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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-27-2020, 6:23 PM
dyshie dyshie is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Can California Now Ban Handguns?

This isn’t a troll post... I’ve saved for 10 years for a whole list of Off-Rosters hoping Pena would have won. IANAL and need some advice on what to do. Also, I am careering with one of our local utilities so moving’s not an option.

I searched the forum and saw the old Pena v Horan thread locked. The other thread is rapidly descending into a straight Red v Blue discourse.

Now that SCOTUS has denied cert, CA could very well be emboldened to proceed with control. Another thread showed an article from LATimes with pro GC legislation in the works. As SCOTUS has shown it’s lack of desire to hear further 2A cases from sunny Cali, I pose the question, what is to stop California from now tightening the Roster? As long as they offer two handguns, a derringer and a Revolver we cant argue lack of choice/shrinking numbers as a valid argument (one of the amici’s briefs pursued that as a strategy already and the denial of feet covers that right?). It might be a defeatist attitude but it feels like even if California adds ANOTHER unreasonable requirement to the roster, extreme example say “all Guns on Roster must have serial number stamped on the bullet jacket and legible after discharge” or something ridiculous else equally ridiculous, SCOTUS wouldn’t hear it...

Has California won? Could that be their end game strategy?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-27-2020, 6:31 PM
HibikiR HibikiR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 1,682
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

I think in a previous roster case, the judge that ruled against us said something about Californians still having enough options as to not be a burden (which is total Liberal BS). Going off of that ruling, where options is linked to burden, then having no options for handguns should absolutely constitute a burden to our rights.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-27-2020, 6:55 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,801
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

SCOTUS just handed them all the license they needed to go hog wild. Just wait. I predict a ban on all semi auto rifles with detachable magazines, soon.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-27-2020, 7:09 PM
dreyna14's Avatar
dreyna14 dreyna14 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Oxnard, CA
Posts: 1,490
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

One thing to remember about a SCOTUS denial. Just because they shot it down doesn’t mean that they agree with the lower court’s decision. There may also be a belief amongst the individuals that a granting of cert would produce a result that is worse than the current status quo.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-27-2020, 10:12 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,625
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

At this point in time there is nothing to stop CA from doing anything they want so in the next 5 to 10 years legal carrying of handguns will be a thing of the past and ownership could be gone too.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-28-2020, 9:18 AM
ojisan ojisan is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 11,022
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

The Heller case confirmed that a handgun in the home is protected under the 2A.
That's why the focus is on banning EBRs since hand guns are specifically protected.

Even a hostile Supreme Court will have to support the Heller decision.
As big a decision as Heller is, to overturn it and support a handgun ban / confiscation carries great risks nationally.

CA can continue to add restrictions to what handguns can be purchased but they can't stop sales completely or ban possession in the home.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-28-2020, 9:27 AM
LBDamned's Avatar
LBDamned LBDamned is offline
Made in the USA
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free in AZ!!! yes, it's worth the Pain to make it happen!
Posts: 12,040
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Its California - count nothing out.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MachineGuntongue View Post
Music is magic - Wisdom is golden - Learning to navigate life better as we age is amazing and a choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
It only has as much power as you give it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBDamned
I know some things about a lot of things - and a lot of things about some things - but I don't know everything about anything
Quote:
Originally Posted by WartHog View Post
GET OFF MY CACTUS!
-----------------------------
"RIGHT POWER!"
http://i1329.photobucket.com/albums/w558/LBDamneds/Misc/III_zpsofbisb36.jpg
-----------------------------
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-28-2020, 9:29 AM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Not in California
Posts: 2,078
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

^^^ It doesn’t matter why the US Supreme Court declined cert. The fact that they refuse to take up any of the decades of cases where the 2A was ignored at the appellate level means that anti-2A appellate judges know that they are effectively the highest court for 2A cases. They can continue to rubber stamp gun control laws without any meaningful review. Until the US Supreme Court breathes life into the 2A it will be ignored. California does not have a right to bear arms in the state constitution so that can’t be a basis for a parallel argument. Some states have an even more strongly worded state constitutional right to bear arms, so if those states’ supreme courts actually honor the state provision then the USSC’s absence won’t be as damning. In California what’s to stop the state from banning the possession of all but one handgun in each home? There are arguments against it, and hopefully the Ninth Circuit panel would have some Trump appointees on it to avoid a quick rubber stamp.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-28-2020, 9:30 AM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: heading for Nevada
Posts: 1,903
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Now we have a Newsom shelter in place for our handguns? Does your home sound more and more like a prison you are paying for if you are locked inside and our governor is growing madder and madder by the day because you won't shelter in place like good little slaves? the state government has already proven it will pass bad/illegal laws violating your rights to appease the liberals and they will fine you and jail you for violating those bad/illegal laws so why not just contradict Heller and defy you to appeal it? How long will that take (ten years maybe with liberal court delays) and by then your children and others will be indoctrinated to not argue with the government and they win anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-28-2020, 9:58 AM
cre8nhavoc cre8nhavoc is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 28
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Last time I read the Heller case ruling said that manufacturers will not and should not make a modification to firearms to meet a states need or requirement. I don't understand that if SCOTUS mentioned that how California can still get away with having the roster in 2020. Telling manufacturers they need to have certain things in a handgun in order to sell handguns in the state sounds a lot like making requirements to me. And that ruling was made 10 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-28-2020, 10:02 AM
faterikcartman's Avatar
faterikcartman faterikcartman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego area.
Posts: 1,355
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

The words written in the Constitution are all but meaningless. If you want to know what your rights are you'll have to ask a judge. And some are not inclined to respond.

Mark Steyn has long opined that politics is led by the culture. Not the other way round. And he believes establishment Republicans have had that backwards for years. Hence our experienced reality always trending towards the left. Regardless of the law.

Demographic change may signal our future. Where does Mexico and Mexicans stand on gun control? Gun control is strict. And has been for years. While gun crime and the homicide rate have been multiples of that here. Prepare yourself.

I've seen little to suggest the majority of Latin Americans magically vote differently once they are within our borders. I am not aware of any magic pixie dust in the soil here.

I'm confident the leaders of the Democrat Party are fully aware of this. Hence the open floodgates at the border for so many years. Chain migration. Etc.

As we have recently seen, legal solutions to protect gun rights are often fleeting, or altogether elusive.

Which is not to say I advocate giving up at tilting at windmills. But the writing is on the wall unless the culture changes. And the culture appears, at this time, to be driven by emotion, not facts.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not giving you or anyone else who reads my posts legal advice. I am making off-the-cuff comments that may or may not be accurate and are personal, not professional, opinion. If you think you need a lawyer please retain a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction. Your local bar association may be able to help if you need a referral.

Two Weeks!: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...p/t-59936.html
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-28-2020, 10:10 AM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: heading for Nevada
Posts: 1,903
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

the state could not tax without public approval so they called it licensing fees and when Newsom openly violated your rights to freely move about he called it a health issue that overrode all your rights so he could be a dictator. The same for avoiding Heller by saying the roster is a health mandated issue. the democratic word game to circumvent the laws.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-28-2020, 10:20 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,625
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cre8nhavoc View Post
Last time I read the Heller case ruling said that manufacturers will not and should not make a modification to firearms to meet a states need or requirement. I don't understand that if SCOTUS mentioned that how California can still get away with having the roster in 2020. Telling manufacturers they need to have certain things in a handgun in order to sell handguns in the state sounds a lot like making requirements to me. And that ruling was made 10 years ago.
CA fully understands that nothing will be done at the federal level to stop anything they choose to do to ban firearms and until that changes CA will continue as they please.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-28-2020, 11:06 AM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,117
iTrader: 87 / 100%
Default

We need one more REAL conservative judge on the supreme court in order to marginalize the political weather vane(Roberts).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-28-2020, 11:41 AM
keepitlow's Avatar
keepitlow keepitlow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Born in L.A.-NYC is 2nd home-Rustbelt is home base
Posts: 126
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
The Heller case confirmed that a handgun in the home is protected under the 2A.
That's why the focus is on banning EBRs since hand guns are specifically protected.

Even a hostile Supreme Court will have to support the Heller decision.
As big a decision as Heller is, to overturn it and support a handgun ban / confiscation carries great risks nationally.

CA can continue to add restrictions to what handguns can be purchased but they can't stop sales completely or ban possession in the home.
Heller was 5 to 4. Stroke of luck, nothing else. Cases are overturned left and right.

Biden gets in, his plan is to allow single shot only. You will have single shot pistols. CA will eventually be disarmed, that is the dem's plan for the entire country. So goes CA, so goes the country. Read National Rifleman June / July 2020.

...CA should know this only so well.

Last edited by keepitlow; 06-28-2020 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-28-2020, 12:29 PM
mikeyr's Avatar
mikeyr mikeyr is offline
Levers, the original AW
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: SB
Posts: 1,167
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

California knows they can do anything they want and even fully ban guns in the state. They know it will be fought in the courts and they might even lose, but that loss is decades away. That in my opinion is CA. game plan, makes laws and fight it in the courts for years or decades, in the meantime we have no guns.
__________________
CRPA MEMBER As First Lady, Hillary had one job to do, and one job to do only. And she outsourced it to Monica Lewinsky.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-28-2020, 1:19 PM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: heading for Nevada
Posts: 1,903
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

For those who objected to gun ownership as a form of family protection and independence I have no weapons to spare. For those pleading for help from the social enslavement they find themselves in I have no pity. For those who felt unknown liberals were a better protection for their family than themselves let them go begging to uncaring liberals. As for Hillary Clinton having one job to do that may be correct but she did not outsource because Hillary was beat out of the job by Monica. Monica may not have a lot to brag about but she was better than Hillary and that can't be denied.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-29-2020, 8:09 AM
varanidguy's Avatar
varanidguy varanidguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

California can do whatever it likes and don't count on SCOTUS to even throw us a bone. The only options are don't comply or leave the state.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-29-2020, 8:24 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 14,698
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Roberts has signaled California that they can do whatever they want, the SCOTUS will not interfere.

Thanks, Bush.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-29-2020, 9:47 AM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,117
iTrader: 87 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
Roberts has signaled California that they can do whatever they want, the SCOTUS will not interfere.

Thanks, Bush.
Got that right!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-29-2020, 12:48 PM
Wheellock's Avatar
Wheellock Wheellock is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Victorville area
Posts: 278
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by faterikcartman View Post
The words written in the Constitution are all but meaningless. If you want to know what your rights are you'll have to ask a judge. And some are not inclined to respond.

Mark Steyn has long opined that politics is led by the culture. Not the other way round. And he believes establishment Republicans have had that backwards for years. Hence our experienced reality always trending towards the left. Regardless of the law.

Demographic change may signal our future. Where does Mexico and Mexicans stand on gun control? Gun control is strict. And has been for years. While gun crime and the homicide rate have been multiples of that here. Prepare yourself.

I've seen little to suggest the majority of Latin Americans magically vote differently once they are within our borders. I am not aware of any magic pixie dust in the soil here.

I'm confident the leaders of the Democrat Party are fully aware of this. Hence the open floodgates at the border for so many years. Chain migration. Etc.

As we have recently seen, legal solutions to protect gun rights are often fleeting, or altogether elusive.

Which is not to say I advocate giving up at tilting at windmills. But the writing is on the wall unless the culture changes. And the culture appears, at this time, to be driven by emotion, not facts.
Demographics, absolutely, but immigrant attitudes toward gun control are a red herring. Our younger generations have gone to schools with active shooter drills. What is that teaching them and how much fear is it generating? Soon their votes will replace the boomers in a much more significant way then any amount of immigration from all other parts of the world. Capture the hearts of the youth is a cliche for a good reason.

I will also never give up, but we are all driven by emotion. If we recognise that, we can make better arguments.

Census breakdown for reference:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...e/US/PST045219
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-29-2020, 3:40 PM
HibikiR HibikiR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: LA County
Posts: 1,682
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
Roberts has signaled California that they can do whatever they want, the SCOTUS will not interfere.

Thanks, Bush.
To be fair, Judge Benitez of Freedom Week fame was nominated by Dubya.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-30-2020, 7:02 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 14,698
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HibikiR View Post
To be fair, Judge Benitez of Freedom Week fame was nominated by Dubya.
Further proof that a broken clock is still right twice a day.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-30-2020, 9:25 AM
ja308's Avatar
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,781
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by faterikcartman View Post
The words written in the Constitution are all but meaningless. If you want to know what your rights are you'll have to ask a judge. And some are not inclined to respond.

Mark Steyn has long opined that politics is led by the culture. Not the other way round. And he believes establishment Republicans have had that backwards for years. Hence our experienced reality always trending towards the left. Regardless of the law.

Demographic change may signal our future. Where does Mexico and Mexicans stand on gun control? Gun control is strict. And has been for years. While gun crime and the homicide rate have been multiples of that here. Prepare yourself.

I've seen little to suggest the majority of Latin Americans magically vote differently once they are within our borders. I am not aware of any magic pixie dust in the soil here.

I'm confident the leaders of the Democrat Party are fully aware of this. Hence the open floodgates at the border for so many years. Chain migration. Etc.

As we have recently seen, legal solutions to protect gun rights are often fleeting, or altogether elusive.

Which is not to say I advocate giving up at tilting at windmills. But the writing is on the wall unless the culture changes. And the culture appears, at this time, to be driven by emotion, not facts.
This is worth reading again as it is exactly correct !
Its time we work guns and gun rights into every conversation with friends and strangers. maybe that will change the culture as you outlined !

Roberts was good with Heller IIRC ?
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

"Liars Make The Best Promises " Pierce Brown.

Last edited by ja308; 06-30-2020 at 9:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-30-2020, 9:56 AM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: heading for Nevada
Posts: 1,903
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

We have allowed younger generations driven by emotions and immigrants bent on getting everything for free to destroy all the concepts this country was founded on and our soldiers died for. they can not ignore us if we refuse to surrender our guns, live by our standards, and vote in every election whether we win or not. a second civil war is coming courtesy of the democrats and i am betting the same liberal cowards who would give away our rights and freedoms will not fight when their lives are on the line. But we need to stay focused and keep the crackpots in line since they are not us.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-30-2020, 10:53 AM
faterikcartman's Avatar
faterikcartman faterikcartman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego area.
Posts: 1,355
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheellock View Post
Demographics, absolutely, but immigrant attitudes toward gun control are a red herring. Our younger generations have gone to schools with active shooter drills. What is that teaching them and how much fear is it generating? Soon their votes will replace the boomers in a much more significant way then any amount of immigration from all other parts of the world. Capture the hearts of the youth is a cliche for a good reason.

I will also never give up, but we are all driven by emotion. If we recognise that, we can make better arguments.

Census breakdown for reference:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...e/US/PST045219
If you're split down the middle and you import millions of people who vote 84% for one side are you being serious that you don't understand what effect that's going to have on things? Understanding how scales tip helps us make better arguments.
__________________
I am not your lawyer. I am not giving you or anyone else who reads my posts legal advice. I am making off-the-cuff comments that may or may not be accurate and are personal, not professional, opinion. If you think you need a lawyer please retain a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction. Your local bar association may be able to help if you need a referral.

Two Weeks!: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/a...p/t-59936.html
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-30-2020, 1:25 PM
robertfchew robertfchew is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 103
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HibikiR View Post
To be fair, Judge Benitez of Freedom Week fame was nominated by Dubya.


He is powerless. We can get a few days of our rights at a time and then they get an injunction and nothing happens for years.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-30-2020, 2:40 PM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,807
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ojisan View Post
The Heller case confirmed that a handgun in the home is protected under the 2A.
That's why the focus is on banning EBRs since hand guns are specifically protected.

Even a hostile Supreme Court will have to support the Heller decision.
As big a decision as Heller is, to overturn it and support a handgun ban / confiscation carries great risks nationally.

CA can continue to add restrictions to what handguns can be purchased but they can't stop sales completely or ban possession in the home.
I thought EBR stood for Enhanced Battle Rifle. An EBR is capable of fully automatic fire. If that definition is correct then they are already banned and I do not understand how the term applies in your answer. (not counting fully auto ownership tax stamps and the ATF procedures)
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-30-2020, 3:03 PM
Experimentalist's Avatar
Experimentalist Experimentalist is offline
Banned in Amsterdam
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,004
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul S View Post
I thought EBR stood for Enhanced Battle Rifle..
In this context EBR stands for Evil Black Rifle.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil. And evil is not overcome by fleeing from it" - Col. Jeff Cooper

"Shot placement trumps all."

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-30-2020, 3:12 PM
BajaJames83's Avatar
BajaJames83 BajaJames83 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North West SD county
Posts: 5,689
iTrader: 360 / 100%
Default

There is a good chance they could do it.
But IMHO the gun industry should stop paying the extortion fee and let their models fall off roaster which might actually speed up the legal process.
__________________
NRA Endowment Life Member
USMC 2001-2012

Never make yourself too available or useful...... Semper Fidelis

John Dickerson: What keeps you awake at night?
James Mattis: Nothing, I keep other people awake at night.

Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-30-2020, 9:22 PM
ja308's Avatar
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,781
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yes the california democrat majority that has adopted International law can certainly ban handguns for anyone but Law Enforcement.
The only negative repercussion could be affluent republicans leaving and having them replaced by lazy unemployable deadbeats that might cause further budget shortfalls.

In the event a court might rule the action unconstitutional, the democrat majority would just ignore the ruling like they have with immigration law and forced union dues.

The fact local cops might be defunded or even disbanded will be of no relief for the california republican who has a handgun, as the enforcement arm will be through DOJ.
DOJ will have the authority for asset consfication which will help them pay for enforcement forces.

Its possible that such a move to eliminate legal handguns from Californians might even get some democrats to change party registration. Of course this is all planned for with voter fraud, millions of ballots going out to everyone and counted by partisan democrats.

Our plan is to live in and vote republican, in a free republican state !
__________________
"Both socialism & communism require a commitment to the use of force. You cannot decide what to do with the other guy’s money unless you are committed to use force to take that money from him..."
Rick Kelo
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

"Liars Make The Best Promises " Pierce Brown.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-30-2020, 10:01 PM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,893
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
SCOTUS just handed them all the license they needed to go hog wild. Just wait. I predict a ban on all semi auto rifles with detachable magazines, soon.
They did that apart from rim fire with SB-374 in 2013

Governor Brown didn't sign because he was afraid SCOTUS would take out the rest of the assault weapon ban with it.

Governor Newsom's grand father committed suicide with a gun and threatened to kill his mother. He hates them, and won't show that reasoned restraint.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-30-2020, 10:52 PM
Nvberinger Nvberinger is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 272
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cre8nhavoc View Post
Last time I read the Heller case ruling said that manufacturers will not and should not make a modification to firearms to meet a states need or requirement. I don't understand that if SCOTUS mentioned that how California can still get away with having the roster in 2020. Telling manufacturers they need to have certain things in a handgun in order to sell handguns in the state sounds a lot like making requirements to me. And that ruling was made 10 years ago.
That would be creating a oligopoly,. Several barred manufactures would be able to sue since the rosters limits competition. Springfield, Sig, Kimber can sell 1911 without modifications, while Ruger, Colts, Walters, anyone else has to make modificatins creating a barrier to enter and compete in the 1911 market. The anti oligopoly angle might be worth a shot.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-01-2020, 9:45 AM
johncage johncage is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 23
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

there are tons of angles and options no doubt already considered and brought forth, but being that the courts are already ignoring the second amendment, there really is no reason for them to suddenly acknowledge all these others inconsistencies with their gun control laws. the california court system is breaking the law with the roster system. end of story.

you can keep making new cases, but 99% of them are time and money sinks because the judges have made up their minds well before the hearings even began

the other 1 percent is because of people like benitez inside the system itself who can affect real change. living in california means realistically any republican vote hardly counts(unless the opposition is just really bad),so we are at the mercy of the rest of the nation.

the more you realize how futile it is, the more you will understand why non compliance is probably going to become the only solution in the end.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-01-2020, 10:05 AM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: heading for Nevada
Posts: 1,903
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

I have to agree with johncage in that non-compliance will be the only option in the end. Keep yourself legal with federal requirements but ignore state laws if you feel your second amendment rights have been taken away. Keep your own transaction records for the feds and the courts to see. Are you risking a lot and the answer is yes but so did the men and women who founded this country. See how most of them ended up so you could have the rights you are squandering away today without one shot being fired in the cause of freedom. They have taken the second amendment away from Californians by word games (laws)but the result is the same because they are wiling to use force (police or national guard) to break the law of the land. Now they are coming down on first amendment rights and others will follow. By the time serious men and women decide non-compliance is the way to go there will be nothing left.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-01-2020, 12:01 PM
czakita's Avatar
czakita czakita is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 167
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Agreed with previous posts. CA courts are blatantly disregarding the Constitution and re-interpreting laws while politicians are creating policies as they deem fit. It may take awhile but if the political powers continue to shift, I can see the elimination of the handgun roster. Good luck to all and Godspeed.
__________________

Sign the RECALL NEWSOM petition. https://recallgavin2020.com/

WTB: CZ P-10S and CZ 75 Short Rail
PM. Thanks!
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 6:09 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical