. Not hard to see where this can potentially go.
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Ripcord Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain packs*
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 05-31-2018, 9:57 AM
HUTCH 7.62's Avatar
HUTCH 7.62 HUTCH 7.62 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Josie
Posts: 10,702
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I ****ing hate this state
__________________
Some say that he once mooned two prostitutes just for a round of drinks, but wasn't surprised by the reply......They call him, the Hutch
Some say that he rode a dirtbike 7k miles across the country and that he once applied Bengay to his own testicles for a mere $50............They call him, the Hutch -Top Gear

Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 05-31-2018, 10:07 AM
ritter ritter is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
...the challenged regulations appear to carry out the intention of the Legislature, i.e., to require registration of “bullet button” firearms, based on the “finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.”

Yikes. Not hard to see where this can potentially go.
Good thing Heller decided that firearms are protected for self defense and not limited to sports or recreation (for all the good it's done us...).
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 05-31-2018, 10:12 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is online now
🇺🇸 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: 15,045
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
More like... appeal and no injunction.
Wishful (more like fantasy) thinking on my part... because if the tables were turned, sure as sht the govt would get an injunction.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 05-31-2018, 10:50 AM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Prietostan
Posts: 4,744
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
Good thing Heller decided that firearms are protected for self defense and not limited to sports or recreation (for all the good it's done us...).
No good, unfortunately.
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Ripcord Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain packs*
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 05-31-2018, 10:52 AM
Skip_Dog's Avatar
Skip_Dog Skip_Dog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 1,113
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CmdrChuch View Post
This wording on page 4 also scares me a little:
So now my fixed 10 round mag with BB left on is still and AW?
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 05-31-2018, 11:02 AM
CmdrChuch's Avatar
CmdrChuch CmdrChuch is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 389
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

The quote wasn't part of the ruling, specifically, but it was how the judge chose to summarize the background/history of the lawsuit. It's scary because it gives insight in to how these judges really think/feel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip_Dog View Post
So now my fixed 10 round mag with BB left on is still and AW?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 05-31-2018, 11:19 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 813
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The way I read it ANY firearm with a removable feeding device is now defined as an Assault Weapon and must be registered. This appears to ensnare the M1, M1A, Mini 14&30, and ANY other firearm with a detachable feeding device.
Am I correct in reading the Judges Decision?
Well IF the constitution and Bill of Rights are laws restricting Government, (ALL BRANCHES), then the Legislative and Judicial are beyond their authority.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 05-31-2018, 11:42 AM
Dump1567's Avatar
Dump1567 Dump1567 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,584
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DolphinFan View Post
The way I read it ANY firearm with a removable feeding device is now defined as an Assault Weapon and must be registered. This appears to ensnare the M1, M1A, Mini 14&30, and ANY other firearm with a detachable feeding device.
Am I correct in reading the Judges Decision?
I don't see it that way. The judge agreed that the DOJ can "basically do what they think the Legislators intended". No where in the DOJ regs say all detachable mag rifles are AW's. Just those with mag locks bought between 2001-2016.

What's disturbing is their "Post" registration regulation of not removing the mag lock. The "intent of the Legislators" was a mag lock was just as fast as a regular mag release (a loophole in the law). And as such, these are to be registered as an AW (mag lock=regular mag release). So why would these need to remain on after approved registration?

Based on the Judges "intent of the Legislators", the mag-lock should go bye bye after registration approval. Prior to approval, it should stay on to fit their new "category 4" registration. But after, no. It's just like any other AW (per the Legislators) and is even listed with past legally registered AW's on the approval letter you receive.

This is the argument I think our atty's should use. It's now been validated by a judge.
__________________
Watch & Pray

Last edited by Dump1567; 05-31-2018 at 11:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 05-31-2018, 11:48 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 544
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So when they say disassemble the entire firearm... are they talking detail strip or will field strip suffice?
So glad I left the state. Too bad I still live in the 9th's jurisdiction though.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 05-31-2018, 12:12 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 171
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
No good, unfortunately.
Do you doubt that ownership would be completely banned in San Francisco by now if DC ban was upheld in Heller?
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 05-31-2018, 12:34 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,087
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CmdrChuch View Post
The quote wasn't part of the ruling, specifically, but it was how the judge chose to summarize the background/history of the lawsuit. It's scary because it gives insight in to how these judges really think/feel.
Or, it gives insight into how little some of these judges understand what they're ruling on when they make their rulings.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 05-31-2018, 5:02 PM
rb765's Avatar
rb765 rb765 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 416
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I got official notification today from Michel & Associates since I am one of the named plaintiffs in this mess. Now I have to decide if I turn in my receiver for destruction, register, or go featureless. I really hate those options.
__________________
Want list:

Springfield Elite Range Officer in 9mm, Walther PPK/S, Tika T3 Compact in .308, 20g over/under.

NRA Life Member Certified Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 05-31-2018, 5:25 PM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Prietostan
Posts: 4,744
iTrader: 97 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Do you doubt that ownership would be completely banned in San Francisco by now if DC ban was upheld in Heller?
I honestly cannot speak to what cases were won based on the Heller decision. Which one are you referring to?
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Ripcord Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain packs*
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 05-31-2018, 7:10 PM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,140
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
I honestly cannot speak to what cases were won based on the Heller decision. Which one are you referring to?
Pretty sure McDonald was an outgrowth of Heller. I also think the previous poster is implying that the ruling in Heller that the 2nd is a fundamental right is what has (so far) prevented cities like SF from completely banning firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 05-31-2018, 11:43 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 573
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DolphinFan View Post
The way I read it ANY firearm with a removable feeding device is now defined as an Assault Weapon
The way the judge gave his opinion: the intent of the law is to make them all assault weapons. However, given the MA loader (speed-loads a truly fixed mag through the ejection port), it implies the intent of the law (as far as this judge is concerned) is to ban all semi-auto. Period.

We all know what's next. Newscum signs the semi-auto ban that moonbeam vetoed. The only thing left for us to do is bet whether pistols are included.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 06-01-2018, 8:32 AM
riderr riderr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,850
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

If appealed all the way, hopefully SCOTUS will finally step in and act on a judge decision strictly contradicting Heller. Well, hopefully...
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 06-01-2018, 11:09 AM
foreppin916's Avatar
foreppin916 foreppin916 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sacramento, Commiefornia
Posts: 999
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

wow.....things just keep getting worse for us in the state. This combined with Gavin Newsom coming into office I am quickly losing any hope I held on to for 2A rights in this state.
__________________
"Ya dude just bought my 67th gun today"......
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 10:10 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.