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
  #201  
Old 01-25-2023, 6:19 AM
JiuJitsu's Avatar
JiuJitsu JiuJitsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Ok, from what I understand from their lawyers is that the judge will rule on the preliminary injunction after the upcoming briefs are submitted. Sounds like from the judges reactions and questions that microstamping is very likely to be shot down, but the other two requirements (mag disconnect and loaded chamber indicator) are still up in the air. The full trial will go after all these, regardless. This is just for the PI.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-25-2023, 8:19 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,929
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I don't think the judge would give away his whole position while the court is taking testimony.

I would say the judge will grant the whole PI, microstamping, magazine disconnect, and loaded chamber indicator.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-25-2023, 9:13 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,929
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think the PI missed something .. The roster also requires all guns submitted must have an external safety.

So even if we get the whole PI all guns would still need the external safety to be included.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-25-2023, 9:44 AM
WithinReason WithinReason is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 126
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

If the judge issues a preliminary injunction, won't the entire CA DoJ roster law be affected?

Last edited by WithinReason; 01-25-2023 at 9:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-25-2023, 10:02 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,929
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WithinReason View Post
If the judge issues a preliminary injunction, won't the entire CA DoJ roster law be affected?
Not in this case, because plaintiffs only request microstamping, magazine disconnect, and LCI to be part of the preliminary injunction.

In the Renna case they request the whole roster law would be enjoined.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 01-25-2023, 10:08 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,929
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Two new docket entries,

Quote:
MINUTES OF Evidentiary Hearing On Plaintiffs' Motion for A Preliminary Injunction held before Judge Cormac J. Carney. Witnesses called, sworn, and testified. Exhibits identified and admitted. For the reasons stated on the record, counsel shall file a joint stipulation of witness and admitted exhibit list. Counsel shall also file the admitted exhibits by January 27, 2023. Court Reporter: Debbie-Hino Spaan. (twdb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
Quote:
CONFIRMATION OF EXHIBIT REVIEW AND AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT EXHIBITS TO COURT filed by Lance Boland, Robert Bonta, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Reno May, Mario Santellan, Jerome Schammel. (twdb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 01-25-2023, 12:49 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,929
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
ORDER REGARDING CLOSING BRIEFING FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties file briefs no longer than twenty (20) pages in length by February 24, 2023. It is further ORDERED that the parties submit response briefs no longer than ten (10) pages in length by March 10, 2023. (twdb) (Entered: 01/25/2023)
This docket entry was just filed, looks like it's the scheduling that was posted on Twitter.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 01-25-2023, 2:01 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Prescott, AZ (former SoCal)
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
I think the PI missed something .. The roster also requires all guns submitted must have an external safety.

So even if we get the whole PI all guns would still need the external safety to be included.
What is the penal code item requiring an external safety? Its been a long while since I looked, but I don't think that's in the PC.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 01-25-2023, 2:20 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,354
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mej16489 View Post
What is the penal code item requiring an external safety? Its been a long while since I looked, but I don't think
that's in the PC.
It is in the original definition of 'unsafe handgun'.

[B]31910 PC /B] As used in this part, “unsafe handgun” means any pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:
. . . .

(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device,
as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by
the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
This was even back in old PC 12126 way before renumbering.

Remember pistols like Glocks and S&W M&Ps had 'manual' safety in the
triggers themselves even though no slide/frame-mounted safeties. [And
even if, say, a 1911 had no manual frame mounted safety lever, I think the
standard 1911 grip safety alone would suffice for this.] I think the origin
of this portion was for cheap safety-less little 22LR/25acp/380 pocket pistols.

SB489, for 2006, added a Rostering requirement for either loaded chamber
indicator (LCI) or mag disconnect safety, for pistols. I believe the combo
requirement for LCI *and* mag disco began in 2008.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

CGF Board Member / NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA life member

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

Last edited by bwiese; 01-25-2023 at 2:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 01-25-2023, 2:48 PM
mej16489 mej16489 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Prescott, AZ (former SoCal)
Posts: 2,628
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
It is in the original definition of 'unsafe handgun'.

[B]31910 PC /B] As used in this part, “unsafe handgun” means any pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, for which any of the following is true:
. . . .

(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device,
as determined by standards relating to imported guns promulgated by
the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
This was even back in old PC 12126 way before renumbering.

Remember pistols like Glocks and S&W M&Ps had 'manual' safety in the
triggers themselves even though no slide/frame-mounted safeties. [And
even if, say, a 1911 had no manual frame mounted safety lever, I think the
standard 1911 grip safety alone would suffice for this.] I think the origin
of this portion was for cheap safety-less little 22LR/25acp/380 pocket pistols.

SB489, for 2006, added a Rostering requirement for either loaded chamber
indicator (LCI) or mag disconnect safety, for pistols. I believe the combo
requirement for LCI *and* mag disco began in 2008.
Thank you Bill, that had completely slipped my mind...I was too focused on something like Beretta 92 or a the side mounted safety of some M&P pistols. When thinking of it in the more broad scope as you have suggested above, I can't think of a single non-revolver that doesn't have such a thing...
Reply With Quote
  #211  
Old 01-26-2023, 3:34 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,929
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendant Robert Bonta for Court Reporter. (Woods, Sean) (Entered: 01/26/2023)
From the docket. I'm not sure what this is exactly, I don't think this is the transcripts, but it's some kind of order related to it.
Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 01-26-2023, 7:19 PM
BigMac90660 BigMac90660 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 145
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just cause the manufacturer has to include a manual safety, doesn't mean you are required to use it.

You do you.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 01-27-2023, 6:23 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 2,745
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMac90660 View Post
Just cause the manufacturer has to include a manual safety, doesn't mean you are required to use it.

You do you.

Even if you don't use a manual safety. Part of your draw stroke, should be to disengage the manual safety.

You don't want to be trying to figure out why your pistol won't fire, because the safety was accidentally engaged.



Remember, Murphy will show up at the worse possible time.
__________________

...... you cant have no idea how little I care "

Monte (Tom Selleck) - 'Monte Walsh'

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

John Wayne as John Bernard (J. B.) Books in The Shootist

Last edited by Sgt Raven; 01-27-2023 at 6:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 01-28-2023, 8:15 PM
LA123 LA123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 105
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Summary

Hey all,

I read through a lot of the post. Is anyone interested in answering the following questions. I promise I am not a troll looking to spark a fire. Just a guy that would love to buy a few off roster hand guns. Im hoping for something like a freedom week or something like that.

1) How likely is the CA roster to go away?

2) If its likely when do yall think it might happen?

Thank you,
__________________
LA CCW:
Mailed app: 12/2021
Interview: 8/22
Livescan completed and cleared: 8/22
Firearm Livescan Completed: 8/8/22
Proceed to training email: 10/17/22
Sent training docs in: 10/17/22
Training doc received: 10/19/22
Call For Pick UP: 11/22/22
Picked up: 11/29/22
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 01-28-2023, 11:50 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 3,644
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LA123 View Post
Hey all,

I read through a lot of the post. Is anyone interested in answering the following questions. I promise I am not a troll looking to spark a fire. Just a guy that would love to buy a few off roster hand guns. Im hoping for something like a freedom week or something like that.

1) How likely is the CA roster to go away?

2) If its likely when do yall think it might happen?

Thank you,
I am assuming that you mean at a fair price close to retail in free states. I suspect that the CA roster will be declared unconstitutional sometime in the first half of this year but it will probably be years before a final determination is made in the appellate courts. I am not seeing a freedom week for off roster handguns primarily because such handguns are generally not in inventory in CA and it should be possible for the state to get a stay before the 10 day waiting period would end.
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 01-29-2023, 2:39 PM
WithinReason WithinReason is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 126
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
I am not seeing a freedom week for off roster handguns primarily because such handguns are generally not in inventory in CA and it should be possible for the state to get a stay before the 10 day waiting period would end.
Bummer! I am so hoping for a Freedom Week!
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 9:08 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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