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
  #41  
Old 05-02-2017, 12:58 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,882
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I had the same question - wouldn't District judges just dismiss citing Fyock??
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-02-2017, 1:11 PM
ironpegasus ironpegasus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 538
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
I had the same question - wouldn't District judges just dismiss citing Fyock??
Presumably they could, but those that filed the case may be hoping that the larger scope of having to keep it out of an entire state rather than just a locality along with the inability to sell the LCMs or otherwise be compensated for the loss of property may be recognized as a different set of circumstances. Especially when one figures into account the lack of availability of OEM 10 round magazines for certain weapons and the ambiguity surrounding others like the 10 round 458 SOCOM (also a 30 round 5.56) or even a 10 round 6.8 SPC which would probably hold 11-12 5.56. These are points that may require that this case be reviewed afresh and separate from the findings in Fyock. Of course this being the 9th, I don't particularly expect a different outcome except perhaps at the 3-judge panel which will be en banc'ed if it rules in our favor, then de-published and overturned.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-29-2017, 6:40 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,524
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Just FYI, the Wiese motion for a preliminary injunction was denied today. Attached is the order. My hope is that at this point, with the win on Duncan on the same issue, that this lawsuit will be dismissed. There is no upside.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Wiese 2-17CV00903_DocketEntry_06-29-2017_52.pdf (174.8 KB, 121 views)
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-29-2017, 6:51 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I guess it's good that this injunction was attacked from 2 different angles to increase our chances, but at this point it seems clear to me that the CRPA case is looking more promising
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:00 PM
Rickrock1's Avatar
Rickrock1 Rickrock1 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino CA,
Posts: 4,872
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
There hasn't been much good for any gun owner in CA in the last 40 years. Let's face it, even if these CASESgo to SCOTUS, Gorsuch needs help on 2A stuff. He can't do it alone

What's your point?
YeS but so confusing
__________________


“Silence makes cowards out of the best of men” –Abraham Lincoln

🇺🇸 ⚔️ 🦅


Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms.
Without the Second Amendment we have no way to defend ourselves and our families.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:40 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,132
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Just FYI, the Wiese motion for a preliminary injunction was denied today. Attached is the order. My hope is that at this point, with the win on Duncan on the same issue, that this lawsuit will be dismissed. There is no upside.
So should this suit have been filed at all, or should all of the $$ spent on it been spent on Duncan? It this a case of bad luck, the "wrong" judge, or a bad offensive team?
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-29-2017, 7:51 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
So should this suit have been filed at all, or should all of the $$ spent on it been spent on Duncan? It this a case of bad luck, the "wrong" judge, or a bad offensive team?
I think this suit was filed before Duncan, but if it were my money I'd concentrate on funding Duncan at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-29-2017, 8:07 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,125
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

All funds going to CRPA and Michel, I'll re-evaluate when I see results from CGF/FPC and some more transparency and cooperation. No reason to give to anyone but CRPA right now, it's been a great week.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-29-2017, 8:34 PM
madmax64's Avatar
madmax64 madmax64 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does that mean I can buy high capacity magazines tomorrow??
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-29-2017, 8:34 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 777
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Read the injunction in the Duncan CRPA/NRA case it should make it pretty easy to figure were the money should flow. A great read.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-29-2017, 8:35 PM
Discogodfather's Avatar
Discogodfather Discogodfather is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 4,125
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmax64 View Post
Does that mean I can buy high capacity magazines tomorrow??
No man, this only effects old fuddy duddies like myself who have stuff from 20 years ago.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by doggie View Post
Someone must put an end to this endless bickering by posting the unadulterated indisputable facts and truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMACA_MFG View Post
Not checkers, not chess, its Jenga.
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez

Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-29-2017, 8:51 PM
pluke the 2 pluke the 2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: █████████
Posts: 1,942
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Just FYI, the Wiese motion for a preliminary injunction was denied today. Attached is the order. My hope is that at this point, with the win on Duncan on the same issue, that this lawsuit will be dismissed. There is no upside.
Hmm
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-29-2017, 8:52 PM
pluke the 2 pluke the 2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: █████████
Posts: 1,942
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discogodfather View Post
All funds going to CRPA and Michel, I'll re-evaluate when I see results from CGF/FPC and some more transparency and cooperation. No reason to give to anyone but CRPA right now, it's been a great week.
:Thumbsup:
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-29-2017, 9:04 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
Not a mod or lawyer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 12,240
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmax64 View Post
Does that mean I can buy high capacity magazines tomorrow??
From the Duncan V. Becerra thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
For those asking questions such as "Does this mean I can buy LCMs now?" and "Does this mean LCMs are legal in XYX city now?"

The injunction ruled that the status quo is to be maintained. So whatever was legal yesterday, will be legal for the foreseeable future. Likewise, whatever was illegal yesterday, will continue to be illegal for now. In essence, nothing will be different after 7/1 than it is now, with regards to LCMs, until the final court ruling.

You still can't acquire them anywhere in CA, and in localities where possession is banned you still can't possess them, but throughout the rest of the state you can continue to possess and use any legally owned LCMs.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-29-2017, 9:08 PM
BumBum's Avatar
BumBum BumBum is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 1,524
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
So should this suit have been filed at all, or should all of the $$ spent on it been spent on Duncan? It this a case of bad luck, the "wrong" judge, or a bad offensive team?
I don’t know if it can be said the case never should have been filed (although I have been critical in this thread that they filed this suit when it was well-known that NRA/CRPA was about to file). And I am not going to comment on the performance of the lawyers. But when it was made apparent that the judge in Wiese was hostile to plaintiffs, while the judge in Duncan was very friendly to plaintiffs, that should have cued FPC to back off. Instead, FPC filed a bunch of motions, which likely cost a bunch of money that could have gone to other pro-2A causes. I think that is the main problem here. FPC stepped on the gas when they should have been hitting the brakes.

Let’s hope they do the right thing now though and back off.
__________________

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is general in nature, which may not apply to particular factual or legal circumstances, and is intended for informational purposes only. Consistent with Calguns policy, the information does not constitute legal advice or opinions and should not be relied upon as such. Transmission of the information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon any information in my posts without seeking professional counsel.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-29-2017, 9:56 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,980
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
So should this suit have been filed at all, or should all of the $$ spent on it been spent on Duncan? It this a case of bad luck, the "wrong" judge, or a bad offensive team?
The judge went right to the littany of gun control catch phrases....
Public Safety, mass shootings, intermediate scrutiny. He even admitted that it would cause irreparable harm if the injunction was not ordered and then went on to justify it by saying the defendants (the legislature) would suffer harm also because they (magazines) are a threat to public safety. Quite the bit of judicial gymnastics going on here.
__________________
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
  #57  
Old 06-30-2017, 4:32 AM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
The judge went right to the littany of gun control catch phrases...
Yep. I read through it and all I could do was facepalm.

As a non-lawyer reading this, it seemed this judge only cared about copying & pasting any gun-control-friendly case law, no matter how flawed it was, and passing the buck. Rather than impartially recognizing as a judge when an injustice had occurred, and exercising his critical thinking skills. And he routinely cites both Fyock and Heller right next to each other. It's like he's just grabbing the sequences of words he wants to hear out of both judgements, without considering their context. If you actually read the citations, you realize doing so is contradictory. Some choice quotes:
Quote:
The ban may implicate the core of the Second Amendment because it restricts the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess large capacity magazines within their homes for self-defense. See Fyock, 779 F.3d at 999. However, the ban “does not affect the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess the ‘quintessential self-defense weapon’ -– the handgun.


Once again someone absolutely clueless about firearms is put at the helm of regulating them. Would someone educate Judge Shubb that pistols have standard double-stack magazines of ~15-33rnds too? Or how a 9mm is different from a 357Magnum, and there's a thing called "power factor"?

Or, for the sake of his myopic argument, about 223 caliber pistols? Or that not everyone uses/has the luxury of a handgun (or multiple guns) for self-defense? Or that handguns are also heavily discriminated against in CA? If you have three people rushing you busting down the door -- or a guy has a gun to your father's head and is using him as a human shield -- you got what you got.
http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/new...cide/733636775
(Oh whoops, that's "outside the scope" of this suit. Can't acknowledge that, can we!)

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/04/ar...ould-not-have/
(Oh, and that other thing happened in another state, so it's toooootally not relevant. Nope, no-sirree.)
Contrast this to Judge Benitez's intelligent and critically thought out "cut-to-the-crap" quote from the Duncan injunction, decrying this piecemeal-style attack on a constitutional right. It is even more damning of Judge Shubb's response. I am no law man, but I'm pretty sure it's supposed to go SCOTUS' opinion >> 9th District's (legally questionable en-banc) opinion >> a Municipal (Fyock?) court's opinion. From Duncan (indented):
Quote:
See id. at 953 (Callahan, J., dissenting) (“The counties and California have chipped away at the Plaintiffs’ right to bear arms by enacting first a concealed weapons licensing scheme that is tantamount to a complete ban on concealed weapons, and then by enacting an open carry ban. Constitutional rights would become meaningless if states could obliterate them by enacting incrementally more burdensome restrictions while arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate each restriction by itself when determining constitutionality.").
Some more gems:

Quote:
Plaintiffs contend that California’s large capacity magazine ban violates the Second Amendment, is an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, is void for vagueness, and is overbroad. The court proceeds to examine plaintiffs’ showing with respect to each claim below.
Really? I'm pretty sure Senator Norman Mineta (and his bat) would disagree with that statement. As well as all Japanese-American citizens who lost their crap.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=92579355

Quote:
b. Appropriate Level of Scrutiny

In determining what level of scrutiny applies to the ban on large capacity magazines, the court considers (1) how closely the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right which is self-defense, and (2) how severely, if at all, the law burdens that right. Fyock, 779 F.3d at 998-99 (citing Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1138). Intermediate scrutiny is appropriate if the regulation does not implicate the core Second Amendment right o if the regulation does not place a substantial burden on that right. Id. at 998-99 (citing Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 964 (9th Cir. 2014)).
Mmkay. Copy and paste again I see. The 'ol 2A 2-step, perennial favorite of the anti-gun crowd. If it works, spam it, right? No critical thinking or situational awareness needed.

Quote:
Indeed, it appears that virtually every other court to examine large capacity magazine bans has found that intermediate scrutiny is appropriate, assuming these magazines are protected by the Second Amendment.

See Fyock, 779 F.3d at 999; Kolbe, 849 F.3d at 138-139; N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol ***’n, Inc. v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242, 258-60 (2d Cir. 2015); Heller II, 670 F.3d at 1261- 62; S.F. Veteran Police Officers ***’n v. City & County of San Francisco, 18 F. Supp. 3d 997, 1002-04 (N.D. Cal. 2014). But see Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir. 2015) (upholding municipal ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines but declining to determine what level of scrutiny applied).


Uh.... this has to be the dumbest quote of the judgement. Judge Shubb cites case law from magazine-banning states.... as evidence of "every other court to examine 'LCM' bans". Really....?

He does realize that is a circular logic fallacy? If a state bans "LCM" in the first place, and the ban was upheld, there would be no case law saying greater scrutiny was needed. If it did, said law wouldn't exist... and there would be no legal challenges to cite! People don't file lawsuits challenging that a law doesn't exist, or a lawsuit has been won in their favor. (Normally... I know there are exceptions.)

So his sample of "every other court's opinion on LCM".... in reality is "every court that believes in banning LCM's opinion".... which naturally will favor the ban, "intermediate scrutiny", etc. Congratulations, Judge Shubb fails basic statistics! Elementary sampling bias. There's a lot more that makes me shake my head. I'm not sure if that is FPC's fault or the Judge's. But after reading the Duncan response then the Wiese response.... as a lay man.... the Weise response just comes off as..... lazy. I'm not sure what else to call it.

Last edited by Citizen One; 06-30-2017 at 2:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-30-2017, 5:03 AM
LW6PPC LW6PPC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 19
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmax64 View Post
Does that mean I can buy high capacity magazines tomorrow??
No. It means that you can keep the high capacity magazines that you have legally owned since 2000, for now at least.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-30-2017, 6:29 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,882
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Can we please agree to terms here?

The magazines in question ARE NOT high capacity.

They are standard capacity. That's kind of the point.

And aside from the faulty references to Fyock and population density (the 2A guarantees rights everywhere - not just in rural locals) I thoroughly enjoyed reading the decision in Duncan.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-30-2017, 7:03 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,052
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Can we please agree to terms here?

The magazines in question ARE NOT high capacity.

They are standard capacity. That's kind of the point.

And aside from the faulty references to Fyock and population density (the 2A guarantees rights everywhere - not just in rural locals) I thoroughly enjoyed reading the decision in Duncan.
Then they are "Large-capacity magazines", since that is what they are referred to by the CA law this thread is referring to. Any other term is unnecessarily confusing.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-30-2017, 7:56 AM
slayer61's Avatar
slayer61 slayer61 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Norcal
Posts: 1,035
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This state has the most effed up laws.

How does it make sense that I can own something, but not be allowed to buy the same forking thing??
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Paul

tiocfaidh ár lá
Bobby Sands
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-30-2017, 10:13 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 512
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slayer61 View Post
This state has the most effed up laws.

How does it make sense that I can own something, but not be allowed to buy the same forking thing??
You're fatal error (I know you were being rhetorical) is assuming/conjecturing that legislators/judges have any concern about "making sense"/being logically coherent and consistent. Obviously they don't.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-30-2017, 11:05 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,141
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
You're fatal error (I know you were being rhetorical) is assuming/conjecturing that legislators/judges have any concern about "making sense"/being logically coherent and consistent. Obviously they don't.
In addition, this seems to be yet another instance of the assumption that CA 'gun laws' are about guns.

They're not.

At one level they are about what is often called 'virtue signaling' - all the 'good people' agree guns are icky, so laws inhibiting them and those who want guns are positive developments.

At a more important level to politicians, they are a means to insure re-election - voting for bills is seen as 'doing something' - 'You elected me to do something about [whatever]; see my vote? I did something! Re-elect me so I can to continue to do things!'

And, failure to vote as leadership 'encourages' leads to the member's own bills getting blocked in committee, thus showing that the member 'can't get things done', with likely election consequences.
__________________
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
  #64  
Old 06-30-2017, 12:55 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,665
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
The magazines in question ARE NOT high capacity.

They are standard capacity. That's kind of the point.
True, but irrelevant in a legal challenge. If they called them "dildos" in the PC, we'd be calling them "dildos" in the filing.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-30-2017, 2:41 PM
Citizen One's Avatar
Citizen One Citizen One is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
True, but irrelevant in a legal challenge. If they called them "dildos" in the PC, we'd be calling them "dildos" in the filing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#Thought_control
Hats off to the Democrats. At least it goes to show they read books.

Quote:
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods.

This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."[9]
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-01-2017, 10:33 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,261
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Seems pretty clear to me that FPC is ineffective and should relegated to the past.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-02-2017, 12:41 PM
Jongage's Avatar
Jongage Jongage is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BumBum View Post
Oh goodie! Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition are trying to stay relevant by secretly filing a lawsuit challenging the LCM law without telling anyone else. So glad they consulted with CRPA / Michel's office, especially considering they sent out a call for plaintiffs a few days ago...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1328911
Sounds like they were behind the 8ball on this one.
__________________
Propane
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-06-2017, 8:36 AM
Madmox Madmox is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 403
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
True, but irrelevant in a legal challenge. If they called them "dildos" in the PC, we'd be calling them "dildos" in the filing.


high capacity dildos!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-06-2017, 10:00 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,882
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
True, but irrelevant in a legal challenge. If they called them "dildos" in the PC, we'd be calling them "dildos" in the filing.
How so - exactly?

Our opponents argue that these "large" capacity magazines are somehow "dangerous and unusual" - in fact it is a large part of the legal foundation they rely on to justify regulating/banning them.

While of course we wouldn't call them "dildo's" we can and should kick ourselves in the *** if we blythely accept their terms - which is partly what got us in the whole "assault weapons" (a term of political invention) morass to begin with.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools

Last edited by Drivedabizness; 07-06-2017 at 10:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-06-2017, 3:36 PM
Hinnerk Hinnerk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: East SF Bay
Posts: 338
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post

Our opponents argue that these "large" capacity magazines are somehow "dangerous and unusual" - in fact it is a large part of the legal foundation they rely on to justify regulating/banning them.

...

Isn't the argument that they are "dangerous and unusual" rather defeated by the option to transfer them out of state?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-06-2017, 3:55 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,132
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hinnerk View Post
Isn't the argument that they are "dangerous and unusual" rather defeated by the option to transfer them out of state?


Only dangerous and unusual in hands of CA citizens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-06-2017, 4:02 PM
Hinnerk Hinnerk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: East SF Bay
Posts: 338
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
Only dangerous and unusual in hands of CA citizens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Motion to strike all Defendant's exhibits concerning use of such magazines outside California. Irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-06-2017, 8:04 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,882
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hinnerk View Post
Isn't the argument that they are "dangerous and unusual" rather defeated by the option to transfer them out of state?
Do they become "safe" out of State? What's your point?

Or are you suggesting that they are being nice and letting us avoid confiscation/destruction??
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-07-2017, 9:50 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,665
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
How so - exactly?
If the PC 32310 talks about "large-capacity magazines" defined in the PC 16740, then, when we file a challenge to the PC 32310 (or any related PC), we have to use the the same definitions so the judge knows what we are addressing.

It makes no sense to try to make a distinction without difference of "large" vs. "standard" when we are discussing the unconstitutional nature of the ban, not the choice of words in the PC.

We would look rather silly if one of our prayers for relief included "oh, and we don't want the DOJ to call them 'large capacity' because that's not nice."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-07-2017, 9:53 AM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 672
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The judge also cited a case on the taking or destruction of private party - Mugler v. Kansas (from 1887!!). This authorized destruction of alcohol stills and equipment.

The difference? People could rebuild with available materials. If all magazines are destroyed and the new law is then overturned, people would not be able to legally replace them as there were the old laws that protected the possession of existing magazines. The case would then become moot as there would be no legal way of obtaining replacements without the older existing laws also being overturned.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-07-2017, 9:54 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,665
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hinnerk View Post
Isn't the argument that they are "dangerous and unusual" rather defeated by the option to transfer them out of state?
Not really.

Compare to the "roster lawsuit" where we can show that training materials explicitly say "don't use these 'safety' devices'," where we can get the same gun if it's private party transfer and where supposedly unsafe guns are grandfathered on the roster. Yet, we are getting turned down by the courts...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-07-2017, 9:55 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,665
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markinsac View Post
If all magazines are destroyed and the new law is then overturned, people would not be able to legally replace them as there were the old laws that protected the possession of existing magazines. The case would then become moot as there would be no legal way of obtaining replacements without the older existing laws also being overturned.
It's a "feature," not a bug...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-07-2017, 10:40 AM
Merovign's Avatar
Merovign Merovign is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 431
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

As a side note, my Jimmies are still rustled about the whole nuisance thing. Seriously, lawfully owned property can be taken without due process because someone doesn't like it.

Do I get to add things to that list? Vuvuzelas?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-07-2017, 11:42 AM
Whiskey_Sauer's Avatar
Whiskey_Sauer Whiskey_Sauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Northern California
Posts: 1,085
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
Then they are "Large-capacity magazines", since that is what they are referred to by the CA law this thread is referring to. Any other term is unnecessarily confusing.
Correct. See footnote 1, p. 4 of the brief.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-07-2017, 6:57 PM
Hopalong's Avatar
Hopalong Hopalong is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: CA.
Posts: 2,322
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
In addition, this seems to be yet another instance of the assumption that CA 'gun laws' are about guns.

They're not.

At one level they are about what is often called 'virtue signaling' - all the 'good people' agree guns are icky, so laws inhibiting them and those who want guns are positive developments.

At a more important level to politicians, they are a means to insure re-election - voting for bills is seen as 'doing something' - 'You elected me to do something about [whatever]; see my vote? I did something! Re-elect me so I can to continue to do things!'

And, failure to vote as leadership 'encourages' leads to the member's own bills getting blocked in committee, thus showing that the member 'can't get things done', with likely election consequences.
Unfortunately, this is the winning answer.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:28 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.