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

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-16-2021, 7:09 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Question Heller said core of 2A is “self defense,” so why is ‘68 GCA “sporting use” still law?

What more (than the title) need be said? Heller was decided in 2008 and yet the federal GCA “sporting use” requirement is still law some 13 years later. Why?
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 09-16-2021 at 7:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-16-2021, 8:17 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 3,996
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Heller never said such a thing.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-16-2021, 9:57 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Heller never said such a thing.
Quote:
This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
(Heller p.58)
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 09-16-2021 at 10:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-16-2021, 10:14 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The obvious answer is probably because it has never been legally challenged on those grounds, but that just begs the question: why not? I assume there are plenty of gun importers who would like to import guns the GCA bans (like Walther PPK and TPH). Sure suits cost money and take years but it’s already been 13 years and firearms are a big, booming business, especially over few years. (pun intended) Or it could be done by the NSSF on behalf of its members.
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-17-2021, 7:44 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
The obvious answer is probably because it has never been legally challenged on those grounds, but that just begs the question: why not? I assume there are plenty of gun importers who would like to import guns the GCA bans (like Walther PPK and TPH). Sure suits cost money and take years but it’s already been 13 years and firearms are a big, booming business, especially over few years. (pun intended) Or it could be done by the NSSF on behalf of its members.
The obvious answer is that the NRA is responsible for the GCA of 1968 and like with the Mulford Act of 1967 and the GCA of 1934 will NOT go against or attempt to overturn its own successes.

And of course, the NRA loves the terms "sporting use", "the right people" and "concealed carry".

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-17-2021, 11:28 AM
MrTokarev's Avatar
MrTokarev MrTokarev is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: SD County
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The obvious answer is that the NRA is responsible for the GCA of 1968 and like with the Mulford Act of 1967 and the GCA of 1934 will NOT go against or attempt to overturn its own successes.

And of course, the NRA loves the terms "sporting use", "the right people" and "concealed carry".

=8-|
So have GOA go after it, or whoever it is that you think is so much better than the NRA.

We get it, you hate the NRA. So what are you doing instead?
__________________
NRA-ILA Lawmaker Contact Tool

“When you want to kill a man, you must shoot for the heart and the Winchester is the best weapon."
-Ramon, A Fistful of Dollars

Quote:
Originally Posted by BKinzey
The chuckleheaded tinfoil-asshatter racist (yes! that's a couple of names and a label!)
What the CA legislature thinks about the constitution:
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-17-2021, 11:34 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,200
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Sporting use hasn’t been challenged and it wouldn’t be prudent to do so until there is more 2A precedent.

2nd, import rules have much more leeway as far as what’s constitutional or not. I do not think import rules would be held to any level of strict scrutiny unless it truly burdened the right, which they do not. But I do think the 68 GCA is the biggest piece of garbage gun legislation, with the Hughes amendment a close 2nd, and the NFA 3rd.

The NRA argument just doesn’t hold true in the modern 21st century version of the NRA. But that’s all I’ll say, because trying to talk to rabbit is a pointless exercise until his Dunning Krueger is made painfully aware to him.

The sad reality is that the US gun industry itself would be significantly burdened by cheap imports at a massive level, and even though they do agree philosophically it’s an infringement, the pressure to challenge sporting clause import rules just isn’t there.

Last edited by wireless; 09-17-2021 at 5:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-17-2021, 12:11 PM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,035
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

GCA 68 is still in force because it has not been challenged yet.

The reason it has not been challenged yet is that it is underpinning a lot of other existing law. Courts very much dislike pulling big laws out from under little laws. It creates havoc in the legal system. That may not mean much to an impatient (and justifiably chagrined) gun owner, but that's part of how the system works and why it's generally one of the best systems over all.

There are a lot of laws (mag cap, AW bans, etc) that are a lot easier to take down and cause a lot less churn if they are overturned, and overturning these will provide ammunition for going after the big laws like GCA 68 and NFA 34.

You are more likely to build solid case law by taking down the worst (and least applicable nationwide) laws first, and then using those decisions to provide justification for questioning the less-egregious, more broadly applied and more entrenched laws.

Might not be the answer you wanted but it's the way it is. You attack nationwide and firmly entrenched law like GCA 68 and LOSE - then you just set us back 20 years or more in the struggle for gun rights. Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. The slow route taking nibbles actually gets us there faster than trying to take too big a bite and choking on it.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-17-2021, 9:20 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTokarev View Post
So have GOA go after it, or whoever it is that you think is so much better than the NRA.

We get it, you hate the NRA. So what are you doing instead?
The NRA is a marksmanship organization and firearms industry lobbyist - not a pro-2A organization. That's how it was founded, that's what it has always been, and still is today. They're also the most successful gun control organization in the US.

Facts are Facts.

Not Hate.

If you are going to resort to strawmen and ad hominem, at least try to be entertaining.

__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-17-2021, 9:34 PM
JWil JWil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 304
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The original gun control act, the NFA, should also be taken down. It is also unconstitutional, self contradictory, and used and created with the intention to prosecute people who "probably make crime happen".
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-17-2021, 10:10 PM
MrTokarev's Avatar
MrTokarev MrTokarev is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: SD County
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The NRA is a marksmanship organization and firearms industry lobbyist - not a pro-2A organization. That's how it was founded, that's what it has always been, and still is today. They're also the most successful gun control organization in the US.

Facts are Facts.

Not Hate.

If you are going to resort to strawmen and ad hominem, at least try to be entertaining.

I don’t give a **** if you’re entertained.

You brought up the NRA in a thread that nothing to do with them and while tearing them down you have again neglected to mention where our support should go instead.

So I ask again, if the NRA is so bad wtf are you doing that’s better? My guess is nothing besides ****posting on the internet.
__________________
NRA-ILA Lawmaker Contact Tool

“When you want to kill a man, you must shoot for the heart and the Winchester is the best weapon."
-Ramon, A Fistful of Dollars

Quote:
Originally Posted by BKinzey
The chuckleheaded tinfoil-asshatter racist (yes! that's a couple of names and a label!)
What the CA legislature thinks about the constitution:
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-18-2021, 7:26 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTokarev View Post
I don’t give a **** if you’re entertained.

You brought up the NRA in a thread that nothing to do with them and while tearing them down you have again neglected to mention where our support should go instead.

So I ask again, if the NRA is so bad wtf are you doing that’s better? My guess is nothing besides ****posting on the internet.
Saying the NRA has nothing to do with the GCA of 1968 . . .

. . . is like saying . . .

. . . the Supreme Court of the United States has nothing to do with Rhode v. Wade.

Also, . . .

. . . I didn't bring the NRA into this, the poster who brought up the GCA of 1968 did.

__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-18-2021, 11:51 AM
MrTokarev's Avatar
MrTokarev MrTokarev is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: SD County
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Saying the NRA has nothing to do with the GCA of 1968 . . .

. . . is like saying . . .

. . . the Supreme Court of the United States has nothing to do with Rhode v. Wade.

Also, . . .

. . . I didn't bring the NRA into this, the poster who brought up the GCA of 1968 did.

Horse****. The OP asked how it’s still law, not how it passed. The NRA was an irrelevant topic to bring up except for your unhinged obsession.

Bruss answered the question thoroughly and he didn’t see a need to take a pass at the NRA.

I don’t get it. Did you catch WLP banging your wife or something?
__________________
NRA-ILA Lawmaker Contact Tool

“When you want to kill a man, you must shoot for the heart and the Winchester is the best weapon."
-Ramon, A Fistful of Dollars

Quote:
Originally Posted by BKinzey
The chuckleheaded tinfoil-asshatter racist (yes! that's a couple of names and a label!)
What the CA legislature thinks about the constitution:

Last edited by MrTokarev; 09-18-2021 at 11:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-18-2021, 1:19 PM
BillSmith's Avatar
BillSmith BillSmith is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Dichotomy-State of Jefferson & SF Bay Area
Posts: 215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Roe v. Wade
__________________
Sometimes a gun is just a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-18-2021, 1:33 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,517
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
What more (than the title) need be said? Heller was decided in 2008 and yet the federal GCA “sporting use” requirement is still law some 13 years later. Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith View Post
Roe v. Wade
Has NOTHING to do with ANY 2A, HELLER, or GCA-68 DISCUSSION.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-18-2021, 2:14 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Circle the Wagons boys...

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-19-2021, 6:11 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
What more (than the title) need be said? Heller was decided in 2008 and yet the federal GCA “sporting use” requirement is still law some 13 years later. Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith
Roe v. Wade
Has NOTHING to do with ANY 2A, HELLER, or GCA-68 DISCUSSION.
It does when it is a correction to a misstatement...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
Saying the NRA has nothing to do with the GCA of 1968 . . .

. . . is like saying . . .

. . . the Supreme Court of the United States has nothing to do with Rhode v. Wade.

Also, . . .

. . . I didn't bring the NRA into this, the poster who brought up the GCA of 1968 did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith View Post
Roe v. Wade
Just like...

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
The NRA is a marksmanship organization and firearms industry lobbyist - not a pro-2A organization. That's how it was founded, that's what it has always been, and still is today. They're also the most successful gun control organization in the US.

Facts are Facts.

Not Hate.

If you are going to resort to strawmen and ad hominem, at least try to be entertaining.

It's a discussion we've had before. You are correct insofar as how it was founded. But, you are almost 90 years out of date in terms of it being involved in 'civil rights' as an organization...

Quote:
...Through the association's magazine, The American Rifleman, members were kept abreast of new firearms bills, although the lag time in publishing often prevented the necessary information from going out quickly. In response to repeated attacks on the Second Amendment rights, NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division in 1934. While NRA did not lobby directly at this time, it did mail out legislative facts and analyses to members, whereby they could take action on their own. In 1975, recognizing the critical need for political defense of the Second Amendment, NRA formed the Institute for Legislative Action, or ILA...

While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly five million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs. As former Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos said, "Let me make one small vote for the NRA. They're good citizens. They call their congressmen. They write. They vote. They contribute. And they get what they want over time."
Facts are facts, whether they fit your preconceived notions or not.

Insofar as the 'wisdom' of the organization when it comes to the Mulford Act and GCA 1968... That's something which is still debated. Some cite context of the time. Others cite the 'long game.' Still others point to both as 'incremental steps' toward where we are now. The reality is that there is some 'truth' in all of that.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-19-2021, 6:21 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
What more (than the title) need be said? Heller was decided in 2008 and yet the federal GCA “sporting use” requirement is still law some 13 years later. Why?
In part, while self-defense is the 'core,' it is not exclusively the breadth/depth of the 2nd Amendment.

If it were, then 'sporting use' itself would be obviated or extremely mitigated as a 'protection.'

In other words, it would be an endeavor fraught with peril to 'remove' it and substitute... something else, at least in the short-term. Or, as others have noted...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Sporting use hasn’t been challenged and it wouldn’t be prudent to do so until there is more 2A precedent...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
...The reason it has not been challenged yet is that it is underpinning a lot of other existing law. Courts very much dislike pulling big laws out from under little laws. It creates havoc in the legal system. That may not mean much to an impatient (and justifiably chagrined) gun owner, but that's part of how the system works and why it's generally one of the best systems over all... Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. The slow route taking nibbles actually gets us there faster than trying to take too big a bite and choking on it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-19-2021, 7:52 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
In part, while self-defense is the 'core,' it is not exclusively the breadth/depth of the 2nd Amendment.

If it were, then 'sporting use' itself would be obviated or extremely mitigated as a 'protection.'

In other words, it would be an endeavor fraught with peril to 'remove' it and substitute... something else, at least in the short-term. Or, as others have noted...
If a gun is suitable for self defense it is protected by the 2A. The Walther PPK and TPH both are suitable for self defense and are banned from importation to this day.

Whether guns only/primarily suitable for “sporting purposes” are also protected by the 2A and, if so, to what extent is a different question.

The “sporting purposes” requirement of the ‘68 GCA is in direct opposition to Heller and must fall! (I take no position on the rest of the GCA.)
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 09-19-2021 at 7:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-19-2021, 8:40 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,199
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
If a gun is suitable for self defense it is protected by the 2A. The Walther PPK and TPH both are suitable for self defense and are banned from importation to this day.

Whether guns only/primarily suitable for “sporting purposes” are also protected by the 2A and, if so, to what extent is a different question.

The “sporting purposes” requirement of the ‘68 GCA is in direct opposition to Heller and must fall! (I take no position on the rest of the GCA.)
You are reacting based on the 'limitations' imparted by "sporting purposes." Yet, you then deign to impart other limitations by removing the protections afforded by "sporting purposes." In essence and effect, that's what will happen if "sporting purposes" must fall.

Instead, you need to think in terms of expanding the protections. Think in terms of "sporting purposes" remaining a protection, but adding "self-defense" protections. I think you'll discover a more "harmonious outcome" in terms of not only what you desire, but vis a vis gun owners as well. Not to mention that even the dissent in Heller recognized that the Heller majority did not see "sporting purposes" as being in direct opposition to their decision. As the dissent notes...

Quote:
...Respondent and his amici, as well as the majority, suggest that those interests include: (1) the preservation of a “well regulated Militia”; (2) safeguarding the use of firearms for sporting purposes, e.g., hunting and marksmanship; and (3) assuring the use of firearms for self-defense...
In a very real sense, what the dissent was arguing was that the majority was directly expanding what was protected, just as I suggest you need to view it. In a phrase, that expansion is denoted in the very first line of what was "Held" in Heller (note what I placed in bold/italics)...

Quote:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home...
It is that phrase... lawful purposes... which you see in subsequent decisions/dissents. In a real sense, it is the phrase SCOTUS used to 'go beyond' the limitations of "sporting purposes" as not the core and not the entirety of the 2nd Amendment while simultaneously not eliminating it as a protection. Such was not 'activism' so much as putting the Legislature on notice that "sporting purposes" unconstitutionally narrowed what was protected by the right.

The fact that it took 40 years for SCOTUS to do it should serve as an hint to what I said in relation to referencing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Sporting use hasn’t been challenged and it wouldn’t be prudent to do so until there is more 2A precedent...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
...The reason it has not been challenged yet is that it is underpinning a lot of other existing law. Courts very much dislike pulling big laws out from under little laws. It creates havoc in the legal system. That may not mean much to an impatient (and justifiably chagrined) gun owner, but that's part of how the system works and why it's generally one of the best systems over all... Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. The slow route taking nibbles actually gets us there faster than trying to take too big a bite and choking on it.
Scalia planned for Heller to be the first, necessary step in a much broader reaching plan. His death slowed his anticipated process and progress was further slowed by not having the 'necessary balance' on the Court; something evident and openly pronounced in dissents by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. We'll have to see if that balance has now been achieved.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-23-2021, 12:28 PM
BillSmith's Avatar
BillSmith BillSmith is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Dichotomy-State of Jefferson & SF Bay Area
Posts: 215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

TrappedinCalif,

Thank you. Didn't think I needed to elaborate, gracious for your delineating my intent.

It wasn't a colossus mistake, but thought I'd fire off a Señor Spellcheck post for the young'ns in the crowd.

(And I will rhode anyone out of town that mistakenly corrects my pun above.)
__________________
Sometimes a gun is just a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-23-2021, 1:41 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 11,417
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
What more (than the title) need be said? Heller was decided in 2008 and yet the federal GCA “sporting use” requirement is still law some 13 years later. Why?
Because a nut job shot a bunch of people in Las Vegas causing the NRA-backed SHARE act to be temporarily shelved, and then the House was lost in 2018…

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...n-of-share-act



Different versions of the SHARE Act have been pending for a number of years, and the legislation has passed the U.S. House of Representatives during each of the last three sessions of Congress, most recently in February 2016. Few, however, expected that then-President Obama would have signed the bill into law.

(Snip)

The bill also contains the Lawful Purpose and Self-defense Act, aimed at ensuring the Second Amendment’s core purpose of self-defense is adequately considered in the administration of federal firearms law. Currently, a number of federal laws that regulate the importation, possession and transfer of firearms and ammunition measure their lawful utility based on their usefulness for so-called “sporting purposes.” Anti-gun administrations have exploited the lack of a clear definition of “sporting purposes” to bypass Congress and impose gun control through executive fiat. The most recent (and perhaps most infamous) example of this was the Obama administration’s attempt to ban as “non-sporting” a highly popular form of ammunition for the AR-15. This legislation would ensure that all lawful purposes of firearms and ammunition would be given due consideration in construing federal firearm laws.





— Michael
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-23-2021, 4:34 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 19,713
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

maybe the constitution does not extend beyond our borders heck they don't even cover within 50 miles of a border so there is that to customs works in a little inch past our borders and they have to obey directives from their bosses

although i do think 922r goes too far in telling us what we can and can't assemble with imported parts inside the USA

but the odd thing is that the assembled firearm does not become contraband its only the act of assembly that was the crime

Last edited by bohoki; 09-23-2021 at 4:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-24-2021, 9:39 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,096
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
That may not mean much to an impatient (and justifiably chagrined) gun owner, but that's part of how the system works and why it's generally one of the best systems over all.
...
You are more likely to build solid case law by taking down the worst (and least applicable nationwide) laws first, and then using those decisions to provide justification for questioning the less-egregious, more broadly applied and more entrenched laws.

Might not be the answer you wanted but it's the way it is.
It's not the answer I want to hear, but I like the way you explained it and it makes perfect sense. The good news is that many of these "small" steps are already very well under way, in particular the NY CCW challenge within orals in 6 weeks. Plus plenty of challenges to mag bans, rosters, and so on at the top appellate levels right now. And for most of us, getting rid of mag bans, rosters, and may-issue will solve most practical problems, and those could all be done within the next couple of years.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-25-2021, 10:03 AM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,983
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"strategery"
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-29-2021, 2:57 PM
MajorSideburns's Avatar
MajorSideburns MajorSideburns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 920
iTrader: 55 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
GCA 68 is still in force because it has not been challenged yet.

The reason it has not been challenged yet is that it is underpinning a lot of other existing law. Courts very much dislike pulling big laws out from under little laws. It creates havoc in the legal system. That may not mean much to an impatient (and justifiably chagrined) gun owner, but that's part of how the system works and why it's generally one of the best systems over all.

There are a lot of laws (mag cap, AW bans, etc) that are a lot easier to take down and cause a lot less churn if they are overturned, and overturning these will provide ammunition for going after the big laws like GCA 68 and NFA 34.

You are more likely to build solid case law by taking down the worst (and least applicable nationwide) laws first, and then using those decisions to provide justification for questioning the less-egregious, more broadly applied and more entrenched laws.

Might not be the answer you wanted but it's the way it is. You attack nationwide and firmly entrenched law like GCA 68 and LOSE - then you just set us back 20 years or more in the struggle for gun rights. Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. The slow route taking nibbles actually gets us there faster than trying to take too big a bite and choking on it.
Except you can't take them down faster than the left puts them up, which has been part of the gun grabbing strategy for decades now
__________________
If you are not familiar with the below sites, I encourage you to check them out and use them for cash back and great deals on ammo from Cabela's and such. Check the deals forum here on calguns and you will see a lot of us using these now. If you are kind enough to sign up through my below referral links, we both get instant bonus rewards. Thanks!

http://activejunky.com/invite/186564
http://www.swagbucks.com/p/register?rb=32948177
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-30-2021, 3:07 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 8,517
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorSideburns View Post
Except you can't take them down faster than the left puts them up, which has been part of the gun grabbing strategy for decades now

^^^AMEN DAT!^^^

Leftists like this bunghole can pass Anti2A legislation and have it signed into law in a matter of weeks. https://youtu.be/rG5xWcV412E

Then it takes Freedom Loving Americans often decades to navigate the onerous court system to correct the legislature's intentional malfeasance.

Exacerbated by a total lack of accountability due to "Legislative Immunity".
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-30-2021, 4:46 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,767
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorSideburns View Post
Except you can't take them down faster than the left puts them up, which has been part of the gun grabbing strategy for decades now
So are you identifying the NRA as a leftist organization?

=8-)
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-01-2021, 4:45 AM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 27,064
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Heller said core of 2A is “self defense,” so why is ‘68 GCA “sporting use” still law?

What more (than the title) need be said? Heller was decided in 2008 and yet the federal GCA “sporting use” requirement is still law some 13 years later. Why?
In the SCOTUS Heller case, they also said that "reasonable restrictions" were allowed.

So, until the importation restrictions in the GCA are challenged, they are default considered "reasonable restrictions".
__________________
Certified Glock Armorer

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-03-2021, 5:42 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 11,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Heller never said such a thing.
From II, B (p. 6) of J. Thomas’ Peruta denial of cert dissent (emphasis in original):

Quote:
[T]he Second Amendment's core purpose further supports this conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry. The Court in Heller emphasized that "self-defense" is "the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-894_p86b.pdf
__________________
Re-elect Los Angeles County Sheriff Villanueva!

240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

Last edited by Paladin; 10-03-2021 at 5:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-03-2021, 8:03 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,549
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JWil View Post
The original gun control act, the NFA, should also be taken down. It is also unconstitutional, self contradictory, and used and created with the intention to prosecute people who "probably make crime happen".
Miller assumed that the right to keep and bear arms was related to the militia clause and not a personal right keep and bear arms for self defense. Heller, said no. So where is the case seeking to overturn Miller? More importantly, where is the case to declare the 1968 GCA unconstitutional.

Last edited by BAJ475; 10-03-2021 at 8:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-03-2021, 8:16 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 2,549
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTokarev View Post
Did you catch WLP banging your wife or something?
Makes one wonder.
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 8:05 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, 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.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical