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
  #1  
Old 06-21-2022, 12:53 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default Bruen impact on other permits, IE CA Dangerous Weapons

With the Bruen ruling on the horizon, I started thinking about how it may apply to other permits and situations. For instance, California, obviously, has many restrictions in place but does issue a permit that allows ownership of the restricted firearm.

Is it possible that Bruen would remove any good cause requirement for other permits?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-21-2022, 2:24 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No one can answer that until the opinion is issued and the language it uses. It will probably NOT deal with allowable firearms since that is not within the scope of the issue submitted, the briefs, or the argument.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-21-2022, 3:08 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,920
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

From the limited information I can find, it seems the dangerous weapons permit is rarely issued, and mostly to businesses or armories for movies due to the good cause requirement. I know Bruen is dealing with CCW but it also involved good cause. I was just thinking about how it could carry over to other permits that also require good cause.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-21-2022, 4:33 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Morro Bay, CA
Posts: 673
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Strict scrutiny will change everything, eventually, provided you live that long.
__________________
Estate Planning for Gun Owners - @guntrust on most social nets
FREE gun training: http://guntrust.org
Click here for my latest article on CA gun trust planning (also my radio ads)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-21-2022, 4:40 PM
Foothills Foothills is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 601
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Yeah, timing is everything...

Quote:
Originally Posted by guntrust View Post
Strict scrutiny will change everything, eventually, provided you live that long.
I don't think I'll be ordering a P90 anytime soon.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-23-2022, 9:45 AM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,705
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Bruen reaffirmed Heller. Heller acknowledged the 2A as an Individual Right, for self defense within the home.

Bruen Acknowledged that Self Defense doesn't stop at the front door and expands the right to all but "Sensitive Places" in Public with government interest only very narrowly tailored ie. Strict Scrutiny.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-23-2022, 10:50 AM
FISHNFRANK FISHNFRANK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fullerton/Palomar Mtn
Posts: 1,175
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

The opinion in full is on the SC web page. I did scan it fast for all the pertinent information. Suffice it to say there will be plenty of daylight in this opinion for the appeals courts to keep up their usual mischief with other things like magazine limits…
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-23-2022, 11:42 AM
mikeyr's Avatar
mikeyr mikeyr is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: SB
Posts: 1,417
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Nothing will happen in CA because of this. We won, they lost, but they will make a new law that will also go to SCOTUS and we will have no changes until that one is decided, if they lose again, they will make a law that will go to SCOTUS and nothing changes.

Anyone that thinks this win will change anything is a dreamer. Sheriff Brown of SB County certainly will NEVER issue a CCW, EVER !!!

We win the battles, but that is how they will win the war, keeping us in court.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Member
. CRPA Member
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-23-2022, 2:01 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,574
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FISHNFRANK View Post
The opinion in full is on the SC web page. I did scan it fast for all the pertinent information. Suffice it to say there will be plenty of daylight in this opinion for the appeals courts to keep up their usual mischief with other things like magazine limits…
Note that this is the case for *all* court decisions, whether you like their outcome or not. Their precedent only covers what the court is asked to decide. While I share your cynicism (if not outright pessimism), there are plenty of cases that will force SCOTUS to answer those questions directly, including the mag cap question.

We may not get the answer we want, but Bruen would never have been that regardless of outcome.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-23-2022, 2:27 PM
FISHNFRANK FISHNFRANK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fullerton/Palomar Mtn
Posts: 1,175
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Note that this is the case for *all* court decisions, whether you like their outcome or not. Their precedent only covers what the court is asked to decide. While I share your cynicism (if not outright pessimism), there are plenty of cases that will force SCOTUS to answer those questions directly, including the mag cap question.

We may not get the answer we want, but Bruen would never have been that regardless of outcome.
BUT…SCOTUS actually has to take those cases and they only hear and decide 1% of the cases they are presented. So the chances are that the appeals court will be the court of last resort in most if not all of them. Gavin already said today that a “new carry law will be introduced next week” so nothing will change at all and will most likely get much worse.

Meanwhile my permit renewal sits, unreviewed…
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-23-2022, 2:30 PM
MajorSideburns's Avatar
MajorSideburns MajorSideburns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,013
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

California declared itself a rogue state immune to federal laws and requirements a long time ago. I doubt you will see any changes here for the better.
__________________
If you are not familiar with the below sites, I encourage you to check them out and use them for cash back and great deals on ammo from Cabela's and such. Check the deals forum here on calguns and you will see a lot of us using these now. If you are kind enough to sign up through my below referral links, we both get instant bonus rewards. Thanks!

http://activejunky.com/invite/186564
http://www.swagbucks.com/p/register?rb=32948177
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-23-2022, 3:06 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,574
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FISHNFRANK View Post
they only hear and decide 1% of the cases
GVRs do not require this. That said, I expect it will be an uphill battle in CA, regardless.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
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 10:49 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical