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
  #161  
Old 01-25-2013, 11:15 AM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Predictions

Quote:
Originally Posted by courtc2911 View Post
What are CalGunner's personal speculation on the chances Yee's Bullet Button ban will pass? Consider of course CA is now entirely Democrat controlled... :-(

Do you think the chances are 10%, 50%, 95%???
My prediction is that as long as it grandfathers in existing bullet button guns, it will easily pass through the legislature, and under pressure, Brown will sign it.

I'd give it a 80% chance of happening.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 01-26-2013, 7:33 AM
edwardsb edwardsb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If they keep opening up registration, doesn't that make AWB ineffective? Just wait when they want to make a change and then register it and you are in compliance without any worry of legal hassle.

Maybe it would be more effective for them just to keep registration open, I believe Maryland has open registration for there definitions of assault weapons.

If too much info, please delete or PM me to remove
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 01-26-2013, 9:50 AM
JoshuaS's Avatar
JoshuaS JoshuaS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,617
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Not all of the Dems are as radical on this as others. Quite a few from the central valley cannot afford to push to hard for this. Just because the Dems have a super majority, doesn't mean every single one of them would vote against a veto...quite a few could lose big time.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 01-28-2013, 8:25 PM
Rob Roy's Avatar
Rob Roy Rob Roy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Jose, NorCal
Posts: 1,258
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wonder if there is anything we can do to prevent this bill from becoming a law? This bill is such a waste of taxpayers' money as it's totally uncalled for. I haven't heard of any crime committed with a BB'ed rifle... Seems like a solution to a non existent problem with one objective in mind - to harass law abiding gun owners.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 01-28-2013, 9:02 PM
CraigC's Avatar
CraigC CraigC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 81
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any of you who believe there's any chance that Brow would veto this, are fooling yourselves. IIRC, the governor has 3 options with regards to any bill that lands on his desk. He can sign it, veto it, or "punt," basically letting it sit and it'll go into effect anyway.

The media is NOT our friend. Public shows of solidarity will either not be covered, or will only focus on Cletus and his inbred kin. We must fight this every step of the way. Every committee, every vote. Hammer the emails, faxes, and switchboards.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 01-29-2013, 11:55 AM
rritterson rritterson is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 80
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I, like a few others, have a curiosity question about some of the terminology in the bill. I wonder if it has every been the topic of a court case or DOJ memo.

Can someone either tell me who would have access to case history, or knows it very well, so I can PM that person, or could one of those people PM me?
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 01-29-2013, 12:56 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,750
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigC View Post
Any of you who believe there's any chance that Brow would veto this, are fooling yourselves. IIRC, the governor has 3 options with regards to any bill that lands on his desk. He can sign it, veto it, or "punt," basically letting it sit and it'll go into effect anyway.

The media is NOT our friend. Public shows of solidarity will either not be covered, or will only focus on Cletus and his inbred kin. We must fight this every step of the way. Every committee, every vote. Hammer the emails, faxes, and switchboards.
Based on his inaction as attorney general when oll's got going, I'd give it a 50/50 chance for veto.
__________________
Play Omega Reaction on Steam Oct 7th!


http://store.steampowered.com/app/516520
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 01-29-2013, 2:04 PM
Lost.monkey's Avatar
Lost.monkey Lost.monkey is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Palmdale, CA
Posts: 580
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://gunowners.org/nws9911.htm

<snip>
Registration and confiscation go hand-in-hand

The semi-automatic firearms to be seized were registered with the state pursuant to former Attorney General Dan Lungren's instructions. He had allowed thousands of gun owners to register these guns after the initial deadline for doing so had lapsed.

GOA founder and chairman, Senator Bill Richardson, blistered California officials after plans to confiscate firearms became public.

In good faith, these gun owners handed over their names, addresses and firearms information to the government. But now the state was reversing course.

GOA's founder and Chairman, Senator Bill Richardson, sharply rebuked administration officials after news of the documents leaked out.

"This is what law abiding gun owners get for trying to do the right thing by registering their guns according to the Attorney General's instructions," said Sen. Richardson.

"This proves our point once again: the ultimate goal of registration is to facilitate confiscation! If you don't believe me, just look at what's happening right now in Australia."

Not surprisingly, once the official documents were leaked, the DOJ denied that they ever planned to confiscate anything and that these documents were merely "drafts" and "for discussion only" and that they had no plans to implement them at that time.

"It never fails," Richardson said. "As soon as these guys get caught with their hands in the 'cookie jar,' they lie about what they're trying to do."
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 01-29-2013, 2:08 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 9,490
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

This all harkens back to the SKS confiscation.

Business as usual.

-hanko
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf


Originally Posted By System Message:
Why can't you guys participate in a simple discussion about some guy's mom making a porno without violating the COC? This is why we can't have nice things.



“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 01-29-2013, 9:02 PM
bubbapug1's Avatar
bubbapug1 bubbapug1 is offline
Dazed & Confused
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: South South OC
Posts: 6,411
iTrader: 256 / 100%
Default

Many posters refer to Yee as an idiot. Why is it an idiot can get elected to the senate and threaten your right to own an ar, even with a bb.

He's not an idiot. He has a plan, an agenda, and he's scaring the wits out of gun owners in California.

This guy is serious so we need to respect the threat he is and deal with it. I'm sure he's also polling his base to determine his strength. If he gets the bill passed you can bet he will run for AG with our gun rights scalp on the front of his jacket.

Get a clue guys, this time he's done his homework and we helped him write the term paper.

He has sandy hook at his back and his sails are full. What we need to do is somehow rattle some dems into understanding this will one day have a backlash.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 01-30-2013, 3:27 PM
killmime1234's Avatar
killmime1234 killmime1234 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbapug1 View Post
Many posters refer to Yee as an idiot. Why is it an idiot can get elected to the senate and threaten your right to own an ar, even with a bb.

He's not an idiot. He has a plan, an agenda, and he's scaring the wits out of gun owners in California.

This guy is serious so we need to respect the threat he is and deal with it. I'm sure he's also polling his base to determine his strength. If he gets the bill passed you can bet he will run for AG with our gun rights scalp on the front of his jacket.

Get a clue guys, this time he's done his homework and we helped him write the term paper.

He has sandy hook at his back and his sails are full. What we need to do is somehow rattle some dems into understanding this will one day have a backlash.
Have you spoken with him in person? He articulates like trained chimp.

Have you read the first incarnation of his bill last year? The one he wrote, himself? It had to be redone several times by different lawyers to even get close to becoming a threat.

I think "idiot" is more than fair, although I don't condone name calling.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 01-30-2013, 6:10 PM
goodlookin1's Avatar
goodlookin1 goodlookin1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,475
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

For those proposing featureless: How do you propose this since the "barrel shroud" is now a feature? You gonna leave that off with a bare barrel?

Not looking for conversation on this as we need to keep mum....but just food for thought.
__________________
www.FirearmReviews.net
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 01-30-2013, 6:16 PM
jj805's Avatar
jj805 jj805 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Moorpark
Posts: 4,434
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodlookin1 View Post
For those proposing featureless: How do you propose this since the "barrel shroud" is now a feature? You gonna leave that off with a bare barrel?

Not looking for conversation on this as we need to keep mum....but just food for thought.
It is a feature for a PISTOL, not a rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 01-30-2013, 7:49 PM
goodlookin1's Avatar
goodlookin1 goodlookin1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,475
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj805 View Post
It is a feature for a PISTOL, not a rifle.
Doh! How right you are, thanks.

I have a question on procedure: Does the part that says "For the purposes of this section, a fixed magazine shall mean....." get inserted into the California CCR 5469 as an additional definition?

As if CA gun laws weren't convoluted enough already!
__________________
www.FirearmReviews.net
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 01-30-2013, 8:21 PM
jj805's Avatar
jj805 jj805 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Moorpark
Posts: 4,434
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodlookin1 View Post
Doh! How right you are, thanks.

I have a question on procedure: Does the part that says "For the purposes of this section, a fixed magazine shall mean....." get inserted into the California CCR 5469 as an additional definition?

As if CA gun laws weren't convoluted enough already!
First, IANAL. I belive it will be an additional definition. IMHO it really doesn't matter as far as 30515 is concerned, as the bill amends which magazine definition 30515 uses to specify an AW.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 01-30-2013, 8:25 PM
jpigeon's Avatar
jpigeon jpigeon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Moreno Valley Province, Peoples Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 870
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

I am in panic mode
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 01-31-2013, 9:20 AM
goodlookin1's Avatar
goodlookin1 goodlookin1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,475
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj805 View Post
First, IANAL. I belive it will be an additional definition. IMHO it really doesn't matter as far as 30515 is concerned, as the bill amends which magazine definition 30515 uses to specify an AW.
The issue with this is that the Haynie vs Pleasanton case specifically rules the definition of "fixed" as otherwise:

Quote:
Plaintiff Haynie was arrested in Alameda County for allegedly violating the AWCA , when Pleasanton Police thought that his Colt AR-15 was a banned weapon. However, the rifle possessed by Haynie was equipped with a “bullet button,” a device which required the use of a tool to remove the magazine,

...(redacted)...

Plaintiffs implicitly concede, as they must, that both California’s regulations and the Assault Weapons Identification Guide issued by the California Department of Justice accurately recite California law, and demonstrate that Haynie’s gun was a “fixed magazine” weapon not banned by the AWCA
So the law currently doesnt say fixed, the regulations dont specifically mention fixed, but the new proposed changes do and basically add in a new meaning of "fixed magazine".

My question is, which definition will supersede the other: The new proposed definition, or the Haynie court case definition that was decided prior to the new legislation (assuming it passes)?
__________________
www.FirearmReviews.net
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 01-31-2013, 4:54 PM
Prince50's Avatar
Prince50 Prince50 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 880
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Probably, but maybe not. Look at the 50 cal ban..... It created a new catagory of weapon that could not be included in the previous ban.... I bought a 50BMG Barrett 82A1 with the intent of removing the swing down magazine after implementation.... It never happened, as the last release of the ban, included the provision that any gun in a configuration previously covered, would not be allowed. I still own the BMG 82A1, but it still has a Bullet-Button® in lieu of the swing down magazine, as registration did not make it an Assault Weapon, it made it a registered 50BMG.

Beware this Yee guy, he is not an idiot.

Darin
__________________
Gene Hoffman regarding the release of my first Bullet Button

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1&postcount=81

www.bulletbutton.com
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 01-31-2013, 6:11 PM
jj805's Avatar
jj805 jj805 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Moorpark
Posts: 4,434
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodlookin1 View Post
The issue with this is that the Haynie vs Pleasanton case specifically rules the definition of "fixed" as otherwise:



So the law currently doesnt say fixed, the regulations dont specifically mention fixed, but the new proposed changes do and basically add in a new meaning of "fixed magazine".

My question is, which definition will supersede the other: The new proposed definition, or the Haynie court case definition that was decided prior to the new legislation (assuming it passes)?
I see where you are going with this, but I don't think that I have the correct answer for you. IANAL and the answer about the procedure in this case is a little above my pay grade. Sorry. If you do find out, please PM me the answer. I would like to know as well.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 01-31-2013, 6:46 PM
DrVino's Avatar
DrVino DrVino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 371
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I say we just shut down comments and send people looking for info here:

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-is...nia/2013-2014/
__________________

mala tempora currunt
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:28 PM
jj805's Avatar
jj805 jj805 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Moorpark
Posts: 4,434
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrVino View Post
I say we just shut down comments and send people looking for info here:

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-is...nia/2013-2014/
Why? I don't see any of the answers to the questions being asked here. I know that most of the questions cannot be answered, but some can. There is no discussion there, and it dose not solely pertain to CA.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:46 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,608
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodlookin1 View Post
The issue with this is that the Haynie vs Pleasanton case specifically rules the definition of "fixed" as otherwise:



So the law currently doesnt say fixed, the regulations dont specifically mention fixed, but the new proposed changes do and basically add in a new meaning of "fixed magazine".

My question is, which definition will supersede the other: The new proposed definition, or the Haynie court case definition that was decided prior to the new legislation (assuming it passes)?
The new legislation becomes the law of the land until challenged and ruled on by the court.

Laws are changed all the time. The court decision is not law, it is the clarification/regulation/review/interpretation of the law. It does set how the law is implemented in this case and interpreted as to what is "removable". The court can invalidate a law completely, but the courts do not make the laws themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 01-31-2013, 7:47 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,438
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
This all harkens back to the SKS confiscation.

Business as usual.

-hanko
i remember that fiasco. thanks lundgren
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 01-31-2013, 8:11 PM
tpc13 tpc13 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 521
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yee is a Hitler in the making just a different face
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 01-31-2013, 8:26 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,438
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Roy View Post
I wonder if there is anything we can do to prevent this bill from becoming a law? This bill is such a waste of taxpayers' money as it's totally uncalled for. I haven't heard of any crime committed with a BB'ed rifle... Seems like a solution to a non existent problem with one objective in mind - to harass law abiding gun owners.
there never needs to be a reason to harass gun owners. that is the point. we know their plan and it was leaked out in NY. confiscation is the goal. too bad the sheep in this country and state are too stupid to see it.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 01-31-2013, 8:43 PM
LBDamned's Avatar
LBDamned LBDamned is offline
Made in the USA
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free in AZ!!! yes, it's worth the Pain to make it happen!
Posts: 10,035
iTrader: 51 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpc13 View Post
Yee is a Hitler in the making just a different face
are you saying he contracted syphilis?

Karma is a b!tch.
__________________

-----------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by FireCloud9 View Post
We're screwed. The left was fooled by Obama and the right is being fooled by Trump.
My Simple Life of FREEDOM feels good in My Soul... Good luck CGN Brothers
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 01-31-2013, 9:07 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,750
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random_Monkey View Post
How would this apply if i have a stripped lower right now? Would that stripped lower be considered grandfathered in? Or do i now have an incentive to finish the lower as fast as possible?
Would people please stop asking these ****ing questions.... Are you trying to get language thrown in to the next revision of the bill to ban finishing your lower or what? When the final bill is submitted for vote, and if it is passed and signed by the governor, you'll have another 5 months or so to go over all these details before it goes into effect.
__________________
Play Omega Reaction on Steam Oct 7th!


http://store.steampowered.com/app/516520

Last edited by stix213; 01-31-2013 at 9:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:30 PM
IPSICK's Avatar
IPSICK IPSICK is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 4,200
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrVino View Post
I say we just shut down comments and send people looking for info here:

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-is...nia/2013-2014/
Ironically, the people on that site encourage discussion here. It is the forum members and moderators here that discourage discussion.
__________________
"When you get the (men) to the range, you just get the men. But when you bring the (women) to the range, you get the (whole family). And that's what's going to save our 2nd Amendment."--Dianna Liedorff

"Since self-preservation is the 1st law of nature, we assert the...right to self-defense. The Constitution...clearly affirms the right of every American...to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution." --Malcolm X
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 01-31-2013, 11:54 PM
jeffrice6's Avatar
jeffrice6 jeffrice6 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 4,184
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
This all harkens back to the SKS confiscation.

Business as usual.

-hanko
This!
__________________
WTB: S&W 617 4" 10 shot Pre-Lock
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 02-01-2013, 9:22 AM
goodlookin1's Avatar
goodlookin1 goodlookin1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,475
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
The new legislation becomes the law of the land until challenged and ruled on by the court.

Laws are changed all the time. The court decision is not law, it is the clarification/regulation/review/interpretation of the law. It does set how the law is implemented in this case and interpreted as to what is "removable". The court can invalidate a law completely, but the courts do not make the laws themselves.
Quite.

But in this case, there was a court case that essentially ruled on the definition of "fixed" before this law was proposed. Now comes this law which has a definition of "fixed magazine" that is different than what the court ruled the definition to mean.

IANAL, but if courts give interpretations of the law, which supersede the language of the bill, I would take the Haynie v Pleasanton ruling to supersede the definition proposed in this new legislation.

See what I'm getting at here? Rulings come down after laws are enacted. In this case, they are proposing a law with a definition that has already been defined and ruled on, and is different from that ruling.
__________________
www.FirearmReviews.net
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 02-01-2013, 9:51 AM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodlookin1 View Post
See what I'm getting at here? Rulings come down after laws are enacted. In this case, they are proposing a law with a definition that has already been defined and ruled on, and is different from that ruling.
If passed into law, it invalidates the court's ruling. Legislatures do that all the time.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 02-02-2013, 11:59 AM
DefendTen's Avatar
DefendTen DefendTen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randian View Post
If passed into law, it invalidates the court's ruling. Legislatures do that all the time.
This might normally be the case in state legislatures yet with respect to Supreme Court rulings, not so much. Article VI (Supremacy Clause) makes the Constitution supreme law of the land, and even the Congress cannot (effectively) restate law to work-around (for lack of a better term) the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Doing so could subject the new (restated with same affect) law to immediate stay by only one SCOTUS Associate Justice, of course, after procedural issues in district court.

This is what I, personal, find interesting about SB 47 in the face of Heller and McDonald. The hubris in pushing forward with such legislation, in light of both these Supreme Court rulings is telling. Sen. Yee must certainly be aware of the “common use” doctrine adopted in Heller from Miller, which could effectively thwart enforcement of this draconian folly if signed into law. Although, methinks Brown is well aware of this probability.

I’d be pleased to explain my basis in more detail, however, given this is my first post here on CalGuns I’ll reserve further comment until more appropriate.
__________________
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth,
general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."
Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 02-02-2013, 12:47 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 1,663
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Legislatures can and do overrule courts all the time. The courts would have to come up with a constitutionally founded basis for overturning a duly passed piece of legislation.

Yee isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer - in fact his IQ appears to hover right at about room temperature. But he knows that the fix is pretty much in (at least in this Circuit) and it will be years, if ever, before his statute faces any meaningful judicial review.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 02-02-2013, 8:39 PM
lja's Avatar
lja lja is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bless all your hearts - you sound like frogs in a cauldron debating whether it's getting hotter in there. While I so admire the spirit and the fight of Cal Guns and the other RKBA organizations, and donate heavily to most, methinks California is toast - in so many ways and not just from a 2nd Amendment standpoint. We passed the tipping point last November. The lunatics are now running the asylum.

My answer? Move to Texas or Arizona - just like so many former Californians have done. There comes a time to accept what you can't change. Sorry for the negative outlook - and I look forward to the looming fight, but all the folks at the Alamo understood the outcome (and fought anyway). Will there be an Alamo in California?
__________________
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- President John F. Kennedy
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:00 PM
Scarecrow Repair's Avatar
Scarecrow Repair Scarecrow Repair is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Internet Tough Guy(tm), them thar hills
Posts: 2,426
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lja View Post
We passed the tipping point last November. The lunatics are now running the asylum.
Welllllll .... the good thing about their super-majority is that both parties have no more excuses about Republican obstructionism. The Republicans have been campaigning on their only use, that of blocking budgets, and might have to get serious about choosing electable candidates, which in California means STFU about abortion and immigration. The Democrats have been able to make all sorts of stupid promises to unions, knowing the Republicans would block it, and might have to be realistic about finances for a change.

Not that anything will happen right away, it will take a year or two at least for even signs of sanity to appear. But I won't be surprised if things are remarkably different five years from now.

Both parties have been like two kids at school, swinging their fists and yelling "Lemme at him!" while a teacher holds the two apart. They could avoid reality as long as they had the teacher as an excuse. Now they don't.

The Dems just got a temporary surprise morale boost with an unexpected $5B increase in tax revenue over last year / last month expectations. But much of that probably came from people pulling in income early to avoid the Jan 1st tax increases, so their dreams of new money found under the seat cushions are going to be hit even harder in a few months. Too bad for the rest of us, who they will hurt in the meantime.
__________________
Mention the Deacons for Defense and Justice and make both left and right wingnuts squirm
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 02-02-2013, 10:56 PM
SlobRay's Avatar
SlobRay SlobRay is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Slidell, LA
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm sorry to say it, but that I think CA is screwed for a long time. I think that the CA legislature will be emboldened by the recent events in NY. They will pass this and every gun control measure that is put before them and depending on what Jerry Brown does, there will be many years of court battles to try to overturn the laws that have been passed, and even then I'm not so sure if these laws will be overturned.


Ray
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 02-03-2013, 2:18 AM
Khyber's Avatar
Khyber Khyber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 240
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshuaS View Post
I think Brown may be smart enough, even if he were as anti-gun as these dumtards, to see certain consequences of this act, similar to what another legislative act in 2006 tried to put an end to. Vague enough? He may well veto Hopefully it doesn't get that far
Hopefully our legislature as learned its lesson from Leland Yee's other costly bill.

Any of who are gamers remember the anti-gamer legislation which was authored by Leland Yee which the State of California passed and later overturned by the Supreme Court that cost the State of California over $1.8 million in legal fees alone? Thats just an example of how bad Yee's record/legislation as been. He as costed us tax dollars in the past and continues to infringe on our constitutional rights.

Supreme Court - 1
Leland Yee - 0

Lets keep the scorecard that way.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/a...edibility.aspx

Last edited by Khyber; 02-03-2013 at 2:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 02-03-2013, 2:24 AM
zvardan's Avatar
zvardan zvardan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 551
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Leland Yee, in the end, is nothing more than a political footnote aspiring to be a coffee stain in an old text book.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 02-03-2013, 6:53 AM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 5,095
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lja View Post
Bless all your hearts - you sound like frogs in a cauldron debating whether it's getting hotter in there. While I so admire the spirit and the fight of Cal Guns and the other RKBA organizations, and donate heavily to most, methinks California is toast - in so many ways and not just from a 2nd Amendment standpoint. We passed the tipping point last November. The lunatics are now running the asylum.

My answer? Move to Texas or Arizona - just like so many former Californians have done. There comes a time to accept what you can't change. Sorry for the negative outlook - and I look forward to the looming fight, but all the folks at the Alamo understood the outcome (and fought anyway). Will there be an Alamo in California?
I agree. Even if there is a snowball's chance of getting even a modicum of Californias gun control laws taken off the books, IT WILL BE DECADES BEFORE THAT HAPPENS. I will probably be dead of old age. I want the same gun rights as people just across the state border, now.
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 02-06-2013, 10:14 AM
WindwalkerAmerican's Avatar
WindwalkerAmerican WindwalkerAmerican is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: San Martin, CA
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Califeinstein already has many of the proposed laws enforced here. i figure Califeinstein is the prototype for all the nations gun restrictions.
__________________
The second amendment is about WE THE PEOPLE having the "right" to protect ourselves from bad government going rogue
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 10:31 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.