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
  #281  
Old 04-04-2018, 9:59 AM
MASTERLAB's Avatar
MASTERLAB MASTERLAB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 849
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Did oral arguments end? I looked at the live stream but it seemed to be a different case
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 04-04-2018, 10:11 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,967
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This is the essence of Progressive/Leftist governance - the entire thing is an experiment whereby our betters (auto/technocrats) run our lives for us because we're too stupid to do so in an enlightened (meaning according to their dictates) way.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 04-04-2018, 10:25 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Can't find my CCW badge
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,296
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

The state also, unsurprisingly, reiterated their argument that "It's not infringing on anyone's rights, because there are still some handguns left on the roster".
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 04-04-2018, 10:32 AM
FlyingShooter FlyingShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 109
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Stick a fork in it, we’re done fellas They have had 5 years for their ‘little experiment’ and still no dual microstamped gun technology exists. That should have been enough time to experiment, yet they seem to want to continue it. The 2nd is dead here in this state...
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 04-04-2018, 11:35 AM
ojisan ojisan is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,400
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

Let's see how the judges rule before throwing in the towel.
Yes, I know the courts are against us but until we get the decision we won't know.

Experiments?
With rights?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:33 PM
FlyingShooter FlyingShooter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 109
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How long is the ruling expected to take?
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:37 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Can't find my CCW badge
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,296
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingShooter View Post
How long is the ruling expected to take?



There's no set timeframe that a ruling has to be issued in, but it typically seems to happen between 9-24 months with 2a-related matters.

Last edited by cockedandglocked; 04-04-2018 at 12:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:40 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Can't find my CCW badge
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,296
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

For reference - Pena Vs Cid, the other roster case, was argued 13 months ago, and we still haven't heard anything.

So don't start holding your breath just yet.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:43 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,675
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
For reference - Pena Vs Cid, the other roster case, was argued 13 months ago, and we still haven't heard anything.

So don't start holding your breath just yet.
CA courts are much quicker than federal courts from what I've read.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:52 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Can't find my CCW badge
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,296
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
CA courts are much quicker than federal courts from what I've read.
I keep forgetting this one is in a different court system, I think you're correct
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 04-04-2018, 1:15 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingShooter View Post
How long is the ruling expected to take?
No more than three months.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 04-04-2018, 1:26 PM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 900
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
No more than three months.
If that a rule? No more than 3 months?
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 04-04-2018, 1:27 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyAdeline View Post
Judges seemed to understand the point that microstamping isnít possible.

CA advocated that it doesnít matter and the de facto ban the impossible requirement creates is a grand experiment.
If this grand experiment" is the argument presented (I didn't listen in), then it would be predicated on an admission that the existing tech does not comply with the statutory requirements, and that the AG's certification was in fact fraudulent because the technology does not actually exist.

The argument that the statute is a "technology forcing statute" (as presented by the Law School Amici brief) is outside the parameters of the issues to be decided as framed by the court. To refresh, the issues the Court agreed to review were 1) whether the AG's certification was subject to judicial review [the DOJ arguing from the trial court on that it was not], and if it is subject to review 2) what is the standard of review in the trial court? Therefore, the Court could quite properly decline to address this issue at all. On the other hand, this is a question of law to be decided by a court, and is reviewable on appeal "de novo" (literally "of new" or more colloquially, from scratch). Personally, I do not think it is a winner. First, it is a "Hail Mary", and obviously so, and second, the statute is not framed as a technology forcing issue. IT did not simply impose the requirement and then leave it to the manufacturers to comply, it instead does not impose the requirement UNTIL the AG certifies that the technology exists that will stamp a casing with a unique identifier in two locations. Since the technology--apparently admittedly--does not exist, the prerequisites of the statute have not been met.

Last but not least, the argument that the requirement being omposed now does not violate the Constitutional rights because guns still exist on the Roster is irrelevant and not likely to be reached. Courts will, as a matter of policy, not reach constitutional issues if the case can be resolved without reference to such issues.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 04-04-2018, 1:33 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 268
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfwood View Post
If that a rule? No more than 3 months?
I'd actually have to look it up to see if it applies to the Supreme Court. It most certainly applies to all trial courts and the courts of appeal. The law specifies that each judge must certify under oath each month that he/she/they have no matters pending that were submitted for decision more than 90 days ago in order to receive his or her pay check. Technically, a case is not "submitted" in the courts of appeal until the court says it is, or upon the completion of oral argument. Most cases in the courts of appeal are submitted on the briefs; all cases in the Supreme Court are argued. In my experience in the Court of Appeal, cases are usually decided before oral argument, and I suspect the same is true for the Supreme Court. The odds of changing their minds is quite low absent a spectacular policy argument.
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 04-04-2018, 3:20 PM
redline redline is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 248
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Found this little nugget in that online rag, sfgate:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...a-12806379.php
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 04-04-2018, 3:40 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Can't find my CCW badge
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,296
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redline View Post
Found this little nugget in that online rag, sfgate:

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...a-12806379.php
This is cringe-worthy:

Quote:
Firearms manufacturers say microstamping is still beyond the range of modern technology. They’ve refused to sell new models of the handguns in the state since the law took effect
They misspelled "They're prohibited from"
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 04-04-2018, 3:43 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Can't find my CCW badge
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,296
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Not that facts are SFgate's strong suit... but the article does say "The court will rule on the case within 90 days," for what that's worth.
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 04-04-2018, 7:28 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 30,081
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
Let's see how the judges rule before throwing in the towel.
Yes, I know the courts are against us but until we get the decision we won't know.
The Pasadena/LA court is not as bad as many others.
The current makeup is 5-5... 5 from Bush, 1 from Clinton, and 4 from Obama, with 3 vacancies.

The thought of Trump flipping the Southern District court to 8-5 makes me smile.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 04-04-2018, 8:11 PM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 646
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
This is cringe-worthy:

They misspelled "They're prohibited from"
Thatís likely a coordinated talking point as the same language appears on the smartgunlaws (now Giffords center) website.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 04-05-2018, 7:45 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Can't find my CCW badge
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 13,296
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by champu View Post
Thatís likely a coordinated talking point as the same language appears on the smartgunlaws (now Giffords center) website.
Probably the only "resource" the editor read to research their article.
Reply With Quote
  #301  
Old 04-06-2018, 8:49 AM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 17
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Was the court video of the oral arguments posted anywhere? I looked on the court website but all I found was up to March.
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 04-06-2018, 10:44 PM
Deschoots's Avatar
Deschoots Deschoots is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 8
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
Was the court video of the oral arguments posted anywhere? I looked on the court website but all I found was up to March.
Same here. I bet it takes them a few days or so to post the recordings...
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 04-12-2018, 5:17 PM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 465
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Anyone found the video or audio?
__________________
www.jeffersonstatelaser.com
Make it personal.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 04-16-2018, 8:33 AM
stlegion4 stlegion4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 9
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Still no video to the website even after maintenance. I don't know if they're even going to update.
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 04-18-2018, 7:10 PM
Deschoots's Avatar
Deschoots Deschoots is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 8
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlegion4 View Post
Still no video to the website even after maintenance. I don't know if they're even going to update.
Wonder if we can contact them and as for a link to the recording? I may try when I get a chance.
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 8:26 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.