|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#241
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The gun control strategy is that they want gun owners not to exist. They want law abiding people to not want to own guns anymore because, to them, all legally owned guns are just waiting to be stolen, involved in an accident, or for the owner to snap and kill people. They believe a good guy with a gun is a myth (the existence of police, and why they are armed, isn’t allowed in that discussion) and that people who want to own a gun to protect themselves and/or their family are itchy-fingered psychos. They play up “mass shootings” by stretching what counts as one, play down defensive gun uses by requiring an assailant be killed and/or the shooter be charged and use self-defense as a successful defense in court, and always drift back to including suicides in death statistics even if the discussion is about magazine capacity or second waiting periods. All this is in an effort to make owning a firearm as unattractive as possible, and to make passing any and all restrictions as popular as possible. They’ve steadfastly chosen not to own a firearm themself, and they can’t get their mind off the idea of everyone having joined them. There’s no problem they can cause with one restriction that can’t be remedied by passing another. Last edited by champu; 12-09-2017 at 10:24 AM.. |
#242
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A similar law would be "All alcohol sold in California must contain cyanide." The only way to obey a law like this is to stop selling alcohol. This law is just a pure attempt to ban guns. |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by TruOil; 02-05-2018 at 2:14 PM.. |
#244
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#246
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Do you mean this thread? This has to be BS, or a company that is striving to go out of business. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1419243 |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk |
#248
|
||||
|
||||
There is no doubt that guns exist which do microstamping , there's pictures of the microstamped cases around the internet. They were presented when the technology was originally demonstrated for California.
I think it's more about the details of mass producing such guns. Coonan is a smaller company, it's likely a company like that could produce small amounts of microstamping guns which would work with specific ammo. Maybe the guns would cost $2500 or something, with lots of QA etc. Try doing that with a glock, and it becomes more difficult. |
#249
|
||||
|
||||
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1#post19924831
Quote:
|
#250
|
|||
|
|||
T hat's an engineering issue, however I note that the raised area wouldn't need to be any higher than thousandths of an inch, and the stamp could be very close to the case mouth. Since chambers are "generous" anyway, there would be no loading issue, and the ejection issue would be minimized.
|
#251
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And of course, it also doesn't change the fundamental flaws in this whole concept, which include (but are not limited to): A) Existing guns, which account for 100% of the millions of guns already in circulation, that will still not have microstamping. B) The microstamping can, and will, just be filed off. C) Barrel swaps. D) Reloads. E) Collected brass from shooting ranges. The law completely disregards all of those factors, because as we already know, it has nothing to do with solving crimes, and everything to do with simply banning handguns - and as currently written, it performs that task perfectly, which is why they are fighting relentlessly to keep it.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. Last edited by CandG; 02-06-2018 at 2:55 PM.. |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Personally, I have little doubt that the Court will uphold the denial of the defense, and I think the AG is well aware of the overwhelming probability that it will lose--but it "wins" by losing slowly. I would anticipate a reversal, followed by a trial, that the AG will lose at trial on the merits, followed by an appeal accompanied by a motion to stay the judgment of the trial court, to try to delay the effect of the judgment for at least a few more years. And after they lose in the Court of Appeal, then yet another appeal. Even though we are not in federal court, I expect a Peruta-like eternity before this case is finally over. |
#253
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I mistook this for a federal case a page back re Pacer records. ETA: nevermind, google answered my question. CA does have it's own "supreme court." Last edited by readysetgo; 02-08-2018 at 11:06 PM.. |
#254
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
The law has 'worked' - since 2013, it has prevented scores or hundreds of guns from getting on the Roster. Quote:
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.” Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. |
#255
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#256
|
||||
|
||||
Update 12-1-16: NSSF v. State of California (Microstamping Challenge)
I was just wondering how long is the court going to take to make a decision on the most recent hearing concerning the microstamping law.
I figured we must be coming up on some sort of time limit. According to the 9th circuit lawyers guide...page 17 G. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FROM THE TIME OF ARGUMENT TO THE TIME OF DECISION The Court has no time limit, but most cases are decided within 3 months to a year. I am sad. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto...cticeGuide.pdf Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
#257
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do. |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It is currently pending before the California Supreme Court. In a pre-trial hearing, the trial court rejected the State's argument that the AG's decision could not be challenged in court. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court. The State appealed again to the Supreme Court. That case is pending. The matter has been fully briefed as of the end of the year, and we are awaiting scheduling of oral argument, perhaps sometime this spring and likely not later than summer. The issue is not complex. I think it highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will agee that Harris' decision is not subject to judicial review; the more complicated question is what will be the standard of review in the trial court. |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
Yeahawww, it is true! Finally!!! ?Here is the link to the calendar:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SAPR0318.pdf |
#264
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If the NSSF wins at the Supreme Court the case will go back to the original court and then the NSSF will actually have to prove microstamping is impossible using current t technology. |
#265
|
||||
|
||||
Wolfwood - given the attempts by CA and other States to "force" the markets to develop the technology, one could argue that manufacturers already have a strong ,market incentive to do so - correct? If there is a market incentive and they have not done so, add weight to the argument that it is unworkable - doesn't it?
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#266
|
||||
|
||||
Is this a common judicial process? I would have thought CA supreme court saying it doesn't exist is enough. It seems bizzare you have to go back and prove something they seem to have already affirmed.
|
#267
|
|||
|
|||
The case has never gotten to trial, so NSSF hasn't proven anything yet. The State argued, and lost, a motion in which it contended that the trial court was not empowered to overturn a DOJ determination (i.e., that the State DOJ's determination was not subject to judicial review). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court order, and the State appealed again. The Supreme Court will decide if judicial review is available, and second, if it is, what the standard of proof the NSSF will bear on remand for trial. I presume that the Stat will appeal all over again if it loses at trial, and that a few more years go by before it again makes it way back up to the California Supreme Court. The only good thing I can say about that is that if the State loses in the trial court, the odds that it will successfully appeal the judgment and obtain a reversal are slim.
|
#268
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
"A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." "Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not." Thomas Jefferson. "a system of licensing the right of self-defense, which doesn’t recognize self-defense as “good cause” Don Kilmer |
#269
|
||||
|
||||
Is there video at the CA supreme court. I really want to watch it but is to far for me. edit I got confused it is in L.A.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/c.../SAPR0318A.PDF NSSF is arguing their challenge to microstamping in front of the CA Supreme Court April 4th. Is anyone going to it? I'd love to go but it is a bit far for me. If anyone does please send me an after action report. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 2018 — 9:00 A.M. (6) National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., et al. v. State of California, S239397 (Epstein, P. J., assigned justice pro tempore) Last edited by wolfwood; 03-26-2018 at 5:35 PM.. |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#271
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
It is always a judge, not an attorney, and usually but not always an appellate court justice. It happens when one of the seven justices is unavailable for some reason or other. In this case, I am not aware of any recusals, so it is some other reason that hasn't been and won't be disclosed.
|
#274
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Anyone have a link to livestream? Plus, let's try to post an embedded YT video of the orals.
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. Last edited by Paladin; 04-03-2018 at 10:14 AM.. |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
Live webcast: http://www.courts.ca.gov/35333.htm
__________________
------------------------- |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
When did "Rights" become an experiment?
This is a Republic based on the Natural Rights of Man, not a Monarchy, not a Right or Left Wing Dictatorship, a Republic.
__________________
"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 |
#280
|
||||
|
||||
Judges seemed to understand the point that microstamping isn’t possible.
CA advocated that it doesn’t matter and the de facto ban the impossible requirement creates is a grand experiment.
__________________
“You cannot save the planet. You may be able to save yourself and your family.” -Clint Smith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|