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
  #2321  
Old 03-12-2018, 12:28 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,574
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
The courts (and the public, but that’s less important) aren’t going to find that individual handgun models are as unique as individual religions or individual books. So no matter how much -we- may like these comparisons of the net result of the roster to the first amendment, if they’re not compelling/persuading anyone, we should probably move on from them.

Firearms either exist and provide for self-defense in the home, or they do not, so the courts need something more binary shoved in their face (although that’d still be no guarantee; see Peruta) I think drawing parallels to the fourth amendment might be more productive. I haven’t really spent any time musing about the specifics, but perhaps something that ends with, “so if you want privacy, just use grandfathered electronic devices from before 2012.”
Or carrier pigeon.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #2322  
Old 03-12-2018, 1:18 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawj11 View Post
Um, the Bill of Rights is there to protect God given rights. Not sure this is up for debate here.
\

You miss the pint. The BOR does not GRANT rights, it prevents the Government, in various degrees, from interfering with these PRE-EXISTING rights. The distinction is important: if the right pre-exists the constitution, a repeal of the amendment does not repeal the right, just the protections for the right.
Reply With Quote
  #2323  
Old 03-12-2018, 1:30 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawj11 View Post
The NSSF vs CA Microstamping doesn't argue on the basis of the constitutionality. Do some research for yourself. NSSF argues that a law that requires something that is impossible to do cannot be enforced. NSSF lost the first case because they admitted that it is possible to place two stamps both on the firing pin. If manufacturers would just comply, then they could sell new guns in CA. If they choose not to comply, then they can continue selling older models. Please people, do some research before you go popping off. I hate this too, but they are the facts and there are sure a lot of uneducated people here. Pena vs Cid, now that is based on the constitutionality of the handgun roster. If the court upholds in the NSSF case that it is possible to place two stamps using the firing pin (one above the other), than how is the handgun roster unconstitutional? All manufacturers have to do is comply with the requirements to sell new guns in CA, just like car manufacturers had to comply with the airbag requirements to sell cars (which they fought bitterly and lost). Also, the state can simply argue that old handguns are exempt for new roster requirements so just keep producing and selling old models.
Where did they argue this and what case did they lose? All that occurred in this case is that the Court denied competing motions for summary judgment. Somewhere during trial court litigation, the State filed a motion contending that the decision of the AG was not subject to judicial review. The trial court denied the motion. The State appealed (because it is patently aware that if the certification can be challenged, it will lose on the merits). The Court of Appeal agreed with the NSSF, and affirmed the trial court order. The State again appealed to the California Supreme Court. The issues to be determined are: 1) whether the certification is subject to judicial review; and assuming that it is, 2) What is the standard of review the trial court should court employ in reviewing the certification determination?

Long ago, in the trial court, the State, conceding that the existing technology stamped the case only on the primer, argued that the conditions for certification were satisfied if that technology stamped two separate identifiers on the primer. The trial court concluded that this was not credible, as the statute requires the the casing be stamped in two separate location on the case, not twice on the primer.
I have read claims that a system of stamping complying with the law could be devised, but I have never seen any proof, no patent, no proof of concept. If you disagree, cite a source. If there were in fact such technology that supports the certification, then the State would win, and all of these appeals are completely meaningless and a waste of time and resources. This certainly has NOT been an issue in this case, and it is not an issue in the Supreme Court hearing next month.
Reply With Quote
  #2324  
Old 03-12-2018, 1:43 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
This.

If it was really about safety, LE would NOT be exempt, not for their duty gun, not for their personal guns.

Also, once tested, the firearm should forever remain on the list, but instead if the annual payment is not made, the law abiding citizens can no longer buy it.

The color, grips or engraving should not matter either, but it does.
It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.
Reply With Quote
  #2325  
Old 03-12-2018, 2:30 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,267
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.
Yet the FSC test basically tells you NOT to rely on mechanical safety mechanisms when it comes to firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #2326  
Old 03-12-2018, 2:34 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,054
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.
were it that the gov should regulate keyboards and remove all of the ‘F’ keys so as to save us all from obscene forum posts.

The gov should not be in the business of saving us from ourselves.
__________________
Quote:
"The 'Spray and Pray' system advances triumphantly in law enforcement. In a recent case in a southwestern city...a police officer, when threatened with a handgun, emptied his 15 shot pistol at his would-be assailant, achieving two peripheral hits. The citizen was charged with brandishing a firearm, but the cop was not charged with anything, lousy shooting not being a diciplinary offense."
--- Jeff Cooper, June 1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by EM2
Put you link where your opinion is.

Last edited by EM2; 03-12-2018 at 3:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2327  
Old 03-12-2018, 2:36 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 9,252
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
It is not a "safe handguns roster," it is a Roster of guns that are "Not Unsafe." The color, grips and engraving do not matter. By statute. The LEO are exempt from the Roster because, the Legislature believed, officers receive extensive training with the safe handling of firearms, and theoretically know when their guns are loaded. And between you, me and the lamppost, I am perfectly happy that the State has handguns tested to assure that they will not fire if dropped and that they will not blow up with factory ammo (usually). The rest, not so much. My Kahr has no manual safety, no LCI and no mag disconnect. But it is DAO. In my view, the additional safety features subsequently required by the roster are not to make the guns more safe, they are rather a recognition that there are lots of idiots out there who are unsafe in the use of their firearms. In other words, they are not product safety requirements, they are anti-Darwin laws.
Any manufacturer who produced an unsafe firearm would be sued out of existence, so the state doing what they are is pointless, plus as said, what they are doing shows otherwise.

Please explain how a police officer can deal with a firearm that would fail the drop test.

The features required are stupid as well and there have been officers who have had an unloaded firearm fire.

The bottom line it is about trying to ban guns PERIOD. There is NO reason to drop off a firearm if the manufacturer doesn't pay the next year as the firearm has not changed, it is only about money. There is no reason to charge more for each color version.

Don't fall for the false claims.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #2328  
Old 03-13-2018, 1:50 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
Any manufacturer who produced an unsafe firearm would be sued out of existence, so the state doing what they are is pointless, plus as said, what they are doing shows otherwise.

Please explain how a police officer can deal with a firearm that would fail the drop test.

The features required are stupid as well and there have been officers who have had an unloaded firearm fire.

The bottom line it is about trying to ban guns PERIOD. There is NO reason to drop off a firearm if the manufacturer doesn't pay the next year as the firearm has not changed, it is only about money. There is no reason to charge more for each color version.

Don't fall for the false claims.
The law as originally enacted was an effort to ban "Saturday Nite Specials," guns that did blow up, jam, and fire when dropped. There are guns to this day that have failed the drop test (Sig and one other). So I don't know what you mean when you ask how an officer can deal with a firearm that isn't drop safe. Officers are allowed to buy anything, even firearms that are not approved for duty use. You have to ask the Legislature why they exempted them, but as we have seen with other laws (e.g. CCW laws), it is usually political, i.e., to avoid opposition by departments and the police union(s), etc. so that the law will get passed. It doesn't have to make sense when we are talking politics.
Reply With Quote
  #2329  
Old 03-13-2018, 2:08 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,538
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The law as originally enacted was an effort to ban "Saturday Nite Specials," guns that did blow up, jam, and fire when dropped. There are guns to this day that have failed the drop test (Sig and one other). So I don't know what you mean when you ask how an officer can deal with a firearm that isn't drop safe. Officers are allowed to buy anything, even firearms that are not approved for duty use. You have to ask the Legislature why they exempted them, but as we have seen with other laws (e.g. CCW laws), it is usually political, i.e., to avoid opposition by departments and the police union(s), etc. so that the law will get passed. It doesn't have to make sense when we are talking politics.


As I recall, the phrase "Saturday Night Special" was a term of Anti-Gun propaganda and all of the so-called "Saturday Night Specials" passed all the new drop and other safety tests when they were first implemented without issues. SNS was an Anti-Gun myth, like "Assault Weapons" or "Military Style" firearms.

One of the purposes of the Handgun Roster law was to attempt to eliminate economically priced handguns from the firearms market, thereby depriving the lowest income Californians of access to self defense arms.
__________________
Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CA Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, Good Info CA Gun Law, New CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
California Rifle and Pistol Association - http://crpa.org/membership/
Sacramento County Sheriff Concealed Carry Info - https://www.sacsheriff.com/Pages/Org.../SIIB/CCW.aspx
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #2330  
Old 03-13-2018, 2:23 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,756
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
One of the purposes of the Handgun Roster law was to attempt to eliminate economically priced handguns from the firearms market, thereby depriving the lowest income Californians of access to self defense arms.
Like poll taxes, the roster was designed to keep poor minorities from exercising a constitutional right.
Reply With Quote
  #2331  
Old 03-13-2018, 2:35 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 9,252
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The law as originally enacted was an effort to ban "Saturday Nite Specials," guns that did blow up, jam, and fire when dropped. There are guns to this day that have failed the drop test (Sig and one other). So I don't know what you mean when you ask how an officer can deal with a firearm that isn't drop safe. Officers are allowed to buy anything, even firearms that are not approved for duty use. You have to ask the Legislature why they exempted them, but as we have seen with other laws (e.g. CCW laws), it is usually political, i.e., to avoid opposition by departments and the police union(s), etc. so that the law will get passed. It doesn't have to make sense when we are talking politics.
As others have said, the guns this scheme intended to ban passed the tests. Please name some guns which blow up and fire when dropped.

Some might have failed due to a defect, but then it is fixed.

Look at what I was replying to, do you really think that it is a good idea for officers to have firearms which have not been tested by CA to be safe? That seems like a lawsuit, but then again it is hard to sue the state. The concept of the police being allowed to have unsafe firearms is absurd.

I know why they exempted them, it was to get the law passed, but it shows that it is not about safety.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #2332  
Old 03-13-2018, 4:25 PM
Andeh Andeh is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 18
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Like poll taxes, the roster was designed to keep poor minorities from exercising a constitutional right.
The roster is a POS, but I don't think that this is correct - anyone can purchase a Gen3 Glock for the same price as anywhere else in the USA. There isn't really a price component for anything that is CA-approved.

Unless you're eluding to something else?
Reply With Quote
  #2333  
Old 03-13-2018, 4:42 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,756
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andeh View Post
The roster is a POS, but I don't think that this is correct - anyone can purchase a Gen3 Glock for the same price as anywhere else in the USA. There isn't really a price component for anything that is CA-approved.

Unless you're eluding to something else?
Ya that's not really what I meant. The roster was designed to eliminate the sub-$150 "budget" pistols, like the Jennings .25's and such. But since they couldn't eliminate cheap (affordable, for poor minorities) pistols directly, they used the "safety" pretense to mask their intentions.

The gun grabbers don't like anyone having guns, but they ESPECIALLY don't like low income minorities having guns. Same reason they regularly hold gun buybacks in low income areas. They know damn well nobody with means are turning in any guns, they're only hoping low income people who need the cash will get rid of theirs.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 03-13-2018 at 4:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2334  
Old 03-13-2018, 4:45 PM
Andeh Andeh is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 18
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Ya that's not really what I meant. The roster was designed to eliminate the sub-$150 "budget" pistols, like the Jennings .25's and such. But since they couldn't eliminate cheap (affordable, for poor minorities) pistols directly, they used the "safety" pretense to mask their intentions.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Gotcha, that makes sense and I understand what you meant now. I'm fairly new to both gun ownership and the US, so thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #2335  
Old 03-13-2018, 5:05 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,538
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andeh View Post
The roster is a POS, but I don't think that this is correct - anyone can purchase a Gen3 Glock for the same price as anywhere else in the USA. There isn't really a price component for anything that is CA-approved.

Unless you're eluding to something else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Ya that's not really what I meant. The roster was designed to eliminate the sub-$150 "budget" pistols, like the Jennings .25's and such. But since they couldn't eliminate cheap (affordable, for poor minorities) pistols directly, they used the "safety" pretense to mask their intentions.

The gun grabbers don't like anyone having guns, but they ESPECIALLY don't like low income minorities having guns. Same reason they regularly hold gun buybacks in low income areas. They know damn well nobody with means are turning in any guns, they're only hoping low income people who need the cash will get rid of theirs.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andeh View Post
Gotcha, that makes sense and I understand what you meant now. I'm fairly new to both gun ownership and the US, so thanks!


I agree, the intent was to make it more difficult for low income citizens to defend themselves with firearms. I don't think the CA Legislature got the results they were hoping for when the Handgun Roster was new.

Now, with all of the additional requirements added to the Roster the available number of guns are dwindling away as older guns are no longer made or are made with trivial changes and newer guns are unable to meet the impossible "microstamping" requirement.

I would speculate that the average cost of a firearm in California has risen over the lifetime of the Roster making them less affordable to those on a tight budget.
__________________
Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CA Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, Good Info CA Gun Law, New CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
California Rifle and Pistol Association - http://crpa.org/membership/
Sacramento County Sheriff Concealed Carry Info - https://www.sacsheriff.com/Pages/Org.../SIIB/CCW.aspx
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #2336  
Old 03-13-2018, 5:22 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 284
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
I would speculate that the average cost of a firearm in California has risen over the lifetime of the Roster making them less affordable to those on a tight budget.
I am sure that the average cost has risen, but there are still guns around $200, and some very good guns that have significantly dropped in price. It is not that hard to find guns made by major companies for $300 +/- (on sale) like the Shield, some models of Kahr, Tauruses and the like.
Reply With Quote
  #2337  
Old 03-13-2018, 5:39 PM
kemasa's Avatar
kemasa kemasa is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ventura County, CA
Posts: 9,252
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I don't know that the cost of firearms has gone up (unless you attempt to purchase a firearm not on the roster), but the choices have been greatly reduced. As time goes on, the choices goes down.
__________________
Kemasa.
FFL Transfer/Special Order Dealer since 1993.
Net-FFL list maintainer.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig. - Robert A. Heinlein
Reply With Quote
  #2338  
Old 03-14-2018, 11:33 AM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"The plan is working..."
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #2339  
Old 03-14-2018, 1:15 PM
FlyingShooter FlyingShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 190
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kemasa View Post
As others have said, the guns this scheme intended to ban passed the tests. Please name some guns which blow up and fire when dropped.

Some might have failed due to a defect, but then it is fixed.

Look at what I was replying to, do you really think that it is a good idea for officers to have firearms which have not been tested by CA to be safe? That seems like a lawsuit, but then again it is hard to sue the state. The concept of the police being allowed to have unsafe firearms is absurd.

I know why they exempted them, it was to get the law passed, but it shows that it is not about safety.
It also goes to show it’s not about safery when said officers can buy off-roster, and then turn around and ppt sell them to us regular citizens if they don’t like it or want to upgrade. For a real hefty profit too. The roster is a complete joke, and is nothing more than a ban for the regular folk.
Reply With Quote
  #2340  
Old 03-14-2018, 5:07 PM
JackRydden224's Avatar
JackRydden224 JackRydden224 is offline
Single stack pistol guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Irvine
Posts: 7,080
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

I think we can all agree that the roster and all other gun laws in CA are a complete joke and the it's really mean to ban firearms then it is for safety.

The way we see it even if we win at the 9th all DOJ needs to do is appeal it to SCOTUS and we'll lose by default because SCOTUS won't hear it. At this point I don't see a way for us to win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingShooter View Post
It also goes to show it’s not about safery when said officers can buy off-roster, and then turn around and ppt sell them to us regular citizens if they don’t like it or want to upgrade. For a real hefty profit too. The roster is a complete joke, and is nothing more than a ban for the regular folk.
Reply With Quote
  #2341  
Old 03-14-2018, 9:44 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Peña v. Cid (Handgun Roster) **Appealed to 9th 2/26/15** Oral args 3/16/17

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackRydden224 View Post

The way we see it even if we win at the 9th all DOJ needs to do is appeal it to SCOTUS and we'll lose by default because SCOTUS won't hear it. At this point I don't see a way for us to win.

No, if we win in the 9th then the 9th will reverse through en banc proceedings, and THEN SCOTUS will decline to hear. If we win in the 9th for real then SCOTUS might actually hear the case. Tough to say.

The end result is the same, except that the decision will only directly affect the states within the 9th Circuit.
__________________
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
  #2342  
Old 03-15-2018, 3:24 PM
JackRydden224's Avatar
JackRydden224 JackRydden224 is offline
Single stack pistol guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Irvine
Posts: 7,080
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

Thanks for clarifying the procedures.

You are right the results will be the same, we are not getting rid of the roster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No, if we win in the 9th then the 9th will reverse through en banc proceedings, and THEN SCOTUS will decline to hear. If we win in the 9th for real then SCOTUS might actually hear the case. Tough to say.

The end result is the same, except that the decision will only directly affect the states within the 9th Circuit.
Reply With Quote
  #2343  
Old 03-16-2018, 3:52 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,825
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Like poll taxes, the roster was designed to keep the poor and/or minorities from exercising a constitutional right.
Fixed it for ya.

Residence requirement for registering guns means the homeless are SOL....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Reply With Quote
  #2344  
Old 03-16-2018, 3:54 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,825
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No, if we win in the 9th then the 9th will reverse through en banc proceedings, and THEN SCOTUS will decline to hear. If we win in the 9th for real then SCOTUS might actually hear the case. Tough to say.

The end result is the same, except that the decision will only directly affect the states within the 9th Circuit.
True, unless and until Trump/Pence can replace Kennedy (and ideally 1 or more of the hardcore antis) with another Scalia clone.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Reply With Quote
  #2345  
Old 03-16-2018, 7:05 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,735
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

I saw 3/16 and thought something was happening today. Happy 1 year anniversary. Only 2 more weeks to go
Reply With Quote
  #2346  
Old 03-16-2018, 7:08 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,542
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
True, unless and until Trump/Pence can replace Kennedy (and ideally 1 or more of the hardcore antis) with another Scalia clone.

Right. A real composition change is a necessity if we are to see SCOTUS stand behind the right. As it is, it has abandoned the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
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
  #2347  
Old 03-16-2018, 8:55 AM
FilmGuy's Avatar
FilmGuy FilmGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 165
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorium View Post
Oral arguments happening today
Looks like the oral argument video is up
This video is from 2017
Reply With Quote
  #2348  
Old 03-19-2018, 4:50 AM
thorium thorium is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: OC
Posts: 795
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmGuy View Post
This video is from 2017
Deleted. I’m clearly an idiot living one year in the past.

So one year since oral argument and waiting for our decision.
__________________
-------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #2349  
Old 03-19-2018, 7:57 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,603
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lawj11 View Post
What is encouraging to me is that the "commonly use" test, which came about from the Heller vs DC case, applies here. The rest of the US permits new firearms WITHOUT microstamping. Such guns are "commonly used", so how can they be banned? (or was it the Miller case, can't keep em straight anymore.)
The common use test is heavily flawed. Machine guns are not common because they are banned. If there was no ban on machine guns, would every AR15 owner have an M16 instead? Just because a law has been around for a long time, doesn’t make that law Constitutional. Slavery has been around for centuries. Does that make owning another person ok?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2350  
Old 03-19-2018, 11:18 PM
GunsInMyEyes GunsInMyEyes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 160
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #2351  
Old 03-20-2018, 7:45 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 660
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
The common use test is heavily flawed. Machine guns are not common because they are banned. If there was no ban on machine guns, would every AR15 owner have an M16 instead? Just because a law has been around for a long time, doesn’t make that law Constitutional. Slavery has been around for centuries. Does that make owning another person ok?
The common use test would be fine if judges at lower levels weren't tripping over themselves to curb gun rights by assuming the inverse of every SCOTUS statement used to support the second amendment was necessarily true (a logical fallacy.) "Common use" is supposed to be sufficient to overturn a ban, not necessary.

The "longstanding test", which was spun out of the language of Heller, is what is heavily flawed. To treat longevity of a law as either necessary or sufficient to either overturn or uphold a prohibition is absurd. This isn't a driveway that clips the corner of your neighbor's property, these are rights.
Reply With Quote
  #2352  
Old 03-20-2018, 1:28 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
The common use test would be fine if judges at lower levels weren't tripping over themselves to curb gun rights by assuming the inverse of every SCOTUS statement used to support the second amendment was necessarily true (a logical fallacy.) "Common use" is supposed to be sufficient to overturn a ban, not necessary.

The "longstanding test", which was spun out of the language of Heller, is what is heavily flawed. To treat longevity of a law as either necessary or sufficient to either overturn or uphold a prohibition is absurd. This isn't a driveway that clips the corner of your neighbor's property, these are rights.
Scotus is fond of these common use, prior example tests. Really they are an avoidance of creating a real test. The common use with guns is one. So what about new guns that might be safer, for owners or even possible victims of violence? We can't know because a new gun won't be in common use. Similar to their qualified immunity for police officers. You can hold a police officer responsible only if their is an perfect example of a prior case, so no new cases, to accountability.

It is the ultimate dodge to keep the status quo. While I prefer legislatures to do their job and write good laws that don't require these judicial tests. I would prefer an objective tests. If scotus can't find a good test then make them extremely lacking forcing the legislatures hand. Can't decide what should be legal? Make it all legal and force them to try again.
Reply With Quote
  #2353  
Old 03-25-2018, 8:58 PM
Purple K's Avatar
Purple K Purple K is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN ContributorCGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Solano County
Posts: 3,119
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Justice delayed is justice denied.
__________________

"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
Reply With Quote
  #2354  
Old 03-27-2018, 3:43 PM
Joejitsu Joejitsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 365
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Are we still waiting on the 9th? When are they going to give a decision?
Reply With Quote
  #2355  
Old 03-27-2018, 3:54 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,756
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joejitsu View Post
When are they going to give a decision?
Two weeks.
Reply With Quote
  #2356  
Old 04-27-2018, 6:04 AM
BBot12 BBot12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: 90242
Posts: 138
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Any update on the 9th circuit court?
Reply With Quote
  #2357  
Old 04-27-2018, 11:54 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 581
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBot12 View Post
Any update on the 9th circuit court?
See post #2355 above.
Reply With Quote
  #2358  
Old 04-27-2018, 3:06 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,574
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BBot12 View Post
Any update on the 9th circuit court?
Check back in a year, give or take six months.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
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 12:34 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.