Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-17-2010, 5:37 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Federal Law can abolish CA Handgun Roster?

Search fails to show any current threads specifically on this.

Is there hope that changes at the Federal level can result in abolishing the Ca. Approved Handgun roster? (I'm not a religious man, but I can still pray...)

Something along the lines of "Shall not be infringed?" Or what? Any hope?

(Waiting for CA legislature to abolish the nonsense certainly seems dubious at best.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-17-2010, 5:39 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,102
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

yup, http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Pena_v_Cid
__________________
Jack



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

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-17-2010, 5:47 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

McDonald to Nordyke to Pena... It really is a chain of dominos, eh?

Pena 10 days after Nordyke, isn't Nordyke remand per McDonald past due?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-17-2010, 5:52 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,102
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Nordyke was remanded back to the 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, and CRPA just filed an amicus brief today, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...hlight=nordyke
__________________
Jack



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

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-17-2010, 5:55 PM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
McDonald to Nordyke to Pena... It really is a chain of dominos, eh?
Yup, and each falling domino bumps into at least a couple more side-by-side dominos. Aren't exponents fun?
__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-17-2010, 7:10 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Congress could pass a law destroying handgun rosters country wide. However, that's not likely in the near term as California's is the only truly onerous one.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-17-2010, 7:24 PM
greybeard greybeard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 1,056
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

I thought MA made ours look good?
__________________
John

The internet is like a 12 step group. Take what you need and leave the rest.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-17-2010, 7:31 PM
tonelar's Avatar
tonelar tonelar is offline
Dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Franpsycho
Posts: 5,981
iTrader: 114 / 100%
Default

Does DC still have a roster that looks suspiciously like ours?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-17-2010, 7:40 PM
Chatterbox Chatterbox is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonelar View Post
Does DC still have a roster that looks suspiciously like ours?
No, they expanded theirs to be combination of several states' so it covers almost everything.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-17-2010, 7:43 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Congress could pass a law destroying handgun rosters country wide.
Read: Elections matter.

Is it accurate to say that Heller's is the only model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment?
__________________

Last edited by 2Bear; 08-17-2010 at 8:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-17-2010, 8:12 PM
Knuckle Dragger's Avatar
Knuckle Dragger Knuckle Dragger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 86
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Congress could pass a law destroying handgun rosters country wide. However, that's not likely in the near term as California's is the only truly onerous one.

-Gene
I would suggest that the MA roster alone is more than sufficiently onerous....

Quote:
Originally Posted by greybeard View Post
I thought MA made ours look good?
...but when you consider the totality of our (MA) hand gun roster plus the AG's "consumer protection" regulations governing the sale of handguns, you have a scheme that far exceeds anything experienced by CA gun owners. Very few new guns are available here. Forget about even new Glock or Taurus pistols.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-17-2010, 8:20 PM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,320
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Dragger View Post
when you consider the totality of our (MA) hand gun roster plus the AG's "consumer protection" regulations governing the sale of handguns, you have a scheme that far exceeds anything experienced by CA gun owners. Very few new guns are available here. Forget about even new Glock or Taurus pistols.

You may rest assured that we Californians will come to your aid as soon as we are able to. Hold your ground, and we will relieve you when the necessary precedents are laid down. We're all in this together.

__________________
Mark J. Blair, NF6X
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-17-2010, 8:31 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
Is it accurate to say that Heller's is the only model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment?
No. SCOTUS said "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Nowhere did it say that Dick Heller's firearm was a singularly protected model.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory
341 Beach Road
Burlingame CA 94010
650-315-2210
http://CoyotePointArmory.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-17-2010, 8:50 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Knuckle Dragger View Post
I would suggest that the MA roster alone is more than sufficiently onerous....
Yours was the one that I almost added to my post above. I just wasn't sure and didn't want to jump the gun.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-17-2010, 9:01 PM
Knuckle Dragger's Avatar
Knuckle Dragger Knuckle Dragger is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 86
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
Yours was the one that I almost added to my post above. I just wasn't sure and didn't want to jump the gun.

-Gene
The roster isn't even the worst part. Were we to eliminate that nothing would change. The AG's regs would remain and there is no list of approved or prohibited handguns. The AGs has implemented their regulations through self-certification - the manufacturer certifies their firearm meet the regs and when the gun goes on sale, the AG sues them if they don't agree.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-17-2010, 10:11 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
No. SCOTUS said "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Nowhere did it say that Dick Heller's firearm was a singularly protected model.
I asked regarding that specific language as it struck me as odd when I saw it in Gene's release on Pena here, (though I did paraphrase it a bit out of context):

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=179227

Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for Dick Heller. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun’s certification through the bureaucracy.

“There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun,” said Mr. Thomas.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-17-2010, 10:15 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
“There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun,” said Mr. Thomas.[/I]
You're reading too much into that statement. Only one firearm has had a ruling pertain directly to it - though the core ruling of the case is that all common handguns are protected. "Explicitly ruled" doesn't mean "Explicitly ruled at the expense of all others."

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-17-2010, 10:20 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 383green View Post
You may rest assured that we Californians will come to your aid as soon as we are able to. Hold your ground, and we will relieve you when the necessary precedents are laid down. We're all in this together.

I'm generally pretty darn happy to be living in California, but the above really made me feel PROUD to be a Californian for the first time in a long time.

Reminds me of a Patton or MacArthur quote. Thanks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-17-2010, 10:39 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
However, that's not likely in the near term as California's is the only truly onerous one.

-Gene
Hey! Let's just get our California Senators to propose it in the next...

Oh, wait. Scratch that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-17-2010, 11:08 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So does the three judge panel determine if it needs to be sent back to the en banc panel for opinion, or can they just rule, (remand?), in favor of Nordyke per McDonald?

Will McDonald/Nordyke/Pena also lead to unraveling the one-per-month handgun and firearm waiting period restrictions? (Ooops, did I drool?)

What about the handgun demonstration specified in Penal Code 12071(b)(8)(D)? Would that survive constitutional scrutiny, (not that it's such bad thing to know how to use your gun, it's just bad to be constitutionally repugnant.)
__________________

Last edited by 2Bear; 08-17-2010 at 11:23 PM.. Reason: 12071(b)(8)(D) question added.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-17-2010, 11:49 PM
joedogboy joedogboy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: East Bay / Co-Co County
Posts: 1,444
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
Hey! Let's just get our California Senators to propose it in the next...

Oh, wait. Scratch that.
Hey, let's elect some new senators that will propose it!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-18-2010, 7:52 AM
hill billy hill billy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 2,619
iTrader: 144 / 99%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
So does the three judge panel determine if it needs to be sent back to the en banc panel for opinion, or can they just rule, (remand?), in favor of Nordyke per McDonald?
I believe Gene has said in the past that that is highly unlikely.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-18-2010, 10:55 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
Search fails to show any current threads specifically on this.

Is there hope that changes at the Federal level can result in abolishing the Ca. Approved Handgun roster? (I'm not a religious man, but I can still pray...)

Something along the lines of "Shall not be infringed?" Or what? Any hope?

(Waiting for CA legislature to abolish the nonsense certainly seems dubious at best.)
I believe that there is already a federal "law" that states precisely that (or actually a relatively low numbered amendment). What makes you think that the pols in CA would pay any attention to ANOTHER one?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-18-2010, 11:51 AM
BigDogatPlay's Avatar
BigDogatPlay BigDogatPlay is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Beautiful progressive Sonoma County
Posts: 7,387
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Bear View Post
So does the three judge panel determine if it needs to be sent back to the en banc panel for opinion, or can they just rule, (remand?), in favor of Nordyke per McDonald?
The 2A question in Nordyke is settled law thanks to McDonald. What is being re-heard is the original panel's determination, only now through the prism of McDonald, that Alameda County was within their rights and prerogatives to declare all county property to include the fairgrounds as a "sensitive place". As the CRPAF amici brilliantly points out, the county is on very thin ice when measured against the concept of a "fundemental right" and they showed no evidence or data that would support that conclusion and which would raise to the level of a compelling interest on the part of the state for their finding in adopting the ordinance.

Prior to higher rulings the three judge panel ruled that the county could do that, even though they ruled 2A incorporated. The later, higher, rulings have triggered a completely different level of requirements and counsel for the Nordykes has argued that a re-hearing was merited. The court agreed and the briefs are flowing in.

While nothing in a litigation is a slam dunk, I expect the "sensitive places" concept as applied to Alameda County ordinance is going to fall. There seems to be little wiggle room for them on it. The question then becomes does the county appeal and risk another landmark from the SCOTUS? Some of the CW on the matter leans toward the county cutting it's losses (after more than a decade) and giving up if they loose.

I hope they do.
__________________
-- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-18-2010, 12:07 PM
2Bear's Avatar
2Bear 2Bear is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EssEff
Posts: 1,690
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDogatPlay View Post
Some of the CW on the matter leans toward the county cutting it's losses (after more than a decade) and giving up if they loose.

I hope they do.
I hope so too! Thanks for the cogent closing, er, summary.

"They're headin' for the hills!"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-18-2010, 1:29 PM
dantodd dantodd is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Carlos
Posts: 9,362
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

2bear, can't quote right now. The panel will rule for one if the two parties if the facts known are adequate to make such a decision. If they feel there is need for more discovery or resolving some other question of fact rhett cann remand to district for further trial, very unlikely. The panel can't really just "punt" the case back to en banc panel or SCOTUS
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 5:35 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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.