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
  #2241  
Old 01-29-2018, 10:51 AM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,334
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
It's indeed a common propaganda technique, to subtly make those opposed to an idea sound evil and/or ignorant. ....
They know exactly what to say to get people riled up against what we believe in, and frankly they've been better at it than us for a long time, which is why we are where we are.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
This is absolutely true, however, when the right does it (eg. #ReleaseTheMemo) even the right itself says it hurts the cause to conflate the evidence or cherry pick statistics. Its a complete double standard when Feinstein says "people will die because of the shutdown" and Pelosi says the tax cuts will cause "armagedon" and yet the Republicans write a memo that "might" indicate that the DOJ went soft on Hillary and its "overstating the facts".
/rant
__________________
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
  #2242  
Old 01-29-2018, 11:01 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
<< It's a CCW icon
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,676
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
This is absolutely true, however, when the right does it (eg. #ReleaseTheMemo) even the right itself says it hurts the cause to conflate the evidence or cherry pick statistics. Its a complete double standard when Feinstein says "people will die because of the shutdown" and Pelosi says the tax cuts will cause "armagedon" and yet the Republicans write a memo that "might" indicate that the DOJ went soft on Hillary and its "overstating the facts".
/rant
Ya, I think that's largely due to the mainstream media liberal bias - unfortunately there's not much we can do about that, other than trying to discredit them, which fortunately has been one of Trump's top priorities since taking office. With any luck, hopefully he'll make a dent in it.
Reply With Quote
  #2243  
Old 01-29-2018, 9:43 PM
Ultralight's Avatar
Ultralight Ultralight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Los Angeles, Kalifornia
Posts: 64
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default Roster roll offs

Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?
__________________
“The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right.” – Justice Clarence Thomas
Reply With Quote
  #2244  
Old 01-29-2018, 9:50 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,673
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?
Sound observations.

Add to those the exemptions for law enforcement put the families of those officers who choose off-Roster handguns at risk, and of course should they carry them on duty, that puts the public at risk from these 'unsafe' guns.

That should lead you to conclude the Roster has nothing at all to do with safety.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice]

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #2245  
Old 01-29-2018, 10:25 PM
Ultralight's Avatar
Ultralight Ultralight is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Los Angeles, Kalifornia
Posts: 64
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I love cops. I know how hard their jobs can be (especially with those unsafe off roster handguns), and how at times they can be severely underappreciated. I have several friends who come from LEO families. I support LEOs all the way.
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.

Merriam Websters defines Equal Protection as:
"a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances"

All I know is I really dislike this roster BS.
__________________
“The Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right.” – Justice Clarence Thomas
Reply With Quote
  #2246  
Old 01-30-2018, 9:28 AM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,334
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
I love cops. I know how hard their jobs can be (especially with those unsafe off roster handguns), and how at times they can be severely underappreciated. I have several friends who come from LEO families. I support LEOs all the way.
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.

Merriam Websters defines Equal Protection as:
"a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances"

All I know is I really dislike this roster BS.
"classes in like circumstances" - that right there allows those in charge to define, and redefine, the term "like circumstances". To some it means we are all "alive and living in the state of California", to others it means a "level of (perceived) risk".
__________________
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
  #2247  
Old 01-30-2018, 12:31 PM
EM2's Avatar
EM2 EM2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Prather, CA
Posts: 2,045
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
I love cops. I know how hard their jobs can be (especially with those unsafe off roster handguns), and how at times they can be severely underappreciated. I have several friends who come from LEO families. I support LEOs all the way.
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.

Merriam Websters defines Equal Protection as:
"a guarantee under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that a state must treat an individual or class of individuals the same as it treats other individuals or classes in like circumstances"

All I know is I really dislike this roster BS.
Its easy to understand when you realize that we are living under Tyranny by Law under a bureaucratic state.
Typically Tyranny is recognized by violent acts to keep people in line.
However, since we are a "civilized" society of law abiding people they are able to practice Tyranny by Law without resorting to as much violence as would be needed otherwise.

You, and most of us here, discuss using sound logic and reason, but these are not relevant in this discussion because those in power are rationalizing to get the result they want.
People like us bang our heads in disbelief because we do not suffer from a mental disorder.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2248  
Old 01-30-2018, 12:42 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
"classes in like circumstances" - that right there allows those in charge to define, and redefine, the term "like circumstances". To some it means we are all "alive and living in the state of California", to others it means a "level of (perceived) risk".
^^^This. If you are a LEO, you get to buy off roster and high-cap mags. The rest of the un-washed masses have to make do with whatever the roster permits and absolutely not any high-cap mags.
Reply With Quote
  #2249  
Old 01-30-2018, 12:45 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
<< It's a CCW icon
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,676
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
But I've never understood how LEOs and their ability to buy off roster firearms and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds passes the Equal Protection test. Or at least my basic understanding of it.
All animals deserve equal protection. But some animals deserve more equal protection than others.
Reply With Quote
  #2250  
Old 01-30-2018, 1:40 PM
justwanaride's Avatar
justwanaride justwanaride is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 98
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Yet the day an officer retires they are no longer able to purchase either off roster handguns or standard capacity magazines. Nothing to do with safety just extortion and control.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
They don't care about Russia and Trump, they just want to scare you into believing there is something there so you join their side. They don't want Trump fixing anything they worked so hard to break.
Reply With Quote
  #2251  
Old 01-30-2018, 4:25 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 7,534
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Bybee was a GWB appointee, so that's one likely anti (McKeown) and one likely pro (Bybee), so I won't even guess if we'll win or not with Wallace.

ETA: Watched (rewatched?) the oral arguments. I am more optimistic. From 30:00 onward is the meat. Wallace cuts to the core re. microstamping not being a safety per se issue, but an aid to LE investigators. So I'm putting him on our side.

Depending upon how the court chooses to approach the case (42:25 and following), I could see microstamping shot down (not consumer safety of gun, but public safety of aiding LE), CLI upheld (via "evolving" standards of safety), but not sure which way they (the majority?) will go on MDM.
I have a question for anyone who's up-to-speed on our side's briefs.

I was thinking about how they'd rule on the MDM when I realized that if they uphold the CLI (which I think they will), that makes the need even less for the MDM, because anyone will be easily able to know if the chamber is loaded or not, whether the magazine is inserted or not. Not knowing/realizing that a semi's chamber is still loaded after the magazine is removed is the whole raison d'être of the MDM.

Does anyone know if Gura/others pointed that out in the briefing? I did not hear Gura point that out during oral arguments.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

225+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 01-31-2018 at 8:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2252  
Old 01-31-2018, 4:35 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight View Post
Forgive me for my lack of roster knowledge and my general naiveness, but my understanding is that firearms can "roll off" the roster, that they can expire and simply because the firearm manufacturer decides to no longer pay the state of California a fee to keep it on the roster.
Is that correct?
If so, that in itself should be enough to prove that the roster is total BS.

I just checked the roster for Glocks. Per the roster, the Glock G17 3rd gen is set to "roll off" on January 1, 2019 unless Glock pays them a fee to keep it on the list. How can a Glock G17 3rd gen pistol be safe on December 31, 2018 but potentially not safe the following day?
How can safety be dependent upon simply whether a gun maker pays a state a fee?
It is called grandfathering. Once on the roster, a gun stays on the roster as long as the manufacturer continues to pay the annual fee, and as long as there are no material changes to the firearm. My Kahr does not have an LCI, a manual safety or a magazine disconnect, but as long as Kahr continues to make the same model, it stays on the list because it was on the list before those requirements were imposed. Glock can sell Gen 3s for the same reason, but cannot sell Gen 4s (or later) because they do not comply with Roster requirements in existence at the time it was brought to market.

The "material change" deal can be a pitfall. Ruger changed a takedown pin from forged to MIM, and Kamala said that this was a material change and the pistol could not be sold without including microstamping. Colt went from an old production facility to a new CNC facility--and that is why it sells no pistols in this state, because that was a "material change."
Reply With Quote
  #2253  
Old 01-31-2018, 4:39 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I have a question for anyone who's up-to-speed on our side's briefs.

I was thinking about how they'd rule on the MDM when I realized that if they uphold the CLI (which I think they will), that makes the need even less for the MDM, because anyone will be easily able to know if the chamber is loaded or not. Not knowing/realizing that a semi's chamber is still loaded after the magazine is removed is the whole raison d'être of the MDM.

Does anyone know if Gura/others pointed that out in the briefing? I did not hear Gura point that out during oral arguments.
The flaw in your argument, if my recollection is correct, is that the mag disconnect requirement was imposed AFTER the LCI requirement. Because people are stupid, and the Legislature has deemed it in the public interest to stop Darwinism in its tracks. Go figure. It is the same reason so many products and hot food items have all those warnings plastered all over them. And why we have the FSC.

Personally, I think the safety aspects of the Roster aren't going anywhere, any more than seat belts and airbags aren't going anywhere. But the microstamping rule is likely on the rocks.

Last edited by TruOil; 01-31-2018 at 4:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2254  
Old 01-31-2018, 4:53 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 16,043
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The flaw in your argument, if my recollection is correct, is that the mag disconnect requirement was imposed AFTER the LCI requirement. Because people are stupid, and the Legislature has deemed it in the public interest to stop Darwinism in its tracks. Go figure. It is the same reason so many products and hot food items have all those warnings plastered all over them. And why we have the FSC.

Personally, I think the safety aspects of the Roster aren't going anywhere, any more than seat belts and airbags aren't going anywhere. But the microstamping rule is likely on the rocks.
One judge actually mentioned that the mag disconnect actually takes the 2A from the user in the name of safety.

He deemed this safety feature as a way to remove ones 2A rights.
Reply With Quote
  #2255  
Old 01-31-2018, 4:55 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
<< It's a CCW icon
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,676
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
It is called grandfathering. Once on the roster, a gun stays on the roster as long as the manufacturer continues to pay the annual fee, and as long as there are no material changes to the firearm. My Kahr does not have an LCI, a manual safety or a magazine disconnect, but as long as Kahr continues to make the same model, it stays on the list because it was on the list before those requirements were imposed. Glock can sell Gen 3s for the same reason, but cannot sell Gen 4s (or later) because they do not comply with Roster requirements in existence at the time it was brought to market.

The "material change" deal can be a pitfall. Ruger changed a takedown pin from forged to MIM, and Kamala said that this was a material change and the pistol could not be sold without including microstamping. Colt went from an old production facility to a new CNC facility--and that is why it sells no pistols in this state, because that was a "material change."
I agree with what you are saying, but I think the point Ultralight was trying to make was that the DOJ using the payment of their annual fee as their SOLE criteria to decide if an otherwise-unchanged pistol is still safe or not, is absolute evidence that the roster has zero to do with actual safety.
Reply With Quote
  #2256  
Old 01-31-2018, 5:05 PM
ojisan's Avatar
ojisan ojisan is online now
Agent 86
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SFV
Posts: 10,320
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The flaw in your argument, if my recollection is correct, is that the mag disconnect requirement was imposed AFTER the LCI requirement. Because people are stupid, and the Legislature has deemed it in the public interest to stop Darwinism in its tracks. Go figure. It is the same reason so many products and hot food items have all those warnings plastered all over them. And why we have the FSC.

Personally, I think the safety aspects of the Roster aren't going anywhere, any more than seat belts and airbags aren't going anywhere. But the microstamping rule is likely on the rocks.
Initially it was the manufacturer's choice between LCI (Loaded Chamber Indicator, all types accepted) or a MDS (Magazine Disconnect Safety).

Then it was changed to both being required, with the LCI now changed to a much bigger and larger CLI (Chamber Loaded Indicator).

Then after Kamala made her decision that microstamping was available; CLI, MDS and microstamp are all required.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2257  
Old 01-31-2018, 5:11 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,673
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
The flaw in your argument, if my recollection is correct, is that the mag disconnect requirement was imposed AFTER the LCI requirement.
Nope - 31910(b)
Quote:
(4) Commencing January 1, 2006, for a center fire semiautomatic pistol that is not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have either a chamber load indicator, or a magazine disconnect mechanism.

(5) Commencing January 1, 2007, for all center fire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have both a chamber load indicator and if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism.

(6) Commencing January 1, 2006, for all rimfire semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015, it does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism, if it has a detachable magazine.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice]

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #2258  
Old 02-01-2018, 1:41 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Nope - 31910(b)
So I WAS right. Kinda. Although the statute was enacted at one time, the mag disconnect was mandated a year later. It seems to me manufacturers chose the LCI over a mag disconnect first, and then both a year later.
Reply With Quote
  #2259  
Old 02-06-2018, 11:04 AM
JackRydden224's Avatar
JackRydden224 JackRydden224 is offline
Single stack pistol guy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Irvine
Posts: 7,043
iTrader: 82 / 100%
Default

It's almost 1 year after the oral arguments made last year so I'm hoping we get a conclusion pretty soon.
Reply With Quote
  #2260  
Old 02-06-2018, 2:52 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 209
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackRydden224 View Post
It's almost 1 year after the oral arguments made last year so I'm hoping we get a conclusion pretty soon.
Give it another six months to a year. Personally, I think the Ninth will wait to see what the California Supreme court does in the NSSF v. Becerra case before issuing its decision. I believe that the Ninth is bound by the decisions of the state's highest court on issues of interpretation and application of state law.
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 11:32 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.