|
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
|
||||
|
||||
if courts go in our favor?
what can we challenge or appeal. i'm looking for gene on this.
__________________
Weatherby Vanguard 30-06, Ruger 10/22, Mossberg 500, sig-p6/225, springfield GI 45, . |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
From Sarah Brady:
If the Supreme Court does not reverse the federal appeals court decision, gun laws everywhere could be at risk… …from the long-standing machine gun ban…to the 1968 Gun Control Act…to the Brady background check law. …to your local and state laws…like the ones in California and New Jersey banning military-style Assault Weapons… and many more.
__________________
Outlaw Josey Wales "Not a hard man to track. Leaves dead men wherever he goes." ~Captain Terrill |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!
__________________
Weatherby Vanguard 30-06, Ruger 10/22, Mossberg 500, sig-p6/225, springfield GI 45, . |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Last night, I heard a VERY interesting interview of a Supreme Court analyst on a talk radio show. As it sits right now, there are 4 Justices who are most likely going to favor "our" side, so there needs to be a "swing" vote cast. His opinion was that it could boil down to Justice Kennedy (a Reagan appointee), but also stated that Justice Ginsberg MIGHT come through, too (Ginsberg supposedly owns guns, and goes target practising quite often).
If the Supreme Court rules in our favor, there will be a myriad of challenges, AND the outcome of their decisions will supposedly get kicked down to an Appellate Court for some sort of review. Things are starting to look a lot better, but the fat lady hasn't sung....yet! |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
I've not convinced the State laws, so long as they are not outright bans, wont stand up to a Constitutional challenge. Even with the 2nd Amendment recognized as an individual right by SCOTUS, does it really change all that much?
Take this into consideration...over 40 States already recognize RKBA in their state Constitutions. Current gun laws in those states have stood up to 2nd Amendment challenges.
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Another that could be challenged is PC626.9, the prohibition of firearms within 1000 feet of a school. This on the Federal level I believe was struck down already, but I would have to do my homework on it- Im not sure. Another could be the assualt weapons ban with its plethora of superficial criteria that makes some weapons 'bad' while leaving some other almost identical wepaons 'okay'. Those are the ones I think 'Heller' could really grease the skids for...
__________________
Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat “Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Since it says "bear arms" in addition to just keeping arms. Maybe we can get Alaska/Vermont style carry in 50 states. The original intent was not that we would need a "permission slip" to carry a gun.
I have a Cali CCW. It would be nice not to have to go through the process every two years. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
On your other point. I can see the AW ban going away. But I think the best we can hope for is shall issue CCW in CA. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Just my opinion, but I don't think you will see prohibitions on open carry in city limits/incorporated areas abolished. With all the sheeple out there the other side could make the arguement that open carry compares to yelling fire in a crowded theater. That it could cause unnecessary panic. That it could be considered a public nuisance. Keep in mind that the ONLY law this ruling will have an immediate effect on is the DC gun ban. Every other law has to be challenged in court. That means that first, a person or group of persons, has to have standing to challenge the law. Then they have to lawyer up. Then go through the legal process - all the way to the USSC if necessary. That means BIG dollars. And it has to happen for each and every law you want struck down. As Bweise has hinted, things are already underway in some areas. But the process is very long. It will most likely take years before we see significant change. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is mostly because we have no pro-RKBA statement in our state constitution. So I hardly see how things can get any worse just because of this ruling. If they go against us, all that happens is we continue this grim year after year fight to stop the erosion of our gun rights in this state. In other states, a bad Heller decision will mean next to nothing because of their state constitutions. However, people in those states can look forward to another Clinton-style AW ban on the federal level somewhere down the road. We won't care as much about that in this state, because we already suffer from a AW ban that isn't going to go away, ever, without a favorable Heller decision. Whether it goes for us or against us, I don't see Heller making a huge immediate, instant, impact on this state. In fact, the only immediate fall-out from this case is whether I'll be able to win those arguments when people tell me that the 2A is a collective right. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
I disagree. An unfavorable ruling won't have an immediate effect, but our enemies will be emboldened beyond anything they can dream of.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Gun rights in CA are probably completely dead from now until forever unless Heller goes our way. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Full confiscation?
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
It could be modified, not struck down. California could argue that the law should be maintained, with the only change that registrations are re-opened. That would leave the law mostly intact but would allow Californians to exercise their RKBA. This type of modification of laws is going to be a common outcome in a situation like this, and we should factor that in to our expectations.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"This is mostly because we have no pro-RKBA statement in our state constitution."
This is what I can't understand. Our state constitution is about what the STATE can do and what powers we have ceeded to it, not about what rights We the People have. Take into account Art. 3, sec. 1 of the Constitution of the State of California, which says that the Constitution of the US is the law of the land, and I fail to see how and why the politicians and the courts are able to legislate and rule as they do. We have gotten away from the concept "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and are at the point of "the people derive their rights from the beneficence of the State." And all too many people seem to find no problem with that concept. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
A few of things that we need to consider:
1. Elitist politicians consider the constitution to be a "living" document to be changed at their will to further their political ambitions and suit their agendas. 2. There are people out there that prefer freebies in the form of welfare rather than obtain things through hard work. Politicians take advantage of that, and promise those people that under their [Politicians] care, they will be taken care of. No real incentive is offered to encourage people to free themselves of the welfare prison. 3. Since these welfare recipients live in blighted areas ravaged by crime and violence, and a majority of them barely have a 6th grade education, they believe what the politicians tell them and the politicians blame the inanimate object rather than the offender who is probably the son or daughter of these welfare recipients. If the court rules in favor of a collective right, the Confiscations will begin and the politicians will justify it like they always do. And of course that will be to protect the children. So, that's my analysis. I'm betting on a 6-3 split in our favor of an individual right, even though it's been said that Scalia leans more toward a collective right than an individual right. So I'm thinking that Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Ginsberg and Kennedy will vote for an individual right. But then I am just regurgitating what analysts more knowledgeable than I are saying. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On a personal note....
I have wanted to get out of California for over a decade now, but haven't for one reason or another, mostly because my wife is happy here. But if they started full confiscation of firearms in this state, I would: 1. Immediately jump in my truck and move my guns to relatives outside of the state until 2. I moved out of this state with or without my wife, which would happen within months of a confiscation bill being passed. That would seriously be the end of my stay in CA, and that would be the end of the taxes and income that I bring to this state. My expectation is that most gun owners in CA would think and act the same way. I don't know if the politicians in this hell hole give a crap about that, but there is such a thing as a line too far, and gun confiscation is one such line. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Like Piper said, I think 653k as well would have to be reorganized if SCOTUS votes in our favor. So batons, nunchaku, switchblades, hell even a cane sword would be legal to carry by the LAC (law abiding citizen)
__________________
I will vote for a donkey-sex maniac if he's pro-gun. -BWiese |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
There are some strategic reasons that we should be a touch careful after a positive Heller in California. There are other circuits where we'd like to make incorporation via the 14th amendment against the states very clear *cough, cough* Chicago *cough, cough*. Here, there are a bunch of things that aren't invalidating entire laws but would significantly broaden how and which toys we can get in California. AW permits comes to mind. When the 2nd means an individual right, then all sorts of things that were arbitrary under state law need more than arbitrary backing by the state to deny you. Once we get a couple of the other circuits going our way, it will be high time to really push in the 9th. One of the short term cases that will be directly impacted by Heller/Parker will be the Alameda Gun Show ban lawsuit. We may just get incorporation then and there right after Parker/Heller. From there we should go after AW's piece by piece and then start litigating some of the errors in State Law with the fact that its an individual right putting wind in the sails of those cases. AW restrictions will get scaled back strongly first. Then we go after the "safe" handgun list, and finally may issue CCW or the ban on open carry. Somewhere in there we'll have a good chance to make the "no issue" of CLEO letters for NFA weapons go away as well. That all utterly ignores what goodies we may get from other Circuits on the federal level. As a note - Federal laws should NOT be challenged in the 9th Circuit. There are other far more gun favorable circuits that will challenge some of the federal badness - no rehab for felons, 922(r), sporting purpose, etc. Things that we shouldn't try to stop (because we'll lose) are HSC's, "instant" Brady checks, etc. -Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights 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
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
I will vote for a donkey-sex maniac if he's pro-gun. -BWiese |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
At the Federal level I want to see 922(o) get thrown in the rubbish bin of history, and I think that might very well happen. And then I want CA to make NFA permits and CLEO sign-off non-discretionary. And all of those things might really happen.
Remember, permit systems of all flavors will probably survive, so long as they are non-discretionary. Many of our current bans (CA new AW ban, Fed new MG ban) will still exist, with the modification that new registrations will be allowed. I'm ok with that.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
We should not make NFA CLEO signoffs a big thing.
Those can always be bypassed by trusts. Fight against the real bans.
__________________
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. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Work smarter...not harder.
__________________
It is dangerous to be right when your government is wrong. -Voltaire Good people sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
I concur on the ranking of issues, but sometimes the ease at which something is doable factors into the matrix. Also, there are some NFA toys that do require CLEO like sign off, if you're following my thought process. But that thought process is not yet ready for the full light of day as to explaining the implications to the middle of the road folks.
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman Chairman, California Gun Rights Foundation DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @cgfgunrights 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
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|