![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I keep hearing about this dealer or that denying your right to do a transfer on gun X or requiring additional proof of residency in the DROS process etc.
How often and how widespread does this have to happen before we have adequate evidence that the entire DROS process is leglly flawed? if even those acting as agents of the state cannot in good faith follow the letter of the law when does it cease to be then fault of the agent and become simply an unconstitutionally vague law? What kind of evidence is admissible for such a challenge?
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
.....hmmmmmm......maybe someone needs to come up with a standard reporting form for refusal incidents.
This is excellent thinking dantodd. Kudos. .
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Its another good question dantodd, and ranks right up there with "how can gubmint deny you a CCW when you meet the character & HSC criteria"? The only way the ridiculous laws can be dealt with is to require the tinpot politicians and bureaucrats to be indicted for Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights. The only other way is . . .. .. well . . .. . it would get ugly.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
.
__________________
"Send money. We have lawyers and guns." -- Gene Hoffman |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Even some basic rights require permits or licenses. The right to assemble does not mean you can hold a demonstration anywhere, anytime. Marriage requires a license (I agree it probably shouldn't). And so on. And no president is going to change that, by the way (and Perry president is never going to happen anyway, but that one is for OT, I suppose). There are two other branches of government to deal with. And even Scalia wrote that "reasonable restrictions" do not - in his view - contradict the 2A. One battle at a time.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I dont need a permit to assemble with my friends in my own home, or on my front lawn. DROS stands clearly as an obstacle to the core right of accessing firearms, for the purpose.....and the Brady's will love this.....of keeping a firearm in mt home. The marriage analogy doesn't quite fit either, but I'm pretty sure that the process for aquiring a marriage license is administered pretty uniformly across the state. So as the OP stated.....if the laws are so complex that even those who are required to administer it often dont actually know the law, and there is little to no consequence to those who blantantly dont follow it or make up their own rules.....you NOW have a situation where something that might on some level be presumptively constitutional as merely a regulation, is now unconstituional in it the manner of it's application.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance" Quote for the day: Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
DROS act itself will not be found to have major constitutional issues alone. Things associated with DROS and overall purchase process may well be found wanting:
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
![]() No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. Last edited by bwiese; 08-30-2011 at 10:03 AM.. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
But if the state's agents are over broad in their enforcement of these rules they are unconstitutional, as applied.
Some examples: Big 5 requires more than a 240 hour waiting period. Many FFLs are reportedly not doing timely PPTs on demand Many FFLs are reportedly not giving HSC tests Can an FFL deny my 2A rights when acting as an agent of the state? Can an FFL deny my PPT because they "think" the gun is illgal? That is now a denial of a fundamental right without due process, in the event the gun is legal. Look at the reticence FFLs have shown, in the past, to deal with EBR PPTs. Certainly the FFL can choose what to sell but can they Sit in judgement of what guns are legal in a PPT? If the DoJ is going to force FFLs to issue HSCs then they cannot run out becuase that is delaying my right to keep and bear arms. This was one of the issues back when the DoJ was continually "out" of the certificates and dealers werent able to get them in stores.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
It's really DOJ's job, but I don't wanna be an enabler of DOJ actions. Quote:
Getting into relative minutiae on certain regulatory trivialities probably does not serve us well or get us that far. Going nuclear on DOJ or FFL for running out of HSC cards is kinda like an old friend of mine who called OSHA since his workplace ran out of toilet paper in the men's room. He's had a hard time finding employment since then. We need to work on the big sweeping things first.
__________________
Bill Wiese San Jose, CA CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member
![]() No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My point is that the transfer process is a big sweeping thing. While each thing seems little theynall work together to really make gun ownership unappealing and difficult.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What about having something added into the DROS laws, kinda like they did with the CCW laws, stating that an FFL may not add-to or take-away from the requirements listed. They can't add days to the wait, any of the acceptable proofs of residence MUST be accepted, they can't ask for 2nd proof of residence for long-gun, etc.
Simple put....here are the requirements, you can do no more and no less.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance" Quote for the day: Quote:
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ultimately the real issue is that you are forcing a private business to act as law enforcement and of course not giving any kind of qualified immunity and trying to de-link the government from any infringements their policies cause. Thismmeans that it is almost impossible for anyone to want to become an FFL, again this has a chilling effect on then exercise of thenright.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I vote 28th amendment!
__________________
Quote:
![]() |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You may be right. What purpose does the ID card serve. If they are going to do a background check anyway it doesn't identify you as not-prohibited. I think they'll have a hard time having a competency test, resembles voter literacy tests too much.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
First of all, if you guys are talking about the HSC, it's not an ID card. Second of all, Jim Crow voting laws were designed to exclude a certain class of citizens. Whereas the HSC exam is really easy to pass for just about anybody with some common sense, and the study guide is available for free online and costs only 50 cents in stores. The online version is even available in Spanish. Demonstrating that it is a major obstacle to gun ownership is going to be a tough one. You only have to take it once, and for handguns only. You know, I disapprove of just about any California gun law, but going after the HSC program is just ridiculous. There is much bigger and obvious fish to fry out there. And I for one believe that a basic exam like the HSC is actually a pretty good idea.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I think the HSC card will pass muster. I think requiring everyone to use FFL's for transfers, while looking the other way as many FFL's arbitrarily deny them, will not.
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
What happens if you fail the GSC test? And, it is not a one-time test.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Related to the above, couldn't the fees charged for DROS, PPT's and even LTC's be viewed the same as a "poll tax" allowing only "the rich" to be able to exercise their 2A rights?
__________________
![]() |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
We're all speculating because the jurisprudence is still being developed. It may be that Bill is too pessimistic - or that he is too optimistic. But Bill is right about the need to develop the more broad picture. Get the courts to properly define the core right to keep and bear arms and then we can start working at the detail level. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Oops, actually I think the argument is that it is a tax not passed by 2/3 majority. I'm not sure why it's in Federal Court now that you mention it...
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com Last edited by dantodd; 08-30-2011 at 7:59 PM.. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
But it may be that people who can demonstrate a lack of funding get a decrease in the fees which are required. There can already be "reasonable" fees on free speech. So, let's say that three months from now I want to have a parade to celebrate some particular philosophical point of view? I'm willing to bet that I'd be required to pay for reasonable costs to the city to provide police, block the roads that had to be blocked, maybe pay for some liability insurance as well. Heck, if I just want to put up a billboard someone is going to charge me for that - even if it's not the government. Reasonable fees will survive. The question is what is a "reasonable fee". We don't yet know that answer. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
For example, the test cannot possibly apply to deliberate uses of handguns, so let's look at accidental deaths from firearms in California. The ancestor to the HSC was the BFSC, and it was passed into law in 1994, so divide the data there - pre-1995 and 1995 and later. WISQARS tells us the stats. Here are the accidental fatalities, pre 1995: Code:
1981 - 1994, California Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000 All Races, Both Sexes, ICD-9 Codes: E922 Number of Crude Age-Adjusted Year Deaths Population*** Rate Rate** 1981 148 24,286,016 0.61 0.54 1982 102 24,820,028 0.41 0.36 1983 124 25,360,065 0.49 0.45 1984 147 25,844,407 0.57 0.52 1985 176 26,441,102 0.67 0.59 1986 133 27,102,159 0.49 0.44 1987 141 27,777,037 0.51 0.47 1988 149 28,464,180 0.52 0.49 1989 199 29,218,118 0.68 0.65 1990 124 29,950,111 0.41 0.39 1991 136 30,470,736 0.45 0.43 1992 118 30,974,659 0.38 0.37 1993 123 31,274,928 0.39 0.39 1994 138 31,484,435 0.44 0.44 Code:
1995 111 31,696,582 0.35 0.34 1996 142 32,018,834 0.44 0.44 1997 80 32,486,010 0.25 0.25 1998 52 32,987,675 0.16 0.1 1999 47 33,499,204 0.14 0.14 2000 66 33,871,648 0.19 0.19 2001 97 34,485,623 0.28 0.28 2002 44 34,876,194 0.13 0.12 2003 68 35,251,107 0.19 0.19 2004 50 35,558,419 0.14 0.14 2005 146 35,795,255 0.41 0.40 2006 68 35,979,208 0.19 0.18 2007 43 36,226,122 0.12 0.11 Compare to the whole US - including, of course, California: Code:
1981 - 1998, United States Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000 All Races, Both Sexes, ICD-9 Codes: E922 Number of Crude Age-Adjusted Year Deaths Population*** Rate Rate** 1981 1,871 229,465,316 0.82 0.76 1982 1,756 231,664,211 0.76 0.72 1983 1,695 233,792,237 0.73 0.69 1984 1,668 235,825,040 0.71 0.68 1985 1,649 237,924,038 0.69 0.67 1986 1,452 240,133,048 0.60 0.58 1987 1,440 242,289,046 0.59 0.58 1988 1,501 244,499,040 0.61 0.60 1989 1,489 246,819,195 0.60 0.59 1990 1,416 249,464,396 0.57 0.55 1991 1,441 252,980,942 0.57 0.57 1992 1,409 256,514,231 0.55 0.54 1993 1,521 259,918,595 0.59 0.58 1994 1,356 263,125,826 0.52 0.51 1995 1,225 266,278,403 0.46 0.46 1996 1,134 269,394,291 0.42 0.42 1997 981 272,646,932 0.36 0.36 1998 866 275,854,116 0.31 0.31 1999 824 279,040,181 0.30 0.29 2000 776 281,421,906 0.28 0.27 2001 802 285,081,556 0.28 0.28 2002 762 287,803,914 0.26 0.26 2003 730 290,326,418 0.25 0.25 2004 649 293,045,739 0.22 0.22 2005 789 295,753,151 0.27 0.27 2006 642 298,593,212 0.22 0.21 2007 613 301,579,895 0.20 0.20 So, there's no particularly good reason to suggest the HSC program is especially effective. Now, the data doesn't split the deaths between handguns and long guns. It's possible that the handgun deaths in CA are vastly lower than the national handgun rate, but we just cannot tell that from this level of data.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Sig line material here!!
![]()
__________________
![]() To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it "I will talk with you no more. I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud) |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Ignorant voters are a much larger threat to liberty than ignorant shooters. This is the kind of reasoning that gets us chip by chip to the state of "reasonable" restrictions on our rights that obtains today in Kalifornia.
![]() Quote:
__________________
![]() To have it you must live it And like love, don't you see To keep it you must give it "I will talk with you no more. I will go now, and fight you." (Red Cloud) |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Whether the HSC is effective or not is not relevant here anyway. I thought we were talking constitutionality. My point is - if you're going to make a point of the unconstitutionality of some California firearms laws, the HSC test is not a very good case to make. Nor the principle of DROS. As Bill stated earlier in this thread, there are a lot of more obvious things to go after, like the 10-day waiting period, or the so-called high cap mags, the one-handgun-per-30-day limit, etc.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
And I acknowledged the handgun/firearm issue.
__________________
[Carol Ann voice]The Legislature is baaa-ack .... [/Carol Ann voice] There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners. The details only count after the Governor signs the bills. Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs. ![]() |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hopefully was can agree that requiring a test to exercise a right is a burden on that right. Then the question becomes whether or not that burden is unreasonable. If, as Librarian showed, the HSC isn't effective what purpose does it serve and how is a burden that serves no demonstrable purpose reasonable?
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#31
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
We're apparently looking at the same data the other side's economists would be looking at to justify the HSC program. If the HSC regulations don't "do" anything (except function as a complete ban on handguns until the condition is satisfied) - it's a recurring fee, certainly not a database, and doesn't appear to further the state's stated interest of handgun injury/fatality - the regulation is very probably, or at least very possibly, unconstitutional.
I don't think the OP is looking to leapfrog HSC or DROS ahead of other forthcoming cases (which you'll see sooner than many think); it's my understanding that we're simply discussing the constitutionality of these sorts of regulatory schemes. -Brandon Quote:
__________________
Brandon Combs I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead. My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yes. It's a mental exercise on which parts of the transfer process could withstand strict scrutiny. I didn't intend to suggest that the discussion should be about which cases should be pursued in which order.
__________________
Coyote Point Armory 341 Beach Road Burlingame CA 94010 650-315-2210 http://CoyotePointArmory.com |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Any fee for a fundamental right has to only really cover the costs of administering the system itself.
NICS is free to use, but CA opted out. As such, DROS can only really charge for registering a handgun. There is an argument that any fee to background check for e.g. a long arm isn't the least intrusive means since CA could just tell CA FFLs to use NICS. Heh. -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
![]() |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Wait, California doesn't use NICS at all?
I thought they ran both. Wow. They would. This is the only state that tries to be its own mini-country. I would say that is a pretty reasonable argument. One worth making to the "budget concerned" governor and legislature...oh wait, they want your $25 a pop and now they want to use it for other stuff. If the bill to divert DROS fees passes, can that make the basis for attack stronger? |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |