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 > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns Expatriates
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns Expatriates For members who have left California but remain Calgunners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-10-2022, 8:33 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
Still need ATF permission to take them out of state. And you got to give them a destination address.
No you don't. We had this discussion in another thread. The other person did some research and learned something. I think he was an NFA FFL.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-10-2022, 12:24 PM
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 4,227
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonmike5 View Post
Still need ATF permission to take them out of state. And you got to give them a destination address.
For each SBR (5.56, 300blk, 7.62x39) I have an equivalent carbine or other rifle for traveling. Now the suppressors that's a different story. I figure if I am taking NFA items out if state it's likely to be a SHTF situation and the .gov will be the least of my problems.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-10-2022, 1:38 PM
beanz2's Avatar
beanz2 beanz2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,843
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Suppressors do not need ATF permission to cross state lines as long as the states allow them.
__________________

The wife will be pissed, but Jesus always forgives.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-10-2022, 4:02 PM
nikonmike5 nikonmike5 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Free State
Posts: 368
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
No you don't. We had this discussion in another thread. The other person did some research and learned something. I think he was an NFA FFL.

Please see https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/fo...a-firearms-atf
__________________
My Adventures
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-10-2022, 6:40 PM
nitroxdiver's Avatar
nitroxdiver nitroxdiver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Not in California
Posts: 6,954
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beanz2 View Post
Suppressors do not need ATF permission to cross state lines as long as the states allow them.

Correct
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-13-2023, 12:09 PM
Loaded_Potato Loaded_Potato is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 242
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Posted this in the regular handguns sub but for you guys who might not see it there, here is the ruling on pistol braces:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...s-used-convert

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-13-2023, 12:19 PM
Mac Attack's Avatar
Mac Attack Mac Attack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,111
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

I wonder what all the people who havve braces handguns but are not allowed to submit a form 1 to SBR them will do? I wonder if we will see a bunch of private and dealer sales as they try to dump them before they get stuck with an illegal SBR.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-13-2023, 12:31 PM
bender152's Avatar
bender152 bender152 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NV
Posts: 4,239
iTrader: 285 / 100%
Default

What's the Form 1 wait time gonna be after this? 2 years?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-13-2023, 2:23 PM
atomicwedgy's Avatar
atomicwedgy atomicwedgy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 215
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The ruling on braced pistols is out today
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-13-2023, 5:26 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicwedgy View Post
The ruling on braced pistols is out today
So how long do we have to purchase a braced pistol that will become an SBR before the rule is published in the Federal Register?
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-13-2023, 5:39 PM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: IDAHO!
Posts: 5,722
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Anyone know how to form 1 a pistol chassis "brace" like the MCK? No serial number, can fit multiple handguns ect...?
__________________
Welcome to OT, where hypocrisy is King, outrage is Queen and the Kingdom is on the shores of the Denial River.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-13-2023, 6:57 PM
scout II's Avatar
scout II scout II is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nampa, Idaho
Posts: 1,410
iTrader: 303 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertjosh View Post
Anyone know how to form 1 a pistol chassis "brace" like the MCK? No serial number, can fit multiple handguns ect...?
You are not registering the chassis or brace, you are registering the gun as an SBR with a brace. You would have to put down the make, model, and serial number of the gun you are using in the chassis/brace. The new E-Form 1 for braced pistols does not ask any questions about the brace. It is just like filling out the form 1 for a regular SBR.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-13-2023, 11:56 PM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: IDAHO!
Posts: 5,722
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scout II View Post
You are not registering the chassis or brace, you are registering the gun as an SBR with a brace. You would have to put down the make, model, and serial number of the gun you are using in the chassis/brace. The new E-Form 1 for braced pistols does not ask any questions about the brace. It is just like filling out the form 1 for a regular SBR.
So I'd have to register my normal XD pistol as a SBR? That sounds crazy to me. I knew I should've waited before buying it
__________________
Welcome to OT, where hypocrisy is King, outrage is Queen and the Kingdom is on the shores of the Denial River.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-14-2023, 6:46 AM
Loaded_Potato Loaded_Potato is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 242
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertjosh View Post
So I'd have to register my normal XD pistol as a SBR? That sounds crazy to me. I knew I should've waited before buying it
I believe scout II is right. You would have to form 1 your XD as the SBR. I also think that when your XD is not in SBR configuration, meaning out of the chassis system, it is not considered an SBR at that time and NFA rules no longer apply. Similar to how you can put a 16 inch upper on an SBR registered lower and freely go across state lines because its not an SBR at that point.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Last edited by Loaded_Potato; 01-14-2023 at 6:49 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-16-2023, 8:07 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Danvile, California
Posts: 10,456
iTrader: 150 / 100%
Default

This creates a legal conundrum for California owners of pistol braced pistols that they avoided in other states by having the ability to register them as an SBR. It has long been accepted that the government is not violating EX POST FACTO by allowing registration. However, since California does not allow SBRs, they are in fact violating EX POST FACTO here in California. This is going to need to be addressed and resolved somehow. Hopefully not by a test case involving an arrest. If they do not give California residents a means of keeping their legally purchased braces they create an EX POST FACTO regulation with this ruling.

What is EX POST FACTO? Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). EX POST FACTO is a legal concept that boils down to "if it was legal when you did it they cannot just change the law and punish you for doing it when it was legal. Likewise, if it was legal when you bought it they cannot punish you for that or just confiscate it from you without giving you legal recourse to keep it." Registration gives you legal recourse to keep it. EX POST FACTO is why they let you register things they would rather just take from you. Legally they cannot do so. Not retroactively. They can regulate firearms according to the Supreme Court. But not go back and confiscate things that were once legal simply by changing the law. All they can do is ban future sales and regulate how you use it, transport it, etc. Hence registration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Last edited by tacticalcity; 01-16-2023 at 8:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-16-2023, 10:36 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

The Constitution also says Congress makes law, nobody else. That's what the Supreme Court says.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-17-2023, 7:45 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
This creates a legal conundrum for California owners of pistol braced pistols that they avoided in other states by having the ability to register them as an SBR. It has long been accepted that the government is not violating EX POST FACTO by allowing registration. However, since California does not allow SBRs, they are in fact violating EX POST FACTO here in California. This is going to need to be addressed and resolved somehow. Hopefully not by a test case involving an arrest. If they do not give California residents a means of keeping their legally purchased braces they create an EX POST FACTO regulation with this ruling.

What is EX POST FACTO? Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). EX POST FACTO is a legal concept that boils down to "if it was legal when you did it they cannot just change the law and punish you for doing it when it was legal. Likewise, if it was legal when you bought it they cannot punish you for that or just confiscate it from you without giving you legal recourse to keep it." Registration gives you legal recourse to keep it. EX POST FACTO is why they let you register things they would rather just take from you. Legally they cannot do so. Not retroactively. They can regulate firearms according to the Supreme Court. But not go back and confiscate things that were once legal simply by changing the law. All they can do is ban future sales and regulate how you use it, transport it, etc. Hence registration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law
For Californians and those is other states that prohibit SBRs, there is also a taking issue if they are not allowed to take advantage of the ATF offer of a free tax stamp. And, of course, there is the supremacy issue, especially given that CA does not classify these weapons as SBRs but rather pistols.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-17-2023, 7:54 AM
scout II's Avatar
scout II scout II is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nampa, Idaho
Posts: 1,410
iTrader: 303 / 100%
Default

I kind of remember back during the 1989 CA assault weapon ban that they at first allowed you to have an SKS with detachable magazine as it was not on the list of banned weapons. Then they decided it was an assault weapon and was banned. By this time the registration period was closed. The only choice you had was to remove the weapon from this state, make it inoperable, or sell it back to the state. I remember that the state actually paid more for the rifle than it sold for. So, maybe CA will offer a buy back for the pistol braces.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-17-2023, 9:19 AM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Danvile, California
Posts: 10,456
iTrader: 150 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scout II View Post
I kind of remember back during the 1989 CA assault weapon ban that they at first allowed you to have an SKS with detachable magazine as it was not on the list of banned weapons. Then they decided it was an assault weapon and was banned. By this time the registration period was closed. The only choice you had was to remove the weapon from this state, make it inoperable, or sell it back to the state. I remember that the state actually paid more for the rifle than it sold for. So, maybe CA will offer a buy back for the pistol braces.
Not really a desirable option. Certainly not within the constitutional limits of their powers. But there is what is legal and then there is what actually happens. All depends on how much of a fight pro-gun lobbyists are willing to put up. I see this oversight as a great argument to have the entire ruling tossed out since it violates the US Constitution regarding EX POST FACTO laws by not taking into account several states would be prohibited from taking advantage of the otion to register their newly formed SBRs as such. Baring that we could see the feds force those states to allow SBRs for this express purpose. The later ones up it’s own can of worms for the feds and states in question. This ruling was not well thought out. At least not with regards to the legal mess it creates.

Forgive any typos/grammar/autocorrect issues. I am on a phone tiny iPhone mini.

Last edited by tacticalcity; 01-17-2023 at 9:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-17-2023, 11:34 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
Not really a desirable option. Certainly not within the constitutional limits of their powers. But there is what is legal and then there is what actually happens. All depends on how much of a fight pro-gun lobbyists are willing to put up. I see this oversight as a great argument to have the entire ruling tossed out since it violates the US Constitution regarding EX POST FACTO laws by not taking into account several states would be prohibited from taking advantage of the otion to register their newly formed SBRs as such. Baring that we could see the feds force those states to allow SBRs for this express purpose. The later ones up it’s own can of worms for the feds and states in question. This ruling was not well thought out. At least not with regards to the legal mess it creates.

Forgive any typos/grammar/autocorrect issues. I am on a phone tiny iPhone mini.
It shouldn't matter to kali that there is a piece of paper somewhere that says your braced pistol is an sbr. Look at it and if it looks like a kali braced pistol, that's what it is, according to kali. If AFT wants to look at it, they see it's registration with stamp and it's an sbr according to AFT. It's the same friggin object.

All AFT has to do is register it and issue the stamp.

Oh, and it's not a "ruling", AFT is not a judge. It's a rule.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-17-2023, 11:43 AM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Danvile, California
Posts: 10,456
iTrader: 150 / 100%
Default

My understanding is the SBR application will be auto rejected if your location is CA because SBRs are not permitted here. That is what I am reading on the other CA specific threads.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-17-2023, 12:19 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I believe it. They would have to be somehow convinced.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-17-2023, 2:44 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
My understanding is the SBR application will be auto rejected if your location is CA because SBRs are not permitted here. That is what I am reading on the other CA specific threads.
What is the basis for that "understanding"? I suggest that you read what I have posted in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me, Status out-of-state CA RAW being registered as an SBR thread, starting with post #8. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...16&postcount=8 Not that what I posted there resolves the questions but because it underscores the issues involved.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-17-2023, 4:23 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Danvile, California
Posts: 10,456
iTrader: 150 / 100%
Default

I will read it when I get home and am not on a tiny iPhone. Basis for
That understanding is as stated. CA does not allow SBRs and in past attempts by others their applications were rejected. I’d rather others be the test cases. I am sure someone will try to fill out the new form here in CA and report what happens. I am not crazy about being the first to do so. Not sure what unforeseen consequences may arise by filling out a simple form. Time May resolve the issue entirely. It’s a little early. There could be an injunction.
Most certainly will be a lawsuit. For now I have a wait and see and Lee reading attitude. Needless to say this takes some wind out of my hopeful sails as we await a decision from Judge Benitez here in CA on a bunch of exciting cases.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-17-2023, 5:00 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

On a side note, remember a few months ago when AFT put out that idiotic points system proposed rule? There were some bare bones configurations that were allowed. Notice all of that is gone. Why did they even bother with it?
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-17-2023, 5:57 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
On a side note, remember a few months ago when AFT put out that idiotic points system proposed rule? There were some bare bones configurations that were allowed. Notice all of that is gone. Why did they even bother with it?
Two explanations. First, they are incapable of understanding "shall not be infringed." Second, they think that they are smarter than the rest of us.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-17-2023, 7:16 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
This creates a legal conundrum for California owners of pistol braced pistols that they avoided in other states by having the ability to register them as an SBR. It has long been accepted that the government is not violating EX POST FACTO by allowing registration. However, since California does not allow SBRs, they are in fact violating EX POST FACTO here in California. This is going to need to be addressed and resolved somehow. Hopefully not by a test case involving an arrest. If they do not give California residents a means of keeping their legally purchased braces they create an EX POST FACTO regulation with this ruling.

What is EX POST FACTO? Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws). EX POST FACTO is a legal concept that boils down to "if it was legal when you did it they cannot just change the law and punish you for doing it when it was legal. Likewise, if it was legal when you bought it they cannot punish you for that or just confiscate it from you without giving you legal recourse to keep it." Registration gives you legal recourse to keep it. EX POST FACTO is why they let you register things they would rather just take from you. Legally they cannot do so. Not retroactively. They can regulate firearms according to the Supreme Court. But not go back and confiscate things that were once legal simply by changing the law. All they can do is ban future sales and regulate how you use it, transport it, etc. Hence registration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

Methinks that you're misunderstanding "Ex Post Facto"

You are quite correct that both the Constitution and the California Constitution specifically forbid "Ex Post Facto" laws. But an "Ex Post Facto" law is one that criminalizes conduct that preceded the law. If the legislature were to pass a law in 2022 that made it illegal to purchase a particular weapon in 1995, then it would be an "Ex Post Facto" law.

But the legislative folks understand this, and the laws they write are written so as not to be retroactive. If the legislature creates a law in 2022 that make it illegal to possess a particular item after 2023, that is not an "Ex Post Facto" law since the proscribed act occurs after the law is created. It makes a great difference whether the initial acquisition, or the current possession, is being punished.

There is no Constitutional right to continued possession of an item that was previously possessed.

There are at least two good reasons why previous firearms bans included "grandfathering" provisions that allowed registration and continued possession of existing weapons: 1) It made it easier for the proponents of the legislation to secure the needed votes to get passage. and 2) It avoided the potential for civil litigation claiming that the ban amounted to a "Constructive Taking" that would require reimbursement to the prior owners of the items.

In today's legislative environment, there isn't much need for "Vote Trading." Proponents of gun controls have more support than in days past. Additionally, there has been some unfortunate case law developments with regard to the Fifth Amendment's "Takings" clause. Under a classic view of the takings clause, if the government took private property, they had to pay. But the Fifth Amendment only requires compensation when private property is taken for public use. Strictly read, there is no requirement to pay when the property is taken for purposes other than public use. If the government takes your pistol brace, they ain't gonna use it, they're gonna destroy it.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-17-2023, 8:07 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
In addition, because prior ATF classifications of firearms equipped with a “brace” device did not all employ this correct understanding of the statutory terms, all such prior classifications are no longer valid as of [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]
What a load of horse crap! They're saying the AFT four years ago that determined braces were not NFA, were stupid. Probably because Trump was President. But we're much smarter now, so those old classifications are void.

Much of what I've read so far reads a lot like my 6th grade theme papers. I thought they had lawyers working there.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-18-2023, 8:44 AM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Danvile, California
Posts: 10,456
iTrader: 150 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Methinks that you're misunderstanding "Ex Post Facto"

You are quite correct that both the Constitution and the California Constitution specifically forbid "Ex Post Facto" laws. But an "Ex Post Facto" law is one that criminalizes conduct that preceded the law. If the legislature were to pass a law in 2022 that made it illegal to purchase a particular weapon in 1995, then it would be an "Ex Post Facto" law.

But the legislative folks understand this, and the laws they write are written so as not to be retroactive. If the legislature creates a law in 2022 that make it illegal to possess a particular item after 2023, that is not an "Ex Post Facto" law since the proscribed act occurs after the law is created. It makes a great difference whether the initial acquisition, or the current possession, is being punished.

There is no Constitutional right to continued possession of an item that was previously possessed.

There are at least two good reasons why previous firearms bans included "grandfathering" provisions that allowed registration and continued possession of existing weapons: 1) It made it easier for the proponents of the legislation to secure the needed votes to get passage. and 2) It avoided the potential for civil litigation claiming that the ban amounted to a "Constructive Taking" that would require reimbursement to the prior owners of the items.

In today's legislative environment, there isn't much need for "Vote Trading." Proponents of gun controls have more support than in days past. Additionally, there has been some unfortunate case law developments with regard to the Fifth Amendment's "Takings" clause. Under a classic view of the takings clause, if the government took private property, they had to pay. But the Fifth Amendment only requires compensation when private property is taken for public use. Strictly read, there is no requirement to pay when the property is taken for purposes other than public use. If the government takes your pistol brace, they ain't gonna use it, they're gonna destroy it.
While I have heard that argument before I disagree. If that were correct we would have seen Canadian style confiscation of weapons rather than registration. Vote trading might explain how that did not happen nation wide after the first assault weapon ban despite the fact that there was far less support for them then than now amongst those on the right, it does not explain lack of confiscation in California. Where if possible any financial burden would be outweighed by the political support they would gain from the majority of their constituents. Only explanation I can find in the law stopping them is the 2nd Amendment, which they could care less about. And ex post facto. In other words, if they did not believe we had a constitutional right to keep legal purchased property they would have taken these and other guns away a long time ago.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-18-2023, 10:43 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
While I have heard that argument before I disagree. If that were correct we would have seen Canadian style confiscation of weapons rather than registration. Vote trading might explain how that did not happen nation wide after the first assault weapon ban despite the fact that there was far less support for them then than now amongst those on the right, it does not explain lack of confiscation in California. Where if possible any financial burden would be outweighed by the political support they would gain from the majority of their constituents. Only explanation I can find in the law stopping them is the 2nd Amendment, which they could care less about. And ex post facto. In other words, if they did not believe we had a constitutional right to keep legal purchased property they would have taken these and other guns away a long time ago.
We don't have to agree. Respectful disagreement can make for good discussion.

The "Ex Post Facto" avenue hasn't gone anywhere, mostly because the wording of legislation has been very deliberately done to avoid that potential.

California has changed a lot politically in the last 30 years. There just wasn't enough support for confiscation back then. Registration, and use restrictions were about the most that could be run through the system.

The Second Amendment is a very solid tool, but has only been so for a short period of time. But remember that prior to McDonald, the Second Amendment did not apply to California.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-18-2023, 10:57 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 4,672
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
While I have heard that argument before I disagree. If that were correct we would have seen Canadian style confiscation of weapons rather than registration. Vote trading might explain how that did not happen nation wide after the first assault weapon ban despite the fact that there was far less support for them then than now amongst those on the right, it does not explain lack of confiscation in California. Where if possible any financial burden would be outweighed by the political support they would gain from the majority of their constituents. Only explanation I can find in the law stopping them is the 2nd Amendment, which they could care less about. And ex post facto. In other words, if they did not believe we had a constitutional right to keep legal purchased property they would have taken these and other guns away a long time ago.
IMHO it is not that they believe that we have a constitutional right but that they are not brave enough to try.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-18-2023, 10:58 AM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Danvile, California
Posts: 10,456
iTrader: 150 / 100%
Default

I remain hopeful for a lawsuit and injunction. We just have to wait and see. It is early days on this one. Hopefully they can come up with a strong argument. With more than 5 million of these braces (got that stat from the CA thread not sure about it) in circulation it is hard to imagine this would go uncontested.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-19-2023, 6:37 AM
beanz2's Avatar
beanz2 beanz2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,843
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

How many of you are seeing the 2021R-08F eForms website crashing?

Did you guys realize the braced shotguns are left out? It's only the rifles they are after.
__________________

The wife will be pissed, but Jesus always forgives.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-19-2023, 10:20 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Methinks that you're misunderstanding "Ex Post Facto"

You are quite correct that both the Constitution and the California Constitution specifically forbid "Ex Post Facto" laws. But an "Ex Post Facto" law is one that criminalizes conduct that preceded the law. If the legislature were to pass a law in 2022 that made it illegal to purchase a particular weapon in 1995, then it would be an "Ex Post Facto" law.

But the legislative folks understand this, and the laws they write are written so as not to be retroactive. If the legislature creates a law in 2022 that make it illegal to possess a particular item after 2023, that is not an "Ex Post Facto" law since the proscribed act occurs after the law is created. It makes a great difference whether the initial acquisition, or the current possession, is being punished.
What proscribed act? Doing nothing? That's not an act.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-19-2023, 10:31 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beanz2 View Post
How many of you are seeing the 2021R-08F eForms website crashing?

Did you guys realize the braced shotguns are left out? It's only the rifles they are after.
If you mean the 14 inch "firearms" I'm not real sure those were ever legal. They were never pistols.

I tried to read through the rule to see where they say what needs to be registered and what doesn't. I could not find anything concrete, just gibberish about what the intent was and what it's designed for.

I also did not see anything about providing pictures. Do you have to have pics for a Form 1?

Last edited by sigstroker; 01-19-2023 at 10:37 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 01-19-2023, 12:11 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Saw this on arfcom, a tiny ray of sunshine.

Quote:
Engraving has been waived. You can register them all and no engraving is required.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 01-19-2023, 1:27 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
What proscribed act? Doing nothing? That's not an act.
The proscribed act is "Possessing" the prohibited item.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 01-19-2023, 1:42 PM
scout II's Avatar
scout II scout II is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nampa, Idaho
Posts: 1,410
iTrader: 303 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sigstroker View Post
I also did not see anything about providing pictures. Do you have to have pics for a Form 1?


For the new form-1 for pistol braces, you have to download a picture that shows the serial number.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 01-19-2023, 1:56 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scout II View Post
For the new form-1 for pistol braces, you have to download a picture that shows the serial number.
Just a close-up, or a plethora of pictures showing the whole thing, the brace, the barrel, and all that?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 01-19-2023, 1:58 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 17,340
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
The proscribed act is "Possessing" the prohibited item.
That sounds more like status quo than an act. TAKING possession is an act.
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 2:29 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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