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
  #1  
Old 04-14-2016, 1:43 PM
gogohopper's Avatar
gogohopper gogohopper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: South end of the South Bay
Posts: 5,630
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default Garcia, et al. v. AG Kamala Harris - against 707 LE exemption (8/4/16 US Dis Ct loss)

https://www.sb707lawsuit.com/2016/04...ment-officers/
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webologist View Post
I am in a sympathy-free zone as well. A leftist brown shirt reaping what he sowed after profiting from it is sweet justice indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-14-2016, 2:20 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,149
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

https://13832-presscdn-0-1-pagely.ne...-Complaint.pdf
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

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
  #3  
Old 04-14-2016, 3:41 PM
PackingHeatInSDCA PackingHeatInSDCA is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 456
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

bravo!
__________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-14-2016, 3:52 PM
ASD1's Avatar
ASD1 ASD1 is offline
1/2 BANNED
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 1,466
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-14-2016, 4:08 PM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 775
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Good
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-14-2016, 4:55 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Torrance
Posts: 5,868
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Slow Clap.....


OK, that's supposed to be slower.....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-14-2016, 5:31 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,529
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

This will be an interesting one...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-14-2016, 8:58 PM
Lone_Gunman Lone_Gunman is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In the wind
Posts: 8,412
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Good. The laws should either apply to all, or none. No special privileges for those that enforce these terrible laws.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-14-2016, 10:01 PM
BrokerB's Avatar
BrokerB BrokerB is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Folsom , outside the walls
Posts: 2,642
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Well dam. ...now I may need to make another donation.

I did submit my info to be a plaintiff. ...guess I was not picked. : ( I should be a LBGT plaintiff. Hust imagine when the protected classes start to fight for their rights someday. ...we will crush these political hacks.
__________________
Beans and Bullets
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-15-2016, 7:03 AM
manfred manfred is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow, someone has finally noticed the elephant in the room!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq
Typically those who maintain the mindset of chasing a non-violent utopia are those who live in a world of privilege. Those people have the luxury of looking at violence and societal turmoil from an ivory tower, rather than from an earthbound perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-15-2016, 8:41 AM
Ossa Ossa is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 66
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does anyone here have any info on the lawyers bringing this suit to trial?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-15-2016, 8:49 AM
mdolvn mdolvn is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It shouldn't stop here, this should apply to the roster as well. If the guns are deemed unsafe in CA, there should be no exemptions for anyone.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-15-2016, 9:26 AM
3200OUT 3200OUT is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: People's Republic of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 68
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdolvn View Post
It shouldn't stop here, this should apply to the roster as well. If the guns are deemed unsafe in CA, there should be no exemptions for anyone.
I agree one hundred percent. If it's too dangerous for the general public it's too dangerous to allow the Government to have them for control of the general public. Take it all away. No "high capacity magazines", mandatory bullet buttons, etc.

No exceptions for anyone.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-15-2016, 9:48 AM
bblr's Avatar
bblr bblr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Finally! This has been the biggest inconvenience for me in the last few months. I refuse to leave my gun locked up all day, so I am constantly arming and disarming every time I take my kids to school or pick them up. What a joke. After watching that video of the Brady person talking about how DV victims should stay at home instead of going to school, it shows SB707 was not about safety at all. I feel this was a preemptive move in case the state lost in Peruta.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-15-2016, 10:16 AM
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 203
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So, if I read this right the lawsuit asks that the exemption to the carry on school grounds ban for retired peace officers be removed.

Yet, there's a case that could be made that SB707 wouldn't have passed at all had the organizations representing retired peace officers not won this exemption in the first place and acquiesced to its passage.

Is there no way to request that because of the unequal protection problem inherent in the passage of SB707 that the law be returned to its pre-SB707 state and the legislature invited to try to pass the law again with out this exemption?

This lawsuit doesn't appear to be "solving" the problem that most of us have with the law.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-15-2016, 10:45 AM
baddos's Avatar
baddos baddos is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 287
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I doubt any court will side with us on this.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-15-2016, 10:46 AM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 538
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
So, if I read this right the lawsuit asks that the exemption to the carry on school grounds ban for retired peace officers be removed.

Yet, there's a case that could be made that SB707 wouldn't have passed at all had the organizations representing retired peace officers not won this exemption in the first place and acquiesced to its passage.

Is there no way to request that because of the unequal protection problem inherent in the passage of SB707 that the law be returned to its pre-SB707 state and the legislature invited to try to pass the law again with out this exemption?

This lawsuit doesn't appear to be "solving" the problem that most of us have with the law.
It might not immediately solve the defect in the law, but going forward it sets precedent. If the LE unions no longer are able to get their carve-outs, it's possible some of them might stop backing this garbage legislation and without LEO support (and maybe even active opposition), it just *might* slow down the onslaught we face on an annual basis.

If retired LEs get upset enough over having to act like the rest of the civilians, maybe they'll even influence their buddies who aren't out of the force yet to push union leadership to roll back legislation since they no longer receive deferential treatment under the law.

Frankly, this has been a long time coming - if it's too dangerous for your average regular Joe to own and keep, it's too dangerous for someone who no longer has arrest powers to have, regardless of what their training is. If training mattered and was good for life, then by virtue of my time in the Marines, I'd still be good to go to have a full-featured AR or something even more exotic. Since the state doesn't trust me to have that because I am not in the military then the same rules ought to apply to those that have mustered out of the police force.

And yes, we ought to attack the handgun roster on those grounds and on OSHA grounds - if they aren't safe by the standards set by the state, we can't let our officers risk potential injury by having them. LEO safety should come first. Once the state risks having to replace the duty weapon of every officer because these weapons aren't "safe", I think that you'll see alterations in the legislation. Otherwise think of the payout they'd face if a negligent or accidental discharge injured an officer - injury attorney's dream:

Attorney: "You knowingly provided an unsafe piece of equipment to my client?"

State: "Yes, well that is, er..."

Attorney: "No further questions your honor."

Last edited by ironpegasus; 04-15-2016 at 10:55 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-15-2016, 10:56 AM
slayer61's Avatar
slayer61 slayer61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Norcal
Posts: 1,036
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

NICE!
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Paul

tiocfaidh ár lá
Bobby Sands
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-15-2016, 11:01 AM
Gringo Bandito's Avatar
Gringo Bandito Gringo Bandito is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,750
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

I am waiting for the day the DOJ defines what specific training gives them this exemption. As far as I can tell, they never have.


Sent while driving 80 mph, eating a cheeseburger and using my knee to steer.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-15-2016, 12:22 PM
bblr's Avatar
bblr bblr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
So, if I read this right the lawsuit asks that the exemption to the carry on school grounds ban for retired peace officers be removed.

Yet, there's a case that could be made that SB707 wouldn't have passed at all had the organizations representing retired peace officers not won this exemption in the first place and acquiesced to its passage.

Is there no way to request that because of the unequal protection problem inherent in the passage of SB707 that the law be returned to its pre-SB707 state and the legislature invited to try to pass the law again with out this exemption?

This lawsuit doesn't appear to be "solving" the problem that most of us have with the law.
I would think that if the courts rule on our side, SB707 would be thrown out as unconstitutional. Wouldn't this automatically revert the law (PC 626.9) back to the pre-SB707 status?
__________________
My LTC's: CAAZNV
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-15-2016, 12:50 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,793
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblr View Post
I would think that if the courts rule on our side, SB707 would be thrown out as unconstitutional. Wouldn't this automatically revert the law (PC 626.9) back to the pre-SB707 status?
the lawsuit is not asking for the entire SBS707 law to be ruled unconstitutional, just a portion of it.
626.9(o) This section does not apply to an honorably retired peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm pursuant to any of the following:
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-15-2016, 12:51 PM
onewheelwes's Avatar
onewheelwes onewheelwes is offline
Insidious force inspector
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wrong Side of the River
Posts: 1,332
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdolvn View Post
It shouldn't stop here, this should apply to the roster as well. If the guns are deemed unsafe in CA, there should be no exemptions for anyone.
You have to remember. Non roster guns are not considered unsafe, they have just not been certified to be on the roster of "not unsafe" guns.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-15-2016, 12:55 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,793
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

31910. As used in this part, "unsafe handgun" means any pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, for which any of the following is true:
(a) For a revolver:
(1) It does not have a safety device that, either automatically in
the case of a double-action firing mechanism, or by manual operation
in the case of a single-action firing mechanism, causes the hammer
to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the
primer of the cartridge.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device,
as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by
the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
(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.
(7) (A) Commencing January 1, 2010, for all semiautomatic pistols
that are not already listed on the roster pursuant to Section 32015,
it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of
characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the
pistol, etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the
interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that
are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm
is fired, provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the
technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one
manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.
(B) The Attorney General may also approve a method of equal or
greater reliability and effectiveness in identifying the specific
serial number of a firearm from spent cartridge casings discharged by
that firearm than that which is set forth in this paragraph, to be
thereafter required as otherwise set forth by this paragraph where
the Attorney General certifies that this new method is also
unencumbered by any patent restrictions. Approval by the Attorney
General shall include notice of that fact via regulations adopted by
the Attorney General for purposes of implementing that method for
purposes of this paragraph.
(C) The microscopic array of characters required by this section
shall not be considered the name of the maker, model, manufacturer's
number, or other mark of identification, including any distinguishing
number or mark assigned by the Department of Justice, within the
meaning of Sections 23900 and 23920.
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-15-2016, 1:18 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,360
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Most of the support of LE organizations has come with exemptions for their people. If they can't get the exemptions anymore, it is less likely they will support 2a infringments.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

New NRA Campaign to Liberals: "Afraid of a tryannical Trump Administration? Buy a gun..."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-15-2016, 2:04 PM
JDoe JDoe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,830
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3200OUT View Post
I agree one hundred percent. If it's too dangerous for the general public it's too dangerous to allow the Government to have them for control of the general public. Take it all away. No "high capacity magazines", mandatory bullet buttons, etc.



No exceptions for anyone.


Lead by example, not exemption.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-15-2016, 2:06 PM
bblr's Avatar
bblr bblr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 234
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ke6guj View Post
the lawsuit is not asking for the entire SBS707 law to be ruled unconstitutional, just a portion of it.
626.9(o) This section does not apply to an honorably retired peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm pursuant to any of the following:
I understand what they are asking for, but either SB707 is constitutional or it isn't. If it isn't, how can the courts only throw out a portion of the law? The whole bill should go. I'm not an attorney. Im just trying to apply common sense in a nonsensical state.
__________________
My LTC's: CAAZNV
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-15-2016, 3:21 PM
USMCM16A2 USMCM16A2 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,849
iTrader: 94 / 100%
Default Calling roostersgt...........

Calling roostersgt..............where are you? A2
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-15-2016, 3:27 PM
Nick Justice's Avatar
Nick Justice Nick Justice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Diamond Bar, CA
Posts: 1,985
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good.



Luck.
__________________
It doesn't matter how scary, ugly, uncomfortable, or inconvenient self defense can be. Like it or not, you will never, ever be relieved of your duty and responsibility to defend your life, your family, your country and your freedom.

How much ammo do I need? Enough to last me the rest of my life, and then lot more for later.

The government does not come knocking at your door. It comes knocking down your door.

Last edited by retired; 08-20-2017 at 4:00 PM.. Reason: Rule d/word filter
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-15-2016, 6:06 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,618
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblr View Post
I understand what they are asking for, but either SB707 is constitutional or it isn't. If it isn't, how can the courts only throw out a portion of the law? The whole bill should go. I'm not an attorney. Im just trying to apply common sense in a nonsensical state.
People who are active duty law enforcement could be carrying the firearm as part of their job. A retired police officer is merely a "citizen" like the rest of us, so making exemptions for certain citizens but not others is unconstitutional. It's the same reason AWB applies to retired police officers but active duty are exempt. People who act as an agent of the government are often exempt from certain laws. Think of when we see "CA EXEMPT" licenses plates on unmarked vehicles. They can park in front of a fire hydrant regardless if they are on duty or off duty. However, a retired police officer is not exempt from parking regulations in his personal vehicle. A Bailiff could carry a firearm while on the job, but a retired bailiff has no valid reason as to why he should be exempt from a court house carry ban.

Certain parts of the law can be struck down while others stand. Take a look at the NY Safe Act where the 7rd magazine limit was knocked down but most of the law stood. You can also check out Heller III where registration was legal, but requiring registration and a fee every three years is not. In Heller and McDonald they included "sensitive places" as areas where firearms could be banned. An elementary school, jail, or court house certainly fall under those guidelines (unfortunately).
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-18-2016, 6:36 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,688
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bblr View Post
I understand what they are asking for, but either SB707 is constitutional or it isn't. If it isn't, how can the courts only throw out a portion of the law? The whole bill should go. I'm not an attorney. Im just trying to apply common sense in a nonsensical state.
You are confusing legislation with law.

SB 707 was a piece of legislation which presented proposed changes to laws. Once enacted, SB 707 ceased to exist as an entity (the numbering scheme is reused every two years), but the changes to statute are now in place. It is these changes which are unconstitutional, not the legislation.

For example, the barring of CCW on school grounds is not challenged in this suit. The new section of statute which exempts retired LEO from the CCW prohibition on campuses creates an unequal treatment, and that is unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-18-2016, 6:47 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,149
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Right - and it is unlikely anyone would have standing to challenge the content of a bill - while a bill, it would be subject to amendment and failure to pass, or rejection by the Governor.

'707' is shorthand for 'the changes made to California statutes by the passed and signed SB 707'
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

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
  #32  
Old 04-18-2016, 7:38 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 834
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironpegasus View Post
It might not immediately solve the defect in the law, but going forward it sets precedent. If the LE unions no longer are able to get their carve-outs, it's possible some of them might stop backing this garbage legislation and without LEO support (and maybe even active opposition), it just *might* slow down the onslaught we face on an annual basis.

If retired LEs get upset enough over having to act like the rest of the civilians, maybe they'll even influence their buddies who aren't out of the force yet to push union leadership to roll back legislation since they no longer receive deferential treatment under the law.

Frankly, this has been a long time coming - if it's too dangerous for your average regular Joe to own and keep, it's too dangerous for someone who no longer has arrest powers to have, regardless of what their training is. If training mattered and was good for life, then by virtue of my time in the Marines, I'd still be good to go to have a full-featured AR or something even more exotic. Since the state doesn't trust me to have that because I am not in the military then the same rules ought to apply to those that have mustered out of the police force.

And yes, we ought to attack the handgun roster on those grounds and on OSHA grounds - if they aren't safe by the standards set by the state, we can't let our officers risk potential injury by having them. LEO safety should come first. Once the state risks having to replace the duty weapon of every officer because these weapons aren't "safe", I think that you'll see alterations in the legislation. Otherwise think of the payout they'd face if a negligent or accidental discharge injured an officer - injury attorney's dream:

Attorney: "You knowingly provided an unsafe piece of equipment to my client?"

State: "Yes, well that is, er..."

Attorney: "No further questions your honor."


Yes i want to see this right here happen ^

Light this whole exemption thing up from a whole different avenue.
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc

Last edited by ddestruel; 04-18-2016 at 7:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-18-2016, 8:20 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,688
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Right - and it is unlikely anyone would have standing to challenge the content of a bill - while a bill, it would be subject to amendment and failure to pass, or rejection by the Governor.

'707' is shorthand for 'the changes made to California statutes by the passed and signed SB 707'
Correct. In fact, I'd go farther and say that no one could ever have standing to sue against the content of a bill.

The bill is merely an idea being discussed by the Legislature. Once it is passed by the Legislature, it is enrolled to the Governor, but still as a bill. Once the Governor signs the bill and it is filed by the Secretary of State, the bill becomes an Act, and the code provisions contained within the final bill stand on their own.

Even then, one must wait until the Act takes effect (usually Jan 1 of the following year) before anyone is impacted by it, giving them standing to sue.

The bill is a "truck" hauling garbage. Once the garbage is delivered, the truck is no longer needed, but the garbage remains.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-18-2016, 8:53 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,360
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wonder how things would go differently if SB707 condemned a certain group to slavery instead of just the CCW stuff... I bet we would be able to "somehow" attack the bill legally without waiting for it to become law.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

New NRA Campaign to Liberals: "Afraid of a tryannical Trump Administration? Buy a gun..."

Last edited by sfpcservice; 04-19-2016 at 7:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-19-2016, 7:53 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,583
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gringo Bandito View Post
I am waiting for the day the DOJ defines what specific training gives them this exemption. As far as I can tell, they never have.


Sent while driving 80 mph, eating a cheeseburger and using my knee to steer.
Exactly! I have long thought this as well. The minimum requirements for firearms training for a POST Level 1 academy are available. If training is their concern then why could it not be argued that if a person takes a training course adheres to POST training standards then a person should be able to be exempted as well. And the POST standards are not that difficult by any means. Anyone who is even moderately proficient at something like USPSA or IDPA could easily meet the standards.

They always tout "LEO training" but fail to acknowledge those who have training, like former military folks, or the fact that any person could take training to meet that standard. If I were able to show up at qual's day at the local LEA and pass their qual test.....doesn't that mean I'm just as trained and proficient?

I mean seriously.....So they're saying someone like a former Navy Seal isn't trained or experienced enough?

If your concern is lack of training, then someone with equal or greater training than mandated for LEOs would satisfy that safety concern. Seems like if challenged in court that would answer even a "rational basis" claim of public safety would it not? To say that "only trained individuals are qualified" but then offer no ability to obtain that training is just a defacto ban of sorts.

It would actually be interesting to see if we could get someone to propose legislation that would state something to the effect that: "Any no prohibited person who takes and passes a course of training equal to or greater than the POST Level 1 academy requirements is exempted, etc, etc, etc......"
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

Last edited by Untamed1972; 04-19-2016 at 8:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-19-2016, 7:58 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,583
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
People who are active duty law enforcement could be carrying the firearm as part of their job. A retired police officer is merely a "citizen" like the rest of us, so making exemptions for certain citizens but not others is unconstitutional. It's the same reason AWB applies to retired police officers but active duty are exempt. People who act as an agent of the government are often exempt from certain laws. Think of when we see "CA EXEMPT" licenses plates on unmarked vehicles. They can park in front of a fire hydrant regardless if they are on duty or off duty. However, a retired police officer is not exempt from parking regulations in his personal vehicle. A Bailiff could carry a firearm while on the job, but a retired bailiff has no valid reason as to why he should be exempt from a court house carry ban.

Certain parts of the law can be struck down while others stand. Take a look at the NY Safe Act where the 7rd magazine limit was knocked down but most of the law stood. You can also check out Heller III where registration was legal, but requiring registration and a fee every three years is not. In Heller and McDonald they included "sensitive places" as areas where firearms could be banned. An elementary school, jail, or court house certainly fall under those guidelines (unfortunately).
Seems like we should also then attack the law that allows retired LEOs to be given a CCW by their former employing agency rather than having to apply for one and pay all the fees like the rest of us. Seems to contradict the portion of the CCW law that says if any agency issues even ONE CCW they must accept all applications from those in their jurisdiction. If they are issuing CCWs to their former employees.....they are issuing CCWs.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-19-2016, 9:35 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Seems like we should also then attack the law that allows retired LEOs to be given a CCW by their former employing agency rather than having to apply for one and pay all the fees like the rest of us. Seems to contradict the portion of the CCW law that says if any agency issues even ONE CCW they must accept all applications from those in their jurisdiction. If they are issuing CCWs to their former employees.....they are issuing CCWs.
Big issue is that it's FEDERAL legislation that gives them a 50 state CCW, LEOSA. Some cops get local CA ccw permits which is to me because agencies aren't required to issue, but can issue in accordance with federal law to retired officers from their agency.

As I've said before, maybe it's more worth tinkering with HR 218 on the federal level as to who qualifies for it...
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-19-2016, 10:41 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,583
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Big issue is that it's FEDERAL legislation that gives them a 50 state CCW, LEOSA. Some cops get local CA ccw permits which is to me because agencies aren't required to issue, but can issue in accordance with federal law to retired officers from their agency.

As I've said before, maybe it's more worth tinkering with HR 218 on the federal level as to who qualifies for it...
Retired LEOs have been allowed to carry since before LEOSA came about. I was referring specifically to the section of state law that allows a LEOs former agency to give them a carry ID, vs. the regular CCW process the rest of us would have to go thru. But I agree the Federal legislation needs to be attacked as well.

Always thought it was odd that active reserve LEOs had to apply for a CCW though?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-19-2016, 11:22 AM
snowdog650's Avatar
snowdog650 snowdog650 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,074
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Exactly! I have long thought this as well. The minimum requirements for firearms training for a POST Level 1 academy are available. If training is their concern then why could it not be argued that if a person takes a training course adheres to POST training standards then a person should be able to be exempted as well. And the POST standards are not that difficult by any means. Anyone who is even moderately proficient at something like USPSA or IDPA could easily meet the standards.

They always tout "LEO training" but fail to acknowledge those who have training, like former military folks, or the fact that any person could take training to meet that standard. If I were able to show up at qual's day at the local LEA and pass their qual test.....doesn't that mean I'm just as trained and proficient?

I mean seriously.....So they're saying someone like a former Navy Seal isn't trained or experienced enough?

If your concern is lack of training, then someone with equal or greater training than mandated for LEOs would satisfy that safety concern. Seems like if challenged in court that would answer even a "rational basis" claim of public safety would it not? To say that "only trained individuals are qualified" but then offer no ability to obtain that training is just a defacto ban of sorts.

It would actually be interesting to see if we could get someone to propose legislation that would state something to the effect that: "Any no prohibited person who takes and passes a course of training equal to or greater than the POST Level 1 academy requirements is exempted, etc, etc, etc......"
POST is a g'damn joke. I would be willing to bet that 75% of all people who take a multi-day combat pistol course from a training organization that is only remotely reputable would shoot circles around your "average" POST graduate.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-19-2016, 11:29 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,583
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowdog650 View Post
POST is a g'damn joke. I would be willing to bet that 75% of all people who take a multi-day combat pistol course from a training organization that is only remotely reputable would shoot circles around your "average" POST graduate.
That's exactly my point. I think the case could be easily made that the state has already set the training standard. If someone can demonstrate proficiency at or above that level.....they don't even have rational basis to not exempt the person from the roster, because by their own admission "training" is what qualifies someone to possess or carry and "unsafe handgun".
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun

Last edited by Untamed1972; 04-19-2016 at 11:32 AM..
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 5:17 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.