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 07-09-2019, 8:16 AM
BobB35 BobB35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 616
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Why you never give an inch...

Using the bump stock ban logic...now going after any type of customizable rifle

https://reason.com/2019/07/03/relyin...s-are-illegal/

What I never understood is why would anybody support a bumpstock ban? Arm braces are just the same for circumvent the NFA...should those be banned also?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-09-2019, 9:18 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 269
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

That's not really what they are saying... the lawsuit claims that because gunmakers did not design their rifles to NOT accept bump stocks, they knew they could easily be "customized" to fire full auto.

As is pointed out, their logic is literally retarded, since at the time bump stocks were 100% legal and not considered full auto. The whole suit is embarrassing.

The article title and your post title imply that they want to ban rifles with features ("customized") which is misleading and not true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobB35 View Post
Using the bump stock ban logic...now going after any type of customizable rifle

https://reason.com/2019/07/03/relyin...s-are-illegal/

What I never understood is why would anybody support a bumpstock ban? Arm braces are just the same for circumvent the NFA...should those be banned also?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-09-2019, 9:39 AM
jimmykan's Avatar
jimmykan jimmykan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,209
iTrader: 100 / 100%
Default

We gotta play 5 dimensional chess, man...

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-09-2019, 10:17 AM
REH's Avatar
REH REH is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,477
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

It is sad to see these types of lawsuits filed after a tragic loss of a family member. Some anti-gun organization or bottom feeder lawyer will convince the plaintiff, this is the way to seek revenge on the gun maker. The family will then fall victim to the thinking, this is the right thing to do, only to be let down over the loss of the suit and the feeling of being used.

Last edited by REH; 07-09-2019 at 10:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-09-2019, 12:20 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,000
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Someone should point out that the lawyer's car is similarly illegal since it can be used to run over pedestrians. He should be suing every aftermarket car part manufacturer by that logic.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-09-2019, 12:27 PM
wpod's Avatar
wpod wpod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,961
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Which came first, bumpstock or AR?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-09-2019, 12:28 PM
Dano3467 Dano3467 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 85 mi south of Oregon
Posts: 6,558
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

^^^
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-09-2019, 12:54 PM
terry4130 terry4130 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 451
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wpod View Post
Which came first, bumpstock or AR?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


This is what I’m seeing as the lawyers flawed logic. People will modify anything. Should manufacturers have to continually modify their products because some other company is making products for it? Which could only happen, after that product was publicly available. If so, where are the lawsuits on Chevy, Toyota, and just about every other car company? If putting on a bump stock makes a gun more dangerous, then wouldn’t putting on super charger, NOS, random suspension kits, even aftermarket tires on cars make them more dangerous?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-09-2019, 3:42 PM
packnrat's Avatar
packnrat packnrat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,869
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by REH View Post
It is sad to see these types of lawsuits filed after a tragic loss of a family member. Some anti-gun organization or bottom feeder lawyer will convince the plaintiff, this is the way to seek revenge on the gun maker. The family will then fall victim to the thinking, this is the right thing to do, only to be let down over the loss of the suit and the feeling of being used.
under this same thought, then we can sue ford, gm, dodge, honda, etc for there making of a car, truck that kills.
__________________
big gun's...i love big gun's
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-09-2019, 3:49 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 6,918
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Fed Statute
Quote:
"...can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."
Lawsuit
Quote:
"It was only a question of when—not if—a gunman would take advantage of the ease of modifying AR-15s to fire automatically [sic] in order to substantially increase the body count during a mass shooting,"
The AR-15 was never constructed to fire full auto, so it can't be restored to that condition.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-09-2019, 8:29 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,340
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So true
__________________
One life so don't blow it......Always die with your boots on!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-10-2019, 5:02 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 639
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Someone should point out that the lawyer's car is similarly illegal since it can be used to run over pedestrians. He should be suing every aftermarket car part manufacturer by that logic.
Someone should point out that the lawyer's car can be customized with a turbocharged engine pumping out 600 hp that no one "needs" even for "sporting purposes." Why, someone could get hurt!

But the real stumbling block is that simply because a machine--as any machine--can be altered still re quires that the alterations itself or the use of the alteration is illegal, i.e., post-manufacturing modifications for which no producer of a product should be held liable. Again (and again and again), it ain't the arrow, it's the indian.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-11-2019, 8:49 AM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,190
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

The Plaintiff's complaint: https://reason.com/wp-content/upload...Colt-FILED.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-11-2019, 12:48 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,000
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Someone should point out that the lawyer's car can be customized with a turbocharged engine pumping out 600 hp that no one "needs" even for "sporting purposes."
Oh, you mean the "child murderer 3000"? Yeah, the ads look sweet. I wonder how the car companies are going to dodge the lawsuits that criminals use these things to get away from crimescenes and the police. Ca should impose a 10 hp limit. Nobody needs a high-cap engine
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-18-2019, 7:36 AM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 1,797
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post

The AR-15 was never constructed to fire full auto
That is historically inaccurate and completely irrelevant.

Quote:
so it can't be restored to that condition.
Anything is possible with machining which is also irrelevant with the same skills turning a lump of metal into a machine gun.

Note the auto sear pin on the first AR-15. Armalite's original machine shop being in Hollywood, CA is ironic.



About 30,000 fully automatic AR-15s were issued in the US military. Note the “Colt AR-15” and “PROPERTY OF US GOVT.” roll marks plus auto sear pin on this model 602.



Obviously, this is all irrelevant.

The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, without limitations to hunting rifles or exclusions for "military arms."

Yes, they were designed to kill people.

Unfortunately, the amount of force required to reliably stop attacks is often enough to kill people.

That means our right to protection from assault, rape, murder, and genocide requires lethal force.

It trumps agressors' right to safety in situations they chose to instigate.

Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 07-18-2019 at 7:47 AM..
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 7:12 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.