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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1161  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:10 PM
North86 North86 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central Wisconsin
Posts: 1,266
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Order is here: http://ia801400.us.archive.org/30/it...91444.94.0.pdf

Basically, since we can still buy "safe" guns, the roster doesn't burden the second amendment. Step two is not triggered.

An individual's preference for a particular firearm was judged as out-weighed by the state's authority to ensure "safe guns", and since a few 100K of new guns were bought last year, the judge thinks we're lucky enough to be able to chose from those available. B!tch.

I think her speech needs to be restricted to a quill and parchment. Maybe she'll do less damage to the country then.
__________________
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt
  #1162  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:14 PM
glockman19 glockman19 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 10,487
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
This was a district court decision. Next step is the Ninth Circuit.

-BC
GOOD...Because this was a Terrible decision.

I hope the SCOTUS next case determines either "Keep & Bear" or "Shall NOT be Infringed".

How can ANY LIST not infringe on the ability to choose if your choice is NOT on the list?
  #1163  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:19 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,728
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

that sucks.

only took 5.5 years to get through the district court. at least we can now appeal.
__________________
Jack



Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
  #1164  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:21 PM
Paperchasin's Avatar
Paperchasin Paperchasin is offline
YOU are next!!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,389
iTrader: 494 / 100%
Default

Not surprised.
  #1165  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:27 PM
glockman19 glockman19 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 10,487
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

The Judge said regarding the 14th amendment argument:

"Law enforcement personnel shoulder a duty to ensure public safety and
thus assume different responsibilities, risks, and rights."

It appears that Miller v. DC contradicts this by stating that Law Enforcement has NO OBLIGATION to Protect anyone.

Her contention that LE have different rights supports a 14th Amendment violation of a "special class of citizen".
  #1166  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:29 PM
thedrickel's Avatar
thedrickel thedrickel is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lost in the wheels of confusion
Posts: 5,526
iTrader: 140 / 100%
Default

It took that long to write up that stinker of a judgment?
__________________
I hate people that are full of hate.

It's not illegal to tip for PPT!
  #1167  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:29 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,605
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

couldn't bring myself to actually read whatever drivel she wrote to justify that result.
  #1168  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:47 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,346
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Ah thank God it's over though. We finally get to move on to a circuit panel...I think? Dismissed sounds like we can't appeal?
  #1169  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:48 PM
jaymz's Avatar
jaymz jaymz is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rancho Cucamomga
Posts: 6,289
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Not at all surprised.
  #1170  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:50 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Haven't read it fully yet, but note the judge _in effect_ said via ruling...

1. that one Pena plaintiff does NOT have the right to have the specific
gun that the US Supremes said that Dick Heller could have.

2. conficts with the vigorous essentially near-strict scrutiny ruling in
Sylvester

Onward and upward.
__________________

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.
  #1171  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:50 PM
JackRydden224's Avatar
JackRydden224 JackRydden224 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Irvine
Posts: 7,163
iTrader: 104 / 100%
Default

I'm glad I got the guns I wanted last year but damn this is terrible.

What kind of time line are we looking at with an appeal? 5, 10 years?
  #1172  
Old 02-26-2015, 12:57 PM
Tom226's Avatar
Tom226 Tom226 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 91
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I find it interesting that Judge Mueller cited both Heller and Peruta quite extensively in this judgment. It's obvious that she completely missed the point of both of those rulings, which should make the arguments at the 9th Circuit pretty entertaining.

Also, is it just me or did anyone else catch a reference early in the judgment about "over 1,000" handguns being available, while she later cited the 700+ that were available as of earlier this month? By the time they're ready for orals at the 9th Circuit that number will be even lower and will further highlight what is the obvious goal of the UHA - a gradual but near total ban on handguns within the borders of California.

Now I just need to stock up on about 4-5 years' worth of popcorn...
  #1173  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:01 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,422
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Also
Quote:
The UHA does not adversely impact the access to and sale of firearms generally; plaintiffs’
Second Amendment rights are satisfied by the scheme’s allowing the purchase of nearly 1000
types of rostered firearms. This degree of regulation is negligible and does not burden
plaintiffs’ rights under the Second Amendment.
at page 21 of the .pdf.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



  #1174  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:03 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,151
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

CGF's statement on the decision is here: https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/20...ndment-rights/
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
  #1175  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:08 PM
onewheelwes's Avatar
onewheelwes onewheelwes is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Wrong Side of the River
Posts: 1,331
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Well , at least we finally have an answer at this step. Doesn't hurt any worse than great newsthat never seems to go into effect.
  #1176  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:11 PM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NV, ID, OR, CA soon to add TN
Posts: 19,965
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Sad that written rights continue to suffer in America
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
  #1177  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:11 PM
383green's Avatar
383green 383green is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 4,328
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Haven't read it fully yet, but note the judge _in effect_ said via ruling...

1. that one Pena plaintiff does NOT have the right to have the specific
gun that the US Supremes said that Dick Heller could have.
Given that I'd expect this case to move on to the 9th Circuit no matter what, #1 there looks like a very useful gift to us when the case gets argued on appeal. I'd say that the judge shot herself in the foot, but how could that be possible with a not-unsafe handgun?
  #1178  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:12 PM
Lifeon2whls's Avatar
Lifeon2whls Lifeon2whls is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,751
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Eh...and so continues ours plans to move out of this state.
  #1179  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:13 PM
pc_load_letter's Avatar
pc_load_letter pc_load_letter is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,507
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Well, get ready for the onslaught of "Sick of this state....I'm moving to XXXX" threads.
  #1180  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:14 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,128
iTrader: 168 / 100%
Default

Well, at least that part is over with, and it can now proceed to CA9.
__________________
DiaHero Foundation - helping people manage diabetes. Sending diabetes supplies to Ukraine now, any help is appreciated.

DDR AK furniture and Norinco M14 parts kit: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1756292
  #1181  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:15 PM
Lifeon2whls's Avatar
Lifeon2whls Lifeon2whls is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,751
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pc_load_letter View Post
Well, get ready for the onslaught of "Sick of this state....I'm moving to XXXX" threads.
Ha! Beat ya!
  #1182  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:21 PM
edraven edraven is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 57
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Isn't this a lie?

Quote:
However,
13 California residents, including those who have no out-of-state family, are not prevented from
14 possessing unlisted guns, receiving them as intra-family gifts from in-state relatives, or
15 bringing them into the state for noncommercial purposes.
If you bring something into the state, doesn't it have to go to a FFL per AB 1609, where they'd say it's unrostered and not release it?
  #1183  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:23 PM
JackRydden224's Avatar
JackRydden224 JackRydden224 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Irvine
Posts: 7,163
iTrader: 104 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pc_load_letter View Post
Well, get ready for the onslaught of "Sick of this state....I'm moving to XXXX" threads.
And the people who thinks others will uproot their families for more guns

It's going to be a waiting game. It has been a waiting game. It will continue to be a waiting game. I'm going to donate to CGF to fight but I'm not going to worry about it.
  #1184  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:24 PM
tophatjones's Avatar
tophatjones tophatjones is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: East Bay Area
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

This ruling reminds me of Animal Farm. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

California "animals" have access to 700 or so "safe" (outdated) guns, while most of the greater US "animals" have access to the whole gamut of handguns.
  #1185  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:24 PM
SuperSet SuperSet is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: OC/DC
Posts: 9,048
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Yep. it sucks.
  #1186  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:27 PM
Big Ben's Avatar
Big Ben Big Ben is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 723
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Disappointing, but not totally unexpected, given the state of the judiciary.

It never ceases to amaze me the "logic" that certain judges will use to support their predetermined decision. I don't see how someone can twist the intent and language of Heller and Peruta to support the position that the Roster DOES NOT infringe on the rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. It's akin to using a globe and images from space as support for the argument that the earth is flat. Ridiculous!
  #1187  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:27 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 21,506
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

The amount of idiocy, ignorance and just plain arrogance in this decision is staggering. In this judge's eyes having a toy box full of toys, taking four out and telling a kid you can only at with these four is NOT limiting the kid's access to the toy box.

It's beyond idiocy and in to just plain blatant stupid.

And the sad part is that we've been delayed, stayed, put off and too often given this kind of moronic decision that the first response is 'Yeah, kind of expected that. Now we can try at a higher court. '
We have no choice but to keep going up the ladder but it's sad and wrong that we have come to a point of assuming and accepting that we will have to.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA.

Last edited by Kestryll; 02-26-2015 at 1:30 PM.. Reason: iPhones suck to type on
  #1188  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:28 PM
CZ man in LA's Avatar
CZ man in LA CZ man in LA is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,927
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Onward to the CA9.

Expect several years of "c'mon, this was already settled by a lower court, let's not burden our poor overworked judges in the Ninth to get the same ruling" motions by the State of CA.
__________________
"Prohibit the peasants from owning katanas, wakizashis, arrows, spears, or matchlock rifles. If the peasants are armed, they will not pay nengu (taxes) and they will not be subordinate to the officials."

Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Sword Hunt Edict of 1588, establishing the class division between the peasants (commoners) and the samurai (the governing elites).

  #1189  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:28 PM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 563
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

After reading the ruling it seems that the 2nd amendment claim was denied because the Plaintiffs could't show actually infringement/harm at this stage. In 5 years, when no microstamping handguns are manufactured and the number of handguns on the roster has precipitously declined, then the same claim will be much easier to make. I have a feeling that even SCOTUS would agree that although the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to self defense in and outside the home, we do not have a right to own whatever handgun we want. We have a right to own a handgun, but not any handgun. That said, enforcing microstamping at this point is clearly not based on safety but on restriction and would be struck down.

The 14th Amendment denial is much scarier. No limit to the special rights and privileges granted to law enforcement is mentioned. The ruling basically states 'they are law enforcement, they are special, so, in effect, the 14th amendment doesn't apply'
__________________
---
As of 10/10 the Governor has 121 bills left on his desk to sign or veto by 10/13.
  #1190  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:28 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,564
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Damn.

On to the 9th Circuit!!
__________________
Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CA Bill Search - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
California Rifle and Pistol Association - http://crpa.org/
Sacramento County Sheriff Concealed Carry Info - Search 'Concealed Weapons Permit Information Sacramento'
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Animated US Map Showing Progress of Concealed Carry Laws 1986 to 2021 http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
  #1191  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:29 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,180
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

judge- "Why are you upset? The state has an exhaustive list of 700-1000 books that are "approved safe". , go away"
  #1192  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:30 PM
CrazyPhuD CrazyPhuD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 458
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It sounds like the classic response here is straight forward. Encourage every manufacturer to stop paying roster renewal fees. At that point there can be no debate if the UHA is a ban.
  #1193  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:31 PM
MotoriousRacing's Avatar
MotoriousRacing MotoriousRacing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Orange County - 949
Posts: 1,971
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
This was a district court decision. Next step is the Ninth Circuit.

-BC
Thank you for your effort.
  #1194  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:32 PM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,658
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

So it took that stupid b!ch almost 9 months for this? And when I read the police should be entitled to have off roster guns because their job of public service requires them to have more "potent" handguns, I threw up in my mouth a little.
  #1195  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:34 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,151
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prometa View Post
After reading the ruling it seems that the 2nd amendment claim was denied because the Plaintiffs could't show actually infringement/harm at this stage. In 5 years, when no microstamping handguns are manufactured and the number of handguns on the roster has precipitously declined, then the same claim will be much easier to make. I have a feeling that even SCOTUS would agree that although the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to self defense in and outside the home, we do not have a right to own whatever handgun we want. We have a right to own a handgun, but not any handgun. That said, enforcing microstamping at this point is clearly not based on safety but on restriction and would be struck down.

The 14th Amendment denial is much scarier. No limit to the special rights and privileges granted to law enforcement is mentioned. The ruling basically states 'they are law enforcement, they are special, so, in effect, the 14th amendment doesn't apply'
Let me know when you see what (or, at least, one thing) you did wrong in your analysis:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
  #1196  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:36 PM
scguy scguy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 31
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If all manufactures, stop being extorted... i mean "renewing" their firearms that are on the list and the list plummets to 0 there would be no question that the roster is unconstitutional.
  #1197  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:40 PM
defcon defcon is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,021
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

any work-from-home police jobs? heh
  #1198  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:41 PM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,117
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

From the order:

Quote:
The purpose of the UHA was twofold. First, it was intended to reduce crime by eliminating the sale of cheap handguns.
So it has nothing to do with safety? Confirmed.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'm most famous for my positive mental attitude.
  #1199  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:41 PM
konata88 konata88 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 289
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

There should be repercussions for judges who get overruled by a higher court.
If they aren't sufficiently versed in the law and/or are applying bias in their decision, then they should be removed from their position.

Otherwise, what concerns do they have applying bias in their judgement? They can decide w/ impunity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  #1200  
Old 02-26-2015, 1:42 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

IVC: Told You So.

Though admittedly, this judge didn't even bother to use scrutiny at all.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Closed Thread

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 12:31 AM.




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