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
  #2601  
Old 08-18-2018, 5:39 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,085
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

nope, can't, part B:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
What you have to explain is why a State can regulate pesticides in the interest of public safety, but cannot regulate firearms in the interest of public safety; the former, presumably, not being a burden on Interstate Commerce and the latter, presumably, being a burden on Interstate Commerce.
So I didn't say States can regulate anything, and I'm fighting against their attempt to regulate in a way which impacts interstate commerce, so why is it now my burden to say they can regulate some stuff?

Quote:
Except, in the decision, SCOTUS will, to one degree or another, be creating a or positing affirmation for an existing standard. Thus, they are going to be looking to have you delimit what you consider to be 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable' in terms of what constitutes a 'burden;' meaning you will hae to cite some basis or standard for that acceptability.
Well, I don't have a good answer. In Pike, the cantaloupe growers faced a wait of months (1 time, not recurring) to build a packing facility, and a 1-time cost of 200k to build that facility, in adjusted dollars that's $1.3 million or so. Those numbers were found to represent an "undue" burden.

Here, the cost to Glock / Colt / S & W / Beretta / H&K / Ruger / Sig / Springfield / Taurus / Walther / and countless others would probably aggregate well into the billions, if not the tens of billions, as each would have to research this tech, develop this tech, research the mass-production possibilities, implement if possible those mass-production findings, develop testing protocols and apply them, and all of it in such a way that they incurred no increased liability in other areas (IOW, reliability must not suffer, safety must not suffer, durability, etc) (and no loss of market share due to the implementation) and test it in a breathtakingly extensive way to insure that the many hostile states that are constantly trying to get around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and sue the firearms mfrs aren't given a key with which to destroy these many firearms companies.

CA might have their tech in some lab, but they haven't shown it can be mass produced, or that the effective implementation and testing of such mass production would not take years, if not tens of years.

The burden of all this might simply be too much for many companies to afford, and might even be constantly precluding smaller, new firearms companies from ever entering the CA market, unless they survive without that market and become wealthy enough to afford this expense. I guess companies that are unable to amass a gigantic war chest for R&D are precluded from the CA market? That burden, which is most acute for smaller, younger or less wealthy companies is not "undue"?

So each year, the amount that each company could have earned from it's best products over it's old models (if they are already in the market) is lost to those companies. If the company was never in the CA market, it therefore must pay this ransom to access it (assuming it's possible to mass produce), and the loss each year over the last 11 years is every single dollar it could have reasonably expected to earn in the 4th largest economy in the world. I'd like to hear how CA proves that doesn't pose an undue burden on interstate commerce.

So if the standard is, "Are we roughly in the same boat as Pike?" and I think the answer is, "No, the firearms companies have it way harder than Pike's worst nightmare"
Pike didn't have to become a genius business visionary, Henry Ford, and adopt some new process that would change the face of the world. But you're saying the firearms companies can be forced to bear that burden by CA, and somehow become geniuses, as if wanting it could make it so. Pike didn't have to research and develop anything, they knew all the answers going in, and even had a number on exactly what it would cost and a solid timeline, yet it was still too great a burden. Pike didn't have to test any mystery invention for all possible negative interactions with other engineered technology, and pay for the privilege for years and years. Pike didn't have to wonder if it was even possible to build their new packing plant, whereas the firearms mfrs have no guarantee that mass production is even possible regardless of time / money spent, and those are the "big" firearms companies that might, and I say might, be able to afford such a thing.


Quote:
Does the 'burden' you can demonstrate outweigh the Government's interest (benefit) or is it the other way around?
At your link, this comparison is made by looking at the existence of less-restrictive alternatives and to see if there are conflicts with other states' regulations.
We discussed this earlier, I thought. There are clearly a near-infinite number of less-restrictive alternatives -- the state could pay for the development of this mass-production process itself, and indemnify all firearms mfrs using the state's process in case of some flaw in the state's results. That would be expensive to the state, but your link does not ask if the alternative is expensive, only that it is less restrictive. The state could also lessen the restriction by not requiring the imprint in two places, that wouldn't cost the state a thing, although it wouldn't necessarily dismiss this case, either, but it does prove the existence of multiple less-restrictive alternatives.

As for conflicts with other states' regulations, of course there are, because other states do not have microstamping requirements.
__________________

Last edited by speedrrracer; 08-18-2018 at 5:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2602  
Old 08-18-2018, 5:58 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 692
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Response to "A(2)"

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
...CA can do whatever it wants, unless it can't. When it comes to doing harm to interstate commerce, it can't...
Let me throw Lopez back at you with Thomas' concurring opinion...

Quote:
...While the principal dissent concedes that there are limits to federal power, the sweeping nature of our current test enables the dissent to argue that Congress can regulate gun possession. But it seems to me that the power to regulate "commerce" can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress could regulate such matters is in need of reexamination... I also want to point out the necessity of refashioning a coherent test that does not tend to "obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government." ... Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Taken together, these fundamental textual problems should, at the very least, convince us that the "substantial effects" test should be reexamined... These cases all establish a simple point: from the time of the ratification of the Constitution to the mid 1930's, it was widely understood that the Constitution granted Congress only limited powers, notwithstanding the Commerce Clause. [n.7] Moreover, there was no question that activities wholly separated from business, such as gun possession, were beyond the reach of the commerce power. If anything, the "wrong turn" was the Court's dramatic departure in the 1930's from a century and a half of precedent... Apart from its recent vintage and its corresponding lack of any grounding in the original understanding of the Constitution, the substantial effects test suffers from the further flaw that it appears to grant Congress a police power over the Nation... Unless the dissenting Justices are willing to repudiate our long held understanding of the limited nature of federal power, I would think that they too must be willing to reconsider the substantial effects test in a future case. If we wish to be true to a Constitution that does not cede a police power to the Federal Government, our Commerce Clause's boundaries simply cannot be "defined" as being " `commensurate with the national needs' " or self consciously intended to let the Federal Government " `defend itself against economic forces that Congress decrees inimical or destructive of the national economy.'... At an appropriate juncture, I think we must modify our Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Today, it is easy enough to say that the Clause certainly does not empower Congress to ban gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school.
So, is it 'sufficiently absolute for this application' or has Thomas suggested that it is, potentially, not as 'absolute' as you are depending upon? You're 'ticking boxes' and Thomas is suggesting SCOTUS might need a new set of boxes or, at least, a new set of criteria for being able to tick the boxes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
No one is questioning a State's right to control that state's public health and safety, but that doesn't give CA authority over interstate commerce or an exception to harm it.
Again, the State is not looking for "authority over," but simply claiming it is working within existing exceptions. So, while there may not be "a lot of red lights," there do exist a few such lights, along with "lower speed limit" zones along that Highway; where Thomas is suggesting there might need to be more in his opinion on the very case you are placing so much emphasis on thus far. Remember, if they can parse and 'misinterpret' Heller as deliberately as they are, Thomas' concurring opinion can be utilized similarly to declare that the Feds can't simply claim "harm" and override State laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
And so we see why it's almost impossible for the Commerce Clause to lose, at anything.
Many feel that changed with Roberts' support of Obamacare in 2012. You might take a look at this article, paying particular attention to...

Quote:
...“The commerce clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote... The four dissenting justices agreed with Chief Justice Roberts’s limits on the commerce clause... the four liberal justices who concurred in the result vehemently disagreed with the reasoning...
In other words, there is a decided 'split' in the Court as to the extent of Federal Power under the Commerce Clause. Roberts is perceived as having already 'limited' it and Thomas is strongly indicating a 'new test' for it may be needed. Again, Roberts and Thomas are two of the five you will be depending on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Alito didn't even seem to have a problem with the law, he was more whining about how Congress didn't justify it with sufficient findings, and if they had, he would have been totally on board.
The State Supreme Court and the 9th's panel deferred to the Legislature's findings. Would Alito? Maybe, maybe not. But, that brings us back to Roberts...

Quote:
Chief Justice Roberts's suggestion that Congress has more "institutional competence" than the Supreme Court to engage in "fact-finding" indicates that he would be more deferential to Congress than Judge Alito would. Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way to emphasize that the Supreme Court, unlike Congress, is ill equipped to make policy judgments or predictions about the economic effects of laws.
Your opinion as to which (SCOTUS vs Legislature) is better suited to fact-finding is less important than which is going to be more willing to conduct such fact-finding. Remember, it's not just about whether it impacts interstate commerce, but whether the technology is sufficiently viable that the Legislature is able to demand implementation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Your link seems to say if there has been / is a lots of laws in lots of areas in this subject, perhaps that indicates Congress wants to own the entire area, and not share it, and thus field preemption would then blanket the entire thought-space, even though the laws themselves did not.
As I've already pointed out, there are numerous examples where States are allowed to be more restrictive with regard to firearms than Federal Law mandates; suggesting that the Federal Government does NOT wish to preempt the 'entire space.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Some of that "impossibility" here...they are legislating we must mass produce, but it doesn't work in mass production...
Yet. That's what the State is mandating; i.e., "make it work." This is not necessarily as 'unique' as you'd like to portray it. For instance, Obamacare wants your health records available online to any provider you access. Does the technology exist? Yes, but not yet sufficiently dedicated in the manner required to fulfill the legislated mandate. Do the emissions and mileage standards demanded by law currently have technology supporting them in a 'mass production' context or are manufacturers going to have to 'figure it out' to comply?

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
All I'm saying is that CA would have to pay for, develop and test the mass production tech in a reasonably cost-effective way in order to prove me wrong when I claim that their tech can't be mass produced without an undue burden on interstate commerce.
The State doesn't have to "prove you wrong." You have to prove the theoretical and practical impossibilities are sufficient to cause an unacceptable, sustained burden on interstate commerce. You're also asking for the Government to do what has been, traditionally, a 'market place' responsibility. The Government may cause the tech to be developed (think NASA), but it's up to the 'market' to implement it in a manner sufficient for economic success.

The question here is whether the Government can mandate that the market do just that. It's not an issue of 'ludicrous degree' (your fusion in a bottle example), but whether the existing technology is sufficiently 'tailorable' to mass production methods. Manufacturers say "No." But, do they say "No" because it simply isn't or because the investment is seen as too onerous to recover in a reasonable time frame? Remember, D.C. now has microstamping requirements and other States are entertaining the possibility. If sufficient jurisdictions were to mandate it, would manufacturers 'suddenly' discover a way to do implement it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Even if their experiment is legit, I don't care, it's a burden in the context of commerce, they don't get to do that, so they lose.
As we've seen, simple is good, but it may not be as 'simple' as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
So the tech can exist in some lab somewhere, can't be mass produced, yet therefore it's a crime-solving tool because we say so. And it is totally allowed to burden interstate commerce because why?
It's not that it is currently being used in solving gun crimes, it's that it could be used in doing so, were the technology actually in place. It would be tough to argue that it did not have, at least, some potential in that context. What you'd have to establish is the degree to which it might prove useful is insufficient to justify the Legislative intent.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 08-18-2018 at 7:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2603  
Old 08-18-2018, 7:11 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 692
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Response to "B(2)"

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
So I didn't say States can regulate anything, and I'm fighting against their attempt to regulate in a way which impacts interstate commerce, so why is it now my burden to say they can regulate some stuff?
It doesn't matter whether you do. It is likely you will have to stipulate they do given that they do. Then you will have to show why they can regulate "this" but not "that."

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
...the cantaloupe growers faced a wait of months (1 time, not recurring) to build a packing facility, and a 1-time cost of 200k to build that facility, in adjusted dollars that's $1.3 million or so. Those numbers were found to represent an "undue" burden.
Be careful not to get caught in an "apples and oranges" comparison. Cantaloupe is a perishable product and, in 1970, $1.3 million dollars represents what percentage of revenue compared to...??? How does that translate to non-perishable products? We're now 5 years into the 'wait' in terms of nothing post-2013 has been allowed without the required 'safety devices.' Neither you nor the manufacturers have provided details regarding the cost of implementation. The argument has been "we can't" or "it is not financially feasible," without any real numbers.

Do you intend that manufacturers will now have to 'open their books' for scrutiny so the Court can determine... Ummm... Isn't that something gun manufacturers resist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
...to insure that the many hostile states that are constantly trying to get around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and sue the firearms mfrs aren't given a key with which to destroy these many firearms companies...
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
...each would have to research this tech, develop this tech, research the mass-production possibilities, implement if possible those mass-production findings, develop testing protocols and apply them, and all of it in such a way that they incurred no increased liability in other areas...
Once the basic, production tech was created, it would be a matter of each adapting the technology to their, specific process. This will cause you to delineate how 'unique' each manufacturer is in terms of producing semi-automatic handguns. It's not necessarily exclusively about the 'uniqueness' of individual designs, but the actual manufacturing process.

You would also be up against the argument that each, individual design already incurs these or similar costs in terms of producing functional and safe firearms. How would adapting microstamping as another part of the production add an undue burden/cost to this, one that is not recoverable; bearing in mind the estimates put forth that the cost would add something like $6 - $18 to each firearm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
CA might have their tech in some lab, but they haven't shown it can be mass produced, or that the effective implementation and testing of such mass production would not take years, if not tens of years.
They don't have to. You have to show that it would; not simply from a standpoint of recalcitrance, but as a physical impossibility and/or at unrecoverable cost, particularly to the consumer.

If manufacturers prove able to do it, would the end result be that a firearm which costs $500 today jump to $5,000 or $50,000 and that the average cost of available firearms means they are, in essence, no longer available in terms of citizens being able to afford them, effectively precluding the right to "keep and bear?" What price level would create such a scenario? Is that even a consideration in that, as an interstate commerce case, you have removed the "fundamental rights" element as part of the calculus to the decision?

How long a 'waiting period' for the implementation of new tech is 'reasonable?' Are alternatives to the new firearms still, readily, available? If they are, how does that create a 'burden' on either the manufacturers or citizen? How long does or can a firearm remain in production before diminishing returns on sales force its abandonment. Be careful here. How long was the Browning Hi-Power in production? How long has the 1911 been in production? As we've discussed, focusing too much on "new" being "safer" might send us down another rabbit hole we don't want to be swallowed by.

Remember, Heller will be thrown out there... It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...

So, if alternatives exist...???

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
The burden of all this might simply be too much for many companies to afford, and might even be constantly precluding smaller, new firearms companies from ever entering the CA market, unless they survive without that market and become wealthy enough to afford this expense. I guess companies that are unable to amass a gigantic war chest for R&D are precluded from the CA market?
Firing pins can be produced by a limited number of companies and procured by the manufacturers. Just like AR lowers. According to a 2008 article...

Quote:
The researchers estimated that setting up a facility to engrave alphanumeric codes on firing pins would cost about $7 to $8 per firing pin in the first year, assuming that such marks would be required on all handguns sold in California, and based on the efficiencies associated with high-volume production costs, Tulleners said.
So, you're now left with the "2nd mark" requirement; which the 2008 article stated needed "further assessment."

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
I'd like to hear how CA proves that doesn't pose an undue burden on interstate commerce.
How do State Sales Tax not impose an "undue burden" on interstate commerce? How 'absolute' is the Government's ability to 'tax' and couldn't the State argue it as such?

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Pike didn't have to become a genius business visionary, Henry Ford, and adopt some new process that would change the face of the world.
You keep reducing microstamping to something that is unknown and needing to be 'created.' The technology already exists. You have yet to show that implementation for mass production is a technical impossibility vs. simply incurring a cost manufacturers don't wish to bear, at this time.

You're also up against a Supreme Court which is justifiably reputed to 'have difficulties' when it comes to technology. Simply citing a 1970 case insofar as what is 'technologically feasible' might provide some 'comfort' to certain Justices, but it is not the same as 'technologically feasible' in 2018. More to the point, what might the Justices perceive as 'technologically feasible," even if they don't simply 'punt' by deferring to Legislatures as better suited for such 'fact-finding' endeavors?

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
At your link, this comparison is made by looking at the existence of less-restrictive alternatives and to see if there are conflicts with other states' regulations.
This is going to depend on the level of scrutiny you can get the Court to apply; something SCOTUS has yet to establish as a 'standard' when it comes to firearms. Worse. By making it about interstate commerce, you have removed the "fundamental right" aspect; thus, you are highly unlikely (read that "not going") to get strict scrutiny. The 9th panel already noted...

Quote:
Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel held that the Act only regulates commercial sales, not possession, and does so in a way that does not impose a substantial burden on purchasers. The panel held that the requirements for a chamber load indicator and a magazine detachment mechanism reasonably fit with California’s interest in public safety. The panel further held that California had met its burden of showing that the microstamping requirement was reasonably tailored to address the substantial problem of untraceable bullets at crime scenes and the value of a reasonable means of identification...
When it comes to "reasonable alternatives" under intermediate scrutiny, you might note this Q&A. It's not always as clear cut as some would like and you would have to establish each of the "near-infinite number of less-restrictive alternatives" you introduce as viable, existing or easily (more readily than microstamping) implemented, and, certainly, not 'radical' (e.g., unduly burdensome to taxpayers, inconsistent with the Government's legitimate interest, etc.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
As for conflicts with other states' regulations, of course there are, because other states do not have microstamping requirements.
So, if other jurisdictions, or a sufficient number of them, mandate microstamping, the reduction of 'conflict' and the presumed/predictable 'economic' realities would suffice to make microstamping 'acceptable' as a legal requirement? Isn't that the very argument being proffered by the Government and anti-gun proponents?

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 08-18-2018 at 7:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2604  
Old 08-18-2018, 10:26 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,085
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

can't seem to trim the verbiage, part A:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Let me throw Lopez back at you with Thomas' concurring opinion...
Many feel that changed with Roberts' support of Obamacare in 2012. You might take a look at this article, paying particular attention to...
...“The commerce clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote...
All of this seems fine to me; none of it makes me think either Justice would hesitate for a second to vote for my imaginary case on Commerce Clause grounds, at least. Lopez, Obamacare -- these are freaky edge cases / abuses of the Commerce Clause. None of them are dealing with commerce, they're dealing with "well, what if that church choir's music selection causes women to get into a bad mood, and withhold sex from their boyfriends? Those boyfriends might then be upset, and less interested in going to sports bars and spending money! So the Commerce Clause must be used to force churches to either ban choirs or to select music which keeps women in good moods so they give more sex to their boyfriends so they're interested in buying beers in order to save the sports bar industry in this great nation!"

That's the kind of BS abuse of the Commerce Clause that I get the impression both Justices are talking about. Notice how none of the cases you cite (as indicating some supposed lessening of the power of the Commerce Clause) are "direct" commerce cases? Dude wants to buy a shirt. Nothing like that. All the cases you have are about these weird, tangential, kinda-related to commerce twice removed cases. My imaginary case is a completely missionary position commerce case. No indirection, no "well, it's kind of related to commerce", no guesswork, not forcing anyone to buy stuff and calling it a tax BS. They sell guns in interstate commerce, I wanna buy 'em. Could not be more straightforward.

I think because this case is so mainstream, not some edge case, all the 5 Justices would find it absolutely applicable. I think they'd be happy to see it, because it's the "right" kind of commerce clause case. Not saying they would automatically vote for me, but I don't think any of them would say I was asking for some "expansion" of its powers. There is nothing here that wasn't present in Pike. Heck, I think the antis would find it applicable, too, but they'd certainly find some other grounds to shoot me down, because gunz.

Quote:
Remember, it's not just about whether it impacts interstate commerce, but whether the technology is sufficiently viable that the Legislature is able to demand implementation.
??? Didn't read that in the Constitution. Says who? If the state can demand I "make it work" magically why stop there and cobble together some "sufficiently viable" standard that will just be rubber-stamped because the court will defer to the legislature on what's "sufficiently viable"? Why does the tech have to be "sufficiently viable" but not the production process?

Quote:
Yet. That's what the State is mandating; i.e., "make it work." This is not necessarily as 'unique' as you'd like to portray it. For instance, Obamacare wants your health records available online to any provider you access. Does the technology exist? Yes, but not yet sufficiently dedicated in the manner required to fulfill the legislated mandate.
Not buying this comparison, putting records online is a common thing, easily done with commodity items millions of times per day by millions of businesses around the planet. Apples and oranges (which you said to avoid) compared to a mass production process that has never existed in the history of mankind.


Quote:
You have to prove the theoretical and practical impossibilities are sufficient to cause an unacceptable, sustained burden on interstate commerce.
The sustained thing again. Why did Pike win, when they didn't have to show a sustained burden? Where is this sustained thing coming from?


Quote:
You're also asking for the Government to do what has been, traditionally, a 'market place' responsibility.
The government is already taking on other traditionally 'market place' responsibilities by telling the market what features it must implement, irregardless of any consumer input, market forces or probability of ROI. With patents, the government gives protection in exchange for innovation. Here, the government threatens the financial security of firearms companies and offers nothing in exchange. No consideration -- good thing this isn't a contract.


Quote:
The Government may cause the tech to be developed (think NASA), but it's up to the 'market' to implement it in a manner sufficient for economic success.
NASA is not an entity which exists in the normal marketplace, it's a government entity, with no need to so much as cover it's own expenses. In fact it is physically incapable of covering it's own expenses, anything it produces is public domain unless it's a national security issue. The government can place unreasonable tech demands on NASA because NASA can keep plugging away at those demands forever, without concern for ROI, as long as the votes are there. NASA's existence is not predicated on marketplace success, only votes, it can waste billions of dollars and keep rolling right along.


Quote:
If sufficient jurisdictions were to mandate it, would manufacturers 'suddenly' discover a way to do implement it?
Hopefully it's unlikely that insults to the mfrs character will get SCOTUS to decide this case in a certain way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2605  
Old 08-18-2018, 10:27 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,085
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

and B:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It doesn't matter whether you do. It is likely you will have to stipulate they do given that they do. Then you will have to show why they can regulate "this" but not "that."
They regulate stuff, but that doesn't mean it's legal, just that it hasn't been challenged yet. "Presumptively lawful" just means we presume it's OK, but we're not guaranteeing it's OK.

Quote:
Be careful not to get caught in an "apples and oranges" comparison. Cantaloupe is a perishable product and, in 1970, $1.3 million dollars represents what percentage of revenue compared to...??? How does that translate to non-perishable products? We're now 5 years into the 'wait' in terms of nothing post-2013 has been allowed without the required 'safety devices.' Neither you nor the manufacturers have provided details regarding the cost of implementation. The argument has been "we can't" or "it is not financially feasible," without any real numbers.
Not sure what difference the exact numbers would make -- it was 200k in 1970, which is about 1.3 million in today's dollars. The value of the AZ crop market is in the billions, in today's dollars. So it's a fraction of a percent. I'm sure the loss the firearms mfrs are suffering is also a fraction of a percent of the overall domestic pistol market.

And why would I provide numbers? The state says, "You can" without any numbers, so if that holds value, then an actual assertion from an actual mfr saying "Can't" without any numbers should be more valuable to the court, because at least it's coming from someone who is actually a mfr, therefore an authority on the subject.


Quote:
Once the basic, production tech was created, it would be a matter of each adapting the technology to their, specific process.
This begs the question. We have no evidence that the basic mass-production tech can be created at all, let alone in a financially responsible way. Is the state going to create it, patent it, release the patent into the public domain, and indemnify the mfrs? What about the continuing losses while waiting for the state? Having done all that, what if the specific mfring processs of several mfrs would be greatly burdened by the requirement to adapt to the state's solution -- a huge expense owing to their unique way of mfring, in which they have invested vast sums of money and decades of time? Seems we'd be right back here.

Quote:
Is that even a consideration in that, as an interstate commerce case, you have removed the "fundamental rights" element as part of the calculus to the decision?
I'd have removed it from the calculus to this decision. Not a burden on the 2A, but a burden on interstate commerce.

Quote:
Are alternatives to the new firearms still, readily, available? If they are, how does that create a 'burden' on either the manufacturers or citizen? How long does or can a firearm remain in production before diminishing returns on sales force its abandonment. Be careful here. How long was the Browning Hi-Power in production? How long has the 1911 been in production? As we've discussed, focusing too much on "new" being "safer" might send us down another rabbit hole we don't want to be swallowed by.
I think this reinforces my points. Alternatives to the "new" firearms cannot be available, because no "new" firearms with all the great new features are allowed into CA. The diminishing sales argument will be made by my brilliant beancounters, and multiplied by each year this continues. The length of time of the 1911 design means nothing, because it lacks these great new features to which consumers want access and should have in a free market system. We certainly wouldn't tolerate keeping the latest, best abortion instruments out of the hands of doctors because they didn't incorporate some feature required by the state of Alabama. We discussed the "new" and "safer" thing, but we didn't agree on the outcome. You say rabbit hole, I say it's not as if they aren't going to attack us with that regardless of this situation, might as well use it for any gain it can provide while we can.

Quote:
Firing pins can be produced by a limited number of companies and procured by the manufacturers. Just like AR lowers. According to a 2008 article...
I don't think this article supports your position. The article makes clear that the tech didn't work well across all guns and ammo, the article involves no actual mfrs, just a bunch of academics, estimating what they think about costs in an industry in which they have no expertise. Even the study author called for more research.

Quote:
You keep reducing microstamping to something that is unknown and needing to be 'created.' The technology already exists. You have yet to show that implementation for mass production is a technical impossibility vs. simply incurring a cost manufacturers don't wish to bear, at this time.
I don't think so, check it again. Ford didn't invent any tech OR the assembly line, he adapted it when it was a young concept to the mfring process of cars, and that's exactly what I wrote. I'm trying to say the mass production process does not exist and needs to be created. Without it, we're back at the fusion in a bottle thing -- isolated lab results with zero real-world applicability. And I don't need to show the mass production implementation is a technical impossibility, anymore than the state needs to show that microstamping is a "safety" feature. All I need to show is undue burden on interstate commerce, even if they were only asking me something as simple as "please wear a t-shirt on Tuesday". It's just much easier because they're asking me to do something that has never been done.

Even still, though the tech might "exist" doesn't mean it's production-ready. A handful of lab geeks plinking out a few rounds is light-years away from the kind of reliability, safety and durability required by a product that will be depended upon to save human life. Massive investment will be required to bring this lab experiment up to production standards, unless it is your position that this is the first tech to go from lab to production readiness in the history of mankind. Then the tech will truly "exist" for production purposes as opposed to novelty demonstrations. Then once the tech is ready, the production process must also become ready, and that may take years and cost billions. I'm sure my LSE-trained beancounters can provide a spreadsheet.

For example, it might be that our 5-axis mill robot must grip the frame housing in a patented way to prevent vibration during certain milling processes, which enables our legendary precision, safety and reliability, and that critically-important grip point blocks the insertion location of the proposed tech, and so we'd have to either adapt the tech, requiring a full, new round of R&D, or adapt our state-of-the-art robots, which would also require a full, new round of R&D, not to mention loss of ROI on the robots. This is clearly an undue burden on interstate commerce for a tech which fails both tests for so-called "non-discriminatory" laws, because there are less-restrictive options and there are conflicts with other states' regulations.

Quote:
You're also up against a Supreme Court which is justifiably reputed to 'have difficulties' when it comes to technology. Simply citing a 1970 case insofar as what is 'technologically feasible' might provide some 'comfort' to certain Justices, but it is not the same as 'technologically feasible' in 2018. More to the point, what might the Justices perceive as 'technologically feasible," even if they don't simply 'punt' by deferring to Legislatures as better suited for such 'fact-finding' endeavors?
I thought the comfy 1970 case was to my advantage, too, and that's probably why sarabellum handed it down to me. I wanted to ask you about deferring to legislatures in this particular context. It seems to me in this context the legislature to which SCOTUS must defer is Congress, not California. Congress owns this interstate commerce space, and it has not granted any authority to CA to operate here.

Congress has not "found" that CA should get an exception to operate in this area, and SCOTUS must defer to the findings of Congress, not CA. CA can claim they're operating in some imaginary exception, since there is no such authorization/exception from Congress, it falls apart; from your link: "states cannot discriminate against interstate commerce nor can they unduly burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of federal legislation regulating the activity."

Quote:
This is going to depend on the level of scrutiny you can get the Court to apply; something SCOTUS has yet to establish as a 'standard' when it comes to firearms. Worse. By making it about interstate commerce, you have removed the "fundamental right" aspect; thus, you are highly unlikely (read that "not going") to get strict scrutiny.
This is not mentioned at your link. There is no mention of levels of scrutiny in Pike, don't see why any are needed. And if there is any deference to be paid to legislative policy judgements here, it is the deference due from SCOTUS to Congress' legislative policy judgement in not conferring to CA any authority to interfere in interstate commerce.
Again, per the two-part test in Lopez, Congress' authority only needs to meet rational basis to control here, CA doesn't get to flip the script and pretend it is free to operate over the interstate commerce authority of Congress, regardless of what its legislature might believe.

Quote:
So, if other jurisdictions, or a sufficient number of them, mandate microstamping, the reduction of 'conflict' and the presumed/predictable 'economic' realities would suffice to make microstamping 'acceptable' as a legal requirement? Isn't that the very argument being proffered by the Government and anti-gun proponents?
No, the only question asks that conflict exists, which it does. I wouldn't speculate on what might happen in some dystopian future.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2606  
Old 08-19-2018, 1:12 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 692
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Response to "A3"

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
can't seem to trim the verbiage...
That does happen in an enticing 'conversation.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
All of this seems fine to me; none of it makes me think either Justice would hesitate for a second to vote for my imaginary case on Commerce Clause grounds, at least.
I would hesitate to premise a case primarily on the belief that any Justice would automatically side with my argument(s); especially when the argument is based on issues two or three of the Justices you'd be overtly relying on have already expressed some doubts about the Dormant Commerce Clause and the 'unlimited' nature of the Commerce Clause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Lopez, Obamacare -- these are freaky edge cases / abuses of the Commerce Clause. None of them are dealing with commerce...
They are either dealing with the Commerce Clause or they aren't. What you're indicating is that they are dealing with how the Commerce Clause is used and interpreted; which is precisely what you're basing your case on. You are arguing for a narrow interpretation, based solely on commercial transactions, where existing exceptions do not come to bear. What Lopez and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius were arguing is a broader application or interpretation of the scope of the power delegated to the Federal Government via that clause. As I showed, there is a virtually 'equal' split among the Justices in terms of how narrowly/broadly those parameters should be interpreted, meaning...

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
That's the kind of BS abuse of the Commerce Clause that I get the impression both Justices are talking about.
Your argument is: "One man's trash is another man's treasure." Since you, personally, consider it 'trash,' then "half" the Court is 'wrong' and, thus, you 'win.' Ummm...???

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
No indirection, no "well, it's kind of related to commerce", no guesswork, not forcing anyone to buy stuff and calling it a tax BS. They sell guns in interstate commerce, I wanna buy 'em. Could not be more straightforward.
The State and both the California Supreme Court and 9th panel have both, pointedly, acknowledged it to be interstate commerce. No indirection, no guesswork.

Isn't the State forcing manufacturers (and, thus, consumers) to 'buy' microstamping technology or do without the product, either in terms of production and sale or in terms of keep and bear, with some, limited, exceptions; where manufacturers can continue to produce/sell and consumers can continue to keep/bear, just not any model?

Remember, Roberts said the Commerce Clause didn't apply because the mandate regulated inactivity rather than activity.

Quote:
It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.
Thus, in some respects, he too is in favor of a more 'narrowly' interpreted approach to the Commerce Clause. But, how narrow and are there ways 'around' such constrictions. Are you going to spend your time making a case for what the courts have already stipulated; i.e., the Commerce Clause applies? Or, are you more interested in whether the exceptions to the Commerce Clause apply; i.e., whether the California Legislature is operating within the exceptions?

You can't simply keep declaring that they aren't when they have won in two, separate venues (State Supreme Court and Federal 9th Circuit Panel) based on the idea that they are. What you're missing, actually 'dismissing' out-of-hand, is the point I'm making. "Half" the Court (4 Justices) already appears prepared to 'agree' that the Commerce Clause, with exceptions or without, can be used to impact 'gun possession.' Therefore, it's not a stretch to believe they would find such use of the Commerce Clause acceptable in terms of conditions on commercial purchase, since you must 'obtain' before you can 'possess.'

You start with the Dormant Commerce Clause and I point out Thomas has declared that to have no, Constitutional basis. I then point out that Thomas has expressed strong interest in reshaping Commerce Clause jurisprudence, followed by the idea that Roberts has recognized restrictions on the Commerce Clause, but also a clear willingness to 'wiggle' around such limitations and a publicly expressed deferential attitude toward the fact-finding capabilities of Legislatures vs. the Courts.

Bear in mind that the State Supreme Court pointed to the 9th's holding in National Shooting Sports Foundation v. State (2016) when they said...

Quote:
On appeal, the Court of Appeal observed that “the courts must defer to the Legislature’s factual determination unless it is palpably arbitrary and must uphold the challenged legislation so long as the Legislature could rationally have determined a set of facts that support it.”
Thus, in a very real sense, Roberts, the 9th, and California Supreme Court concur that the Legislature, not the Court, is better suited to 'fact-finding' in these cases, where Roberts has gone on to opine...

Quote:
Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way to emphasize that the Supreme Court, unlike Congress, is ill equipped to make policy judgments or predictions about the economic effects of laws.
Yet, this is precisely what you are asking the Court to do; make or affirm economic predictions about the economic effects of the law based on 'fact-finding' of the very nature Roberts, the 9th, and the California Supreme Court has declared the Legislature better enabled to do. All of this while acknowledging that Alito already has an opinion on record where, if the State can 'make its case,' he will defer to the Legislature in terms of their fact-finding?

Ummm...???

I'm not saying they wouldn't 'side' with you. What I'm saying is that you're relying on 3 of the 5 Justices who are 'more 2nd Amendment friendly' to do so by offering opinions which 'work around' issues they've previously penned opinions on simply because you feel those cases (cases SCOTUS actually granted cert to) were 'freaky,' and because the Justices will likely agree that the law being challenged is 'silly' or 'impossible' or 'abusive.' Yet, the fundamental basis of your argument comes down to... They sell guns in interstate commerce, I wanna buy 'em?

Bear in mind that, when citing cases, it's not always about the specifics of the case, but the rationale utilized. This is one of the 'fallacies' in the pro- vs. anti- gun debate. A fundamental right is a fundamental right. Simply because a case deals with speech or searches doesn't mean the rationale doesn't or can't apply to arms. Trying to isolate the rationale based on the specifics of a case is part of what leads to the 'inconsistencies' we accuse the Left-leaning or 'activist' Judges of. It's also part of what led Thomas to declare, when SCOTUS denied cert in Silvester...

Quote:
...If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court... The Ninth Circuit claimed to be applying intermediate scrutiny, but its analysis did not resemble anything approaching that standard. It allowed California to prove a governmental interest with speculation instead of evidence. It did not meaningfully assess whether the 10-day waiting period is reasonably tailored to California’s purported interest. And it did not defer to the factual findings that the District Court made after trial. The Ninth Circuit
would not have done this for any other constitutional right, and it could not have done this unless it was applying rational-basis review... Needless to say, a State that offers “no evidence or anecdotes in support of [a] restriction” should not prevail under intermediate scrutiny... If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari. I suspect that four Members of this Court would vote to review a 10-day waiting period for abortions, notwithstanding a State’s purported interest in creating a “cooling off ” period...
In other words, because you're trying to make this solely an interstate commerce case and since the specifics in Silvester are related to a fundamental right, your argument suggests the rationale Thomas presented in his dissent cannot and should not be used in relation to whether the State has made its case in relation to microstamping. I mean, really. Isn't a 'waiting period' case 'freaky edge' after all? What does Thomas' observations have to do with interstate commerce and microstamping? It's not like you're claiming the State is 'speculating' with its 'fact-finding' in that their 'evidence' is less than compelling, complete, or extensive.

Sheesh.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
There is nothing here that wasn't present in Pike.
Except nearly 50 years in the advancement of technology and its application. Remember, in 1969 we went to the moon; in part, using a computer with less computational power than today's handheld calculator. How much different is gun manufacturing technology today than in 1970, bearing in mind that the "3D printed guns" case was just settled and that will be in the minds of the Justices as you stamp your foot and declare that the 'technology is impossible.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Why does the tech have to be "sufficiently viable" but not the production process?
Because the production process involves implementing "sufficiently viable" technology. You're not having to create the technology, just the method of implementation; which is typically an issue of investment and ROI more so than 'mechanics.' At least that is what the State is, effectively, arguing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Not buying this comparison, putting records online is a common thing...
Yes and no. Where is the storage or where will it be? Who/what will be responsible for security, dissemination, etc.? What are the costs involved in implementation vis a vis Government, businesses from hospitals to individual doctors, including the staff necessary so that doctors can 'doctor' and not spend their time filling in lines on a computer? What 'common commodities' in terms of tech will meet the minimum standard? Windows 10 with all the issues surrounding privacy? Google Cloud, Apple Cloud... Ask Jennifer Lawrence about how 'protected' her private photos were. Bearing in mind that ALL of this and more has to comply with existing Laws, including not only Obamacare, but HIPAA and others.

It's only apples & oranges if you view it myopically, forgetting about the overall picture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
The sustained thing again. Why did Pike win, when they didn't have to show a sustained burden? Where is this sustained thing coming from?
Uh... The basic or essential nature of the Commerce Clause.

Quote:
A temporary pause in transportation does not automatically deprive a shipment of its interstate character.
In other words, a 'temporary' burden may not be adjudicated as 'undue.' Meanwhile, a 'sustained' burden very well might and likely would be if that burden did not fall under one of the exceptions to the Commerce Clause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Here, the government threatens the financial security of firearms companies and offers nothing in exchange. No consideration -- good thing this isn't a contract.
The State offers manufacturers access to the market within the State for those products not already on the roster and thereby considered 'safe.' Isn't that 'consideration?'

cont'd.
Reply With Quote
  #2607  
Old 08-19-2018, 1:14 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 692
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Response to "A3" cont'd. (See what I mean by "it does happen?" )

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
NASA is not an entity which exists in the normal marketplace, it's a government entity, with no need to so much as cover it's own expenses.
You missed the point. You want the Government to 'develop,' test, and implement the tech. Okay. If a Government entity such as NASA puts out a call for a specific tech and it is developed to meet the Government entity's needs, the Government entity then tests it and implements it - right? They aren't doing it for the civilian market, but for Governmental use.

For that tech to be available and sold on the open market for private use, a private entity must find a way to adapt it to production and 'civilian' use for it to be an economically viable product sold on the market - right? How many products do we now consider to be 'everyday items' had their origins in the technology developed for the space program? Bear in mind that this was the key to Japanese economic success for decades; i.e., finding a way to mass produce existing technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Hopefully it's unlikely that insults to the mfrs character will get SCOTUS to decide this case in a certain way.
That's not being insulting to the manufacturers. It's simple economics and it's what the State of California is effectively arguing. To wit:

The manufacturers are not implementing the technology because they consider California to be too small a piece of their overall market to justify the investment for making handguns specifically for the California market. Were a sufficient number of jurisdictions requiring microstamping, the manufacturers would find sufficient incentive to implement the technology as it would represent economies of scale allowing for sufficient ROI to not only cover the investment costs, but create a sustainable revenue source over time.

Thus, it's not that they can't, physically implement the technology. It's that the manufacturers won't implement it until the law of 'supply and demand' kicks in; i.e., sufficient demand to produce economies of scale sufficient to justify the investment. As a result, it is a choice (a business decision) being made by the manufacturers not to implement the tech and not to sell their product in California.

This is a fundamental hurdle you're going to have to overcome in your case. You keep attempting to shift the blame and the responsibility for implementation to the Government. The Government is, effectively, saying they are "NASA-like" in terms of causing microstamping technology to exist, now it is the private sector's responsibility to 'make it work' if they wish to profit by it.

Clearly, the demand is there, at some level, in that... They sell guns in interstate commerce, I wanna buy 'em. What the State Government is saying is that, in the interest of public safety, that product must meet certain criteria or it cannot be sold within our borders; a common demand which is met by myriad products on store shelves. Now, you have to show how that demand goes beyond the normal exception(s) allowed and becomes unduly onerous.
Reply With Quote
  #2608  
Old 08-19-2018, 4:12 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 692
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Response to "B3" (Remember, I'm doing this largely off the top of my head, in between getting other things done. So, a little 'delay' was inevitable.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
They regulate stuff, but that doesn't mean it's legal, just that it hasn't been challenged yet. "Presumptively lawful" just means we presume it's OK, but we're not guaranteeing it's OK.
You're whistling past the graveyard again. There are many, many products which are regulated and it has been adjudicated to be lawful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Not sure what difference the exact numbers would make -- it was 200k in 1970, which is about 1.3 million in today's dollars.
You can't use 'today's numbers' when using a 1970 case. You have to show what percentage, in 1970, it would have represented. Then, you'd have to show how today's numbers vis a vis the gun industry, are 'comparable.' You're also conveniently ignoring the perishable vs. non-perishable nature of the product in question when addressing 'delays' as a burden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
And why would I provide numbers?
Your very purpose is to make a better argument than the State, not an 'equitable' one. If you feel the State's argument is weakened sans numbers, making it primarily 'speculation' (see my quote from Thomas' dissent above in Response to "A3"), then wouldn't you be helped by giving the Court something 'tangible' to sink their teeth into? If you're going to rely on a claim of 'authority' or 'expertise,' then isn't it the time to start 'expertizing,' demonstrating or creating a perception of actual fact-finding in support of your own argument?

There's a story about Chesty Puller. The Chinese attacked and Puller was attempting to get a picture of what strength the enemy had. He got on the horn and asked a South Korean unit and was told: "Many, many." He asked an Army unit and was told: "Too many." He got hold of a Marine unit and was told the officer was checking the line. So, he asked the sergeant how many were attacking and the response was: "A whole p*&s pot full, sir." Puller hung up and said: "Finally. Someone who can count."

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Is the state going to create it, patent it, release the patent into the public domain, and indemnify the mfrs?
Again, you are trying to shift the responsibility to the Government to develop this as viable for private enterprise. That is not the Government's responsibility anymore than it is for them to develop the technology which will allow auto makers to meet emission standards or develop 'safe' pesticides that private citizens/businesses will be allowed to use.

I brought up the AR lowers for a reason. There are relatively few manufacturers of AR lowers, despite all the companies with logos on them. Here's a 2012 thread that will give you an idea. Since half the microstamping requirement is firing pins, why wouldn't it be handled similarly? How many semi-auto manufacturers depend on in-house production of firing pins now? In fact, how many pistol manufacturers produce their firearms strictly from in-house produced parts?

So... How much difficulty would be involved in the 2nd mark?

Remember, we're not arguing long-term viability here. That's a separate part of your case. We're talking about implementing this as part of production. Half the equation might already be 'readily' solvable. In fact, it might even be argued to constitute a 'business opportunity' for a manufacturer in terms of going into, exclusively or primarily, firing pin production. Thus, your argument might well hinge on the 'impossibility' of the 2nd mark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
I'd have removed it from the calculus to this decision. Not a burden on the 2A, but a burden on interstate commerce.
Ultimately, however, isn't it an intrinsic part of your argument; i.e., an ever decreasing number of alternatives becoming available as older models go out of production or are dropped from the list without any hope of being returned to the list without the mandated 'safety features?' In other words, the burden on interstate commerce is financial while, simultaneously, in effect, being a ban (albeit, a 'slow motion ban') on semi-automatic handguns. Isn't that an 'abuse' of interstate commerce, even under the exceptions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
I think this reinforces my points. Alternatives to the "new" firearms cannot be available, because no "new" firearms with all the great new features are allowed into CA.
Remember Heller? It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose... Where in the Commerce Clause or where in the 2nd Amendment, can you show you have a right to the 'new?'

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
The length of time of the 1911 design means nothing...
The fact that it has been available and continues to be so as a readily obtained, ubiquitously available, demonstrably popular alternative for over 100 years is relevant to the question: "What is a reasonable 'waiting period' for implementation of the new tech?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
We certainly wouldn't tolerate keeping the latest, best abortion instruments out of the hands of doctors...
We do EVERY day. How long does FDA approval take on 'new' drugs, instruments, etc.? Isn't the primary basis for that delay... public safety?

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedracer
We discussed the "new" and "safer" thing, but we didn't agree on the outcome.
You can't dismiss it. You agree they will use it anyway and you are correct. We are how many years into the microstamping debate? Jump down another rabbit hole and how many more years are you committing to? Worse. Suppose the Court and/or the State agrees with you, but declares that only 'new' firearms are now to be considered 'safe?' It's not an off-the-wall possibility. We might even see a "Clunkers for Cash" movement and a forced 'retirement' of older models which don't have 'new features.' (Aren't we seeing something akin to this in the auto industry with SMOG testing?) How long before the older models disappear from the market?

Are you willing to accept that as a potential outcome, no matter how unlikely you, personally, feel the possibility while continuing to argue the 'necessity' of access to the newer models based on 'safety?'

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
I don't think this article supports your position.
My position was that a single or limited number of manufacturers could be set up to produce firing pins. The article argues the same thing...

Quote:
The researchers estimated that setting up a facility to engrave alphanumeric codes on firing pins would cost about $7 to $8 per firing pin in the first year, assuming that such marks would be required on all handguns sold in California, and based on the efficiencies associated with high-volume production costs, Tulleners said.
You keep looking for a decision that the "tech doesn't work." That has yet to be adequately determined, at least for Thee and Me. For the State, it's a done deal insofar as microstamping. For the State, it's up to the manufacturers to 'make it work.' For the State, an cogent and reasonable argument can be made that, insofar as the firing pins, a cost-effective means of production is readily available based on common practices already present in the industry.

Insofar as 'academics' being responsible for the articles and studies, be very careful with that argument. First, it is not unusual for Legislatures to rely on such studies in that neither they nor the industry often have the time, finances, or incentives to perform them. Second, academic labs are often used by both Government and private industry to perform such testing. Finally, you want some nod toward 'objectivity,' which is something you can get from peer-reviewed studies. At least you'll get some consensus on methodology and some critique in terms of ideology.

I'm not saying the output is always or even predominantly 'objective.'
What I'm saying is that there are reasons why the Government cut off funding for anti-gun studies by Government agencies. Likewise, it is low-hanging fruit to observe that industry sponsored studies are likely to be 'sympathetic' to the industry.

Insofar as authors calling for "more research," not only is it necessary in obtaining funding, it is necessary from a 'scientific' perspective. One of the criticisms is that microstamping is that it hasn't been sufficiently tested. The article is 10 years old. How much testing has been conducted since then? How much testing is on-going?

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
I don't think so, check it again.
Ummm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
You keep reducing microstamping to something that is unknown and needing to be 'created.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
I'm trying to say the mass production process does not exist and needs to be created.
Okay. Separating the technology of microstamping and the technology of microstamping as part of mass production is a good step. You can't deny the former and your case is based, solely, on the latter. But...

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
All I need to show is undue burden on interstate commerce...
How can you do that if...

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
And I don't need to show the mass production implementation is a technical impossibility, anymore than the state needs to show that microstamping is a "safety" feature.
The Courts have deferred to the State in terms of its findings that it is a 'safety feature.' The State doesn't have to show it, they have simply argued it and the Courts have 'accepted' that argument. However, it is unlikely that you will be granted similar deference in terms of it being a burden on interstate commerce because... You say so. You're going to have to offer something more substantive than an abstract... The technology isn't currently employed and would be too expensive to implement; therefore, it is an unacceptable burden.

You don't have to like the fact that States impinge upon interstate commerce all the time vis a vis certain products. You don't even have to agree that it is legal. But, you have to acknowledge the fact exists that they do and, in many, many cases, it has been adjudicated as legal under the Commerce Clause. It is your obligation to show why and how this is 'different' in a manner which will cause the Court to stop deferring to the State and force the State to, as you state in relation to Alito, justify it with sufficient findings. In other words, you're going to have to adhere to the standards you are demanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Even still, though the tech might "exist" doesn't mean it's production-ready.
That is what the State means by 'forcing the development of the technology.' If the manufacturers want to sell it, then they are going to have to make it 'production-ready.' It's the same argument that's been made for emission standards and mileage requirements.

The technology has, according to reports, been available since the 1930's and 1940's for engines and fuels which would more than meet emission and mileage requirements. While the reasons are complicated, none of it has ever been made 'production-ready.' Fortunately, the Government has no interest in forcing that technology... yet. Similarly, electric cars exist, but the infrastructure to support them and the practical applications hinder wide spread use by the population at large. Could the Government 'force the issue?' Or, are they actually doing so, just more 'gradually' than you perceive microstamping?

What has been offered by the industry as the reason why such technology doesn't already flood the market? Massive investment would be required; particularly to ensure reliability, safety, durability, etc.? Has that stopped Government regulation or simply offered 'resistance' to it? Has the technology, to one degree or another, in one way or another, been implemented and isn't said implementation a continuing process so that it will become ever more efficient and economical? Didn't that all stem from "an handful of lab geeks?"

cont'd.
Reply With Quote
  #2609  
Old 08-19-2018, 4:13 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 692
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Response to "B3" cont'd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum
I thought the comfy 1970 case was to my advantage, too, and that's probably why sarabellum handed it down to me.
He gave it to you as a reference related to the issue. It's useful and is referenced in other decisions, but does have limitations in the context you're trying to use it; i.e., different type of product, with different issues involving public safety, litigation history, etc. Bear in mind, if you look at Pike, you will see the following...

Quote:
...We are not, then, dealing here with "state legislation in the field of safety where the propriety of local regulation has long been recognized," or with an Act designed to protect consumers in Arizona from contaminated or unfit goods. Its purpose and design are simply to protect and enhance the reputation of growers within the State. These are surely legitimate state interests...
That makes it potentially 'useful,' but not necessarily directly on point as microstamping has been presented as a 'safety' issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
I wanted to ask you about deferring to legislatures in this particular context. It seems to me in this context the legislature to which SCOTUS must defer is Congress, not California.
The simple answer is "No." The more complicated answer is "It Depends." Remember, the Judiciary's role is the interpret the Law; which is why Legislative Intent is important and why SCOTUS resolves 'splits' among the Circuits. It is not the Court's role to resolve ambiguities in the Law; which is why 'changing a few words to make it Constitutional' is an essential role of the Legislature in 'lawmaking.' (Which is one of the criticisms levied against 'activist' judges as 'making law' rather than 'interpreting law.')

Where the Law is based on powers reserved to the States, SCOTUS will often defer to the State Legislature. When it comes to Federal powers, they will often defer to Congress; unless Congress has specifically assigned authority to a specific agency. (see "Chevron deference") In other words, it becomes more complicated than a simple 'equitable level of Government.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
Congress owns this interstate commerce space, and it has not granted any authority to CA to operate here.
But, it has allowed exceptions and they are not 'imaginary.' Those exceptions don't have to be specifically authorized by the Federal Congress; though that is one of the exceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
...from your link: "states cannot discriminate against interstate commerce nor can they unduly burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of federal legislation regulating the activity."
Unless... The State Government is a 'market participant.' See Reeves v Stake (1980)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
There is no mention of levels of scrutiny...
Challenging Laws: 3 Levels of Scrutiny Explained

Quote:
When the constitutionality of a law is challenged, both state and federal courts will commonly apply one of three levels of judicial scrutiny.
I provided you a previous link which demonstrated that there is not always a 'clean cut' or 'overtly clear' use of a given level of scrutiny. In some cases, it can end up being a perceived 'combination.' For instance, you have the 9th panel's decision...

Quote:
...Because we assume that the UHA implicates Purchasers’ right to bear arms, our next task is to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny for review of the California requirements... Our post-Heller decisions generally have applied intermediate scrutiny to firearms regulations... Because the restrictions do not substantially burden any such right, intermediate scrutiny is appropriate... Because the UHA does not effect a substantial burden, we conclude that intermediate scrutiny is adequate to protect the claimed Second Amendment rights at issue here...
Yet, they then defer to the State Legislature, something usually associated with 'rational basis,' but declaring the... microstamping requirement also passes constitutional muster under intermediate scrutiny. Then again, as I pointed out, it wouldn't be the first time the 9th claimed one thing, but at least one member of SCOTUS didn't agree...

Quote:
The Ninth Circuit claimed to be applying intermediate scrutiny, but its analysis did not resemble anything approaching that standard. It allowed California to prove a governmental interest with speculation instead of evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer
No, the only question asks that conflict exists, which it does. I wouldn't speculate on what might happen in some dystopian future.
Unfortunately, it's not the 'future' as it is happening in the present. D.C.'s microstamping law went into effect on 1/1/18. Other States have considered it and it will, most likely, come up again. How long does it take to prepare a case, file it, adjudicate it, appeal it all the way to SCOTUS? How long will it take other States to adopt microstamping if the 9th panel's decision is allowed to stand?

Bear in mind that, in a sense, you are 'speculating' about potential, lost revenues placing an undue burden on interstate commerce. Does that speculation indicate a potential 'conflict?' That depends on your perspective. The question you're asking is whether such a conflict is considered 'acceptable' under existing exceptions.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 08-19-2018 at 4:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2610  
Old 08-19-2018, 4:20 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 692
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

At this point, we're getting a little too cumbersome in terms of forum parameters. We've gone from single posts, to double posts to encompass the verbiage. Now, it's doubled again to address all the points. It's beginning to dominate the thread, coming perilously close to hijacking it for the sake of an hypothetical discussion.

Maybe we need to take a break and let others engage in the thread.

What do you think?
Reply With Quote
  #2611  
Old 08-19-2018, 9:30 AM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,567
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

<Awed Silence>
__________________
Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CA Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, Good Info CA Gun Law, New CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
California Rifle and Pistol Association - http://crpa.org/membership/
Sacramento County Sheriff Concealed Carry Info - https://www.sacsheriff.com/Pages/Org.../SIIB/CCW.aspx
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #2612  
Old 08-19-2018, 10:33 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,085
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
At this point, we're getting a little too cumbersome in terms of forum parameters. We've gone from single posts, to double posts to encompass the verbiage. Now, it's doubled again to address all the points. It's beginning to dominate the thread, coming perilously close to hijacking it for the sake of an hypothetical discussion.

Maybe we need to take a break and let others engage in the thread.

What do you think?
Break sounds great, what about we boil it all down to me saying "commerce clause" and you saying "exception per Reeves".

In which case, because Reeves requires the state act as market participant... The microstamping law includes an exemption for the police, so CA won't be buying any microstamped guns, so they don't qualify under Reeves.

quick,lockthisthread!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2613  
Old 08-20-2018, 9:10 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 692
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Break sounds great, what about we boil it all down to me saying "commerce clause" and you saying "exception per Reeves"...
That's not all I said or the gist of the 'conversation' as a whole or even the point I was making with Reeves. It would be more accurate to say:

It boils down to you saying "Commerce/Dormant Commerce Clause" and my saying "exceptions," Justices, demonstrate, deference, et al.

You need to spend some time going back over what I wrote, so a break will be good. You might want to consider what I emphasized about demonstrating a substantive and sustained burden on interstate trade against the balancing test put forth in your Pike v Bruce Church...

Quote:
Although the criteria for determining the validity of state statutes affecting interstate commerce have been variously stated, the general rule that emerges can be phrased as follows: Where the statute regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits... If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities. Occasionally the Court has candidly undertaken a balancing approach in resolving these issues... but more frequently it has spoken in terms of "direct" and "indirect" effects and burdens...
Your 'homework' during the break () could start with researching the authorization States have to impact interstate commerce under the auspices of 'public safety' (including crime prevention/solution) being a substantial and legitimate public interest sufficient to impact interstate commerce. (For case citations, you might start by consulting the 9th panel's decision... After all, who could genuinely dispute that enhancing public safety and solving handgun crimes are important interests?) Remember, Pike wasn't about public safety, so it will not be definitive in responding to the balancing test it presents when it comes to what you're challenging.

Remember, my role, thus far, has been Devil's Advocate. You're the one wanting to make a case based solely on Interstate Commerce and/or the Dormant Commerce Clause. I'm simply pointing out where you have potential issues and simply declaring you "don't see it" as an issue isn't 'making a case' anymore than declaring "you don't have to show 'X' if the State doesn't have to show 'Y'."

Of course, this has all been, as Professor Slughorn would say: "All hypothetical. Purely academic. Right?"
Reply With Quote
  #2614  
Old 08-20-2018, 5:12 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,085
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
You need to spend some time going back over what I wrote, so a break will be good. You might want to consider what I emphasized about demonstrating a substantive and sustained burden on interstate trade against the balancing test put forth in your Pike v Bruce Church...
Yup, on it, think I got that covered already, but want to look at it again

Quote:
Your 'homework' during the break () could start with researching the authorization States have to impact interstate commerce under the auspices of 'public safety' (including crime prevention/solution) being a substantial and legitimate public interest sufficient to impact interstate commerce.
On it as well -- found a SCOTUS decision where they overturned a safety law just because of undue burden on interstate commerce. Just like Pike, AZ law got the short end of the stick. Interesting, too, how SCOTUS didn't show a ton of deference to AZ's findings about what was "safe". That's just one case, loooong way to go

Quote:
Remember, my role, thus far, has been Devil's Advocate. You're the one wanting to make a case based solely on Interstate Commerce and/or the Dormant Commerce Clause. I'm simply pointing out where you have potential issues and simply declaring you "don't see it" as an issue isn't 'making a case' anymore than declaring "you don't have to show 'X' if the State doesn't have to show 'Y'."
I continue to appreciate the role, many thanks; as far as wanting to limit it to Commerce, that might have more to do with my ignorance than anything else, enabling me to focus on just one area. A real legal challenge here might well throw more against the wall, as you termed it, or might not, I dunno. I'd love to get the 2A worked in for Thomas, but I don't see a path to victory that way. You've brought up 2A-ish stuff along the way, and I've rejected them all partly because they felt like traps but mostly because I didn't immediately associate them with any "winning" angle of attack -- I'll go back and look more carefully.

Some stuff obv has to remain a difference of opinion (Is Roberts disfavoring Commerce Clause cases or just what I termed abuses thereof, etc) but even that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to have some ace(s) in the hole to help attract votes. This is probably my weakest area atm -- no idea how to improve on this, because of the aforementioned problems linking any 2A arguments.

And I'm going to stick to the thinking that none of the 4 antis will ever side with a case that even tangentially "favors" guns, so I'm operating under the assumption that the fact that Breyer & Ginsburg both voted against Lopez was because guns were involved, not because they are big believers in the omnipotence of the Commerce Clause.

Quote:
Of course, this has all been, as Professor Slughorn would say: "All hypothetical. Purely academic. Right?"
Had to google that reference -- for me, the name Slughorn always gets conflated with Slugworth, from Willy Wonka

Yes, purely academic
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2615  
Old 10-08-2018, 8:27 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 jack-booted gov thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,072
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

This one is going for Cert, right?
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #2616  
Old 10-09-2018, 8:12 AM
cg&p cg&p is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 81
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
This one is going for Cert, right?
yes i believe they were granted an extension to Dec 31 2018

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=2301
Reply With Quote
  #2617  
Old 10-09-2018, 2:01 PM
splithoof splithoof is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,347
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cg&p View Post
yes i believe they were granted an extension to Dec 31 2018

http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=2301
So there may be a chance that the SCOTUS picks it up; if so Carlos Danger and Doheny will be along shortly to explain why the roster should be kept.
Reply With Quote
  #2618  
Old 10-09-2018, 3:25 PM
numpty's Avatar
numpty numpty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by splithoof View Post
So there may be a chance that the SCOTUS picks it up; if so Carlos Danger and Doheny will be along shortly to explain why the roster should be kept.
I will happily read their posts if the SCOTUS takes this.
__________________
error 500

I owe FP something.
Reply With Quote
  #2619  
Old 10-09-2018, 3:43 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,863
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default Grant or deny cert.

While I detest the rooster because I do not buy the claim that magazine disconnects improve safety and my opinion that LCI's merely promote laziness in checking to determine that a weapon is loaded or unloaded and that micro-stamping is not a legitimate basis for denying a person the right to choose a firearm of his or her choice, I do not see this case as having a positive impact in our favor. Just curious on how many others share this view. The only way I see this case as having a positive impact would be for the high court to rule that intermediate scrutiny is an inappropriate standard or criteria when dealing with constitutionally enumerated and protected rights. Thus, to me the only cases that should go forward are those that best challenge the use of intermediate scrutiny. This is just not one of them.
Reply With Quote
  #2620  
Old 10-09-2018, 3:57 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
While I detest the rooster because I do not buy the claim that magazine disconnects improve safety and my opinion that LCI's merely promote laziness in checking to determine that a weapon is loaded or unloaded and that micro-stamping is not a legitimate basis for denying a person the right to choose a firearm of his or her choice, I do not see this case as having a positive impact in our favor. Just curious on how many others share this view. The only way I see this case as having a positive impact would be for the high court to rule that intermediate scrutiny is an inappropriate standard or criteria when dealing with constitutionally enumerated and protected rights. Thus, to me the only cases that should go forward are those that best challenge the use of intermediate scrutiny. This is just not one of them.
I'd agree with the notion that, while a pain in the ***, the roster is certainly not the biggest infringement we face. I would however, disagree on the micro stamping portion that requires compliance with a technology that doesn't exist. That needs to be challenged vigorously or we end up with a defacto ban as semi autos drop off the list.
Reply With Quote
  #2621  
Old 10-09-2018, 4:23 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,863
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
I'd agree with the notion that, while a pain in the ***, the roster is certainly not the biggest infringement we face. I would however, disagree on the micro stamping portion that requires compliance with a technology that doesn't exist. That needs to be challenged vigorously or we end up with a defacto ban as semi autos drop off the list.
I do not think that we disagree. This case simply did not fully present the impossibility argument with substantial evidence that needs to be part of any case where cert is sought. We need to wait for a better and much stronger case or we risk doing more harm than good to our cause.
Reply With Quote
  #2622  
Old 10-09-2018, 4:42 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
I do not think that we disagree. This case simply did not fully present the impossibility argument with substantial evidence that needs to be part of any case where cert is sought. We need to wait for a better and much stronger case or we risk doing more harm than good to our cause.
No disagreement there.
Reply With Quote
  #2623  
Old 10-09-2018, 6:34 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I actually think once the defacto ban becomes a real ban our situation improves. No longer is the ban a hypothetical. We will live in a state that bans selling handguns. This seems much more cut and dry a violation of Heller.
Our best example if this is the defacto no issue in Hawaii. California is in better ground fighting pena because it can point to some license holders where Hawaii hand none.
Reply With Quote
  #2624  
Old 10-10-2018, 6:43 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 156
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What is the current status of this case? I thought they had until December to file for cert but now I cannot find anything on the appeal.
Reply With Quote
  #2625  
Old 10-10-2018, 6:52 PM
HowardW56's Avatar
HowardW56 HowardW56 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,871
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
What is the current status of this case? I thought they had until December to file for cert but now I cannot find anything on the appeal.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search....ic/18a178.html
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2626  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:25 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,692
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowardW56 View Post
That's a good read. A lot of cases applying for cert in the near future! And a new conservative majority is ready for them! Mance v. Sessions (challenging the ban on interstate purchase of handguns) is also asking for cert.

Really hoping to get a Gen 5 Glock 20!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2627  
Old 10-14-2018, 10:08 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,114
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
..., I do not see this case as having a positive impact in our favor. Just curious on how many others share this view. The only way I see this case as having a positive impact would be for the high court to rule that intermediate scrutiny is an inappropriate standard or criteria when dealing with constitutionally enumerated and protected rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
I'd agree with the notion that, while a pain in the ***, the roster is certainly not the biggest infringement we face. I would however, disagree on the micro stamping portion that requires compliance with a technology that doesn't exist. That needs to be challenged vigorously or we end up with a defacto ban as semi autos drop off the list.
You are missing the point about constitutionally protected rights.

If a state banned some books and used the argument that there are other books you can read, or if the state banned Quran and said that you can always read The Bible, we wouldn't be discussing the matter of inconvenience It's the same when it comes to guns - the right to keep and bear arms is not the right to keep a particular arm and bear it at particular location, it's a general right to posses and carry arms.

This case is extremely important in setting 2A precedent about how in general a state can regulate firearms. If a state can simply make up a set of requirements and the courts let it stand, we will have "regulation" as a euphemism for "infringement" and it will be very similar to "voluntary taxes" - anything but.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2628  
Old 10-14-2018, 4:56 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 740
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
I'd agree with the notion that, while a pain in the ***, the roster is certainly not the biggest infringement we face.
No, it is the biggest infringement we face concerning the 2A.

Look at the progression:
First it was a safety check- drop test
Then they added safety devices- first mag safeties then chamber indicators
Lastly they added criminal investigation measures i.e. micro stamping

It took a few years, but because micro stamping isn't available at all, it is a complete ban on ANY new semi-auto pistol. Within a few years they will add it to revolvers. Then they will remove the grandfathering. That will make it a 100% ban on buying guns.

I'm staggered that no one sees this. I hope the new supreme court will weigh in on this.
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #2629  
Old 10-14-2018, 6:31 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 692
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
I'm staggered that no one sees this. I hope the new supreme court will weigh in on this.
It's not that "no one sees it." It's that, with the current demographics, the current crop in power in Sacramento, the current make up of the 9th Circuit, and, until recently, the make up of SCOTUS, there seemed to be no avenue to successfully overturn it. Even now, as you allude to, we have to wait and see what the "new" make up of the Supreme Court will be willing to do.

As a result, there are those who feel there is other, low-hanging fruit or other 'issues' which should be seen as so egregious, that our resources are better directed at overturning them. In some respects, that's the way things used to be, which is where you get judge shopping, "the time is not right," et al. It's the very reasoning the NRA, CRPA, and other groups have heralded over time and, to some degree, you still hear it from these groups. Put another way, it's better to 'live with it' for now than get a 'bad decision' in the Courts which 'set it in stone.'

Predictably, there are differing schools of thought on that as well. Some agree, others seek confrontation in terms of "drawing a bright line" in terms of how our rights are perceived by Government. The reality is that we already know how our rights are perceived and neither approach 'quickly' resolves the issue. In the case of 'being patient,' it requires time and an alignment of the stars to 'undo' what has been done; all the while hoping things don't become so bad that it can't be undone short of a revolution. In the case of 'seeking confrontation,' it requires either time and an alignment of the stars or a population willing to 'risk' what they have left to achieve change.

In some respects, this was the essence of the 2016 Election. Hillary would have made things 'worse,' to the point that it might not have been 'undoable.' Trump represented something of a 'risk' and we're going to have to see how that plays out; bearing in mind that the 'other side' sees what he's doing as something that can be 'undone.' But, that's an inherent part of the 'risk/risk averse' equation being played out at the moment.
Reply With Quote
  #2630  
Old 10-15-2018, 5:57 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
No, it is the biggest infringement we face concerning the 2A.

Look at the progression:
First it was a safety check- drop test
Then they added safety devices- first mag safeties then chamber indicators
Lastly they added criminal investigation measures i.e. micro stamping

It took a few years, but because micro stamping isn't available at all, it is a complete ban on ANY new semi-auto pistol. Within a few years they will add it to revolvers. Then they will remove the grandfathering. That will make it a 100% ban on buying guns.

I'm staggered that no one sees this. I hope the new supreme court will weigh in on this.
Thus my second sentence regarding mcro stamping being a defecto ban....
Reply With Quote
  #2631  
Old 10-15-2018, 10:52 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,863
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
You are missing the point about constitutionally protected rights.

...

This case is extremely important in setting 2A precedent about how in general a state can regulate firearms. If a state can simply make up a set of requirements and the courts let it stand, we will have "regulation" as a euphemism for "infringement" and it will be very similar to "voluntary taxes" - anything but.
No, I do not think we are missing the point. Our point is that this is not the right case to go forward with. It has nothing to do with whether or not the regulations amount to some infringement. We agree that they do. It has to do with the way the case was presented, including the lack of substantial evidence of impossibility.

Pena's argument boils down to the claim that he cannot buy the particular handgun he would like because it is not on the roster. But, this is not entirely true because if he wanted it bad enough he could probably find a private party who would sell him one. So, how would you respond to a question from Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan in the form of: Isn't it true that Mr. Pena could lawfully purchase an off roster gun of his choice from a private party in CA? Answer: That's true. So, CA law does not deny Mr. Pena the opportunity to lawfully purchase such handgun, isn't that also true. Answer: Yes. So then, is it not also true that the CA roster does not prevent Mr. Pena from exercising his 2A rights, including purchasing the handgun of his choice? Answer: Yes. What the roster does is make Mr. Pena look a little harder to find the handgun of his choice, ins't that true? Answer: Yes. Case lost and the Roster has now been approved by the SCOTUS and Pena has now screwed all of us. This is our point. It is simply not worth the risk of an adverse opinion that is foreseeable in this case and Pena should abandon his request for cert. The only way for Pena not to cause more harm that good, would be for the court to hold that the 9th Circuit used the wrong standard of review and send it back so that the court could use the correct standard. But that is a big risk, because the court could just as easily hold that the roster did not prevent Mr. Pena from buying the handgun of his choice.

The case from NY is a much better case, because it directly raises the issue of the appropriate level of scrutiny with much less risk of an adverse opinion. If SCOTUS takes this case and agrees that so called intermediate scrutiny fails to pass muster then Pena and numerous other intermediate scrutiny cases fall and the anti 2A circuit courts will have been denied the tool they need most to rule against the exercise of 2A rights.
Reply With Quote
  #2632  
Old 10-15-2018, 2:00 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,114
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
No, I do not think we are missing the point.
...

Pena's argument boils down to the claim that he cannot buy the particular handgun he would like because it is not on the roster. But, this is not entirely true because if he wanted it bad enough he could probably find a private party who would sell him one. So, how would you respond to a question from Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor or Kagan in the form of: Isn't it true that Mr. Pena could lawfully purchase an off roster gun of his choice from a private party in CA? Answer: That's true.
That argument would go against the state.

If he can buy it from a private party, the gun is by definition not unsafe and the regulation is an infringement since the claimed government interest of safety is not achieved by the regulation at all.

This case has nothing to do with scrutiny and everything to do with de facto ban on any new and modern semi automatic pistol. The state of CA claims that NOT A SINGLE ONE of the new and modern pistols, that are in common use all over the country, is safe enough for people in CA.

We are not looking at this case to set up any scrutiny, we are looking at this case to simply bring 2A to the same level of protection as any other right. If a state cannot ban books this way, it cannot ban guns. All we need is 1A arguments = 2A arguments.

Besides, the whole concept of scrutiny is not directly supported by Heller. That's another topic and another reason why this case should be heard by the SCOTUS and the roster should be stricken down. I have a hunch that we'd get better than 5-4 decision. There is just too much at stake for OTHER rights should the SCOTUS decide to allow this type of "regulation."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2633  
Old 10-15-2018, 8:59 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 740
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
It's not that "no one sees it."...
I know, that was just my frustration speaking. You see, if others see it, they either don't care or they support it. How else can we explain the remarkable lack of turn out at the polls?

If we, the conservative 2A supporters, were to get even 70% of our numbers to the polls, we'd smoke every election to the point that this state would be solid red. That was probably more true 10 or 15 years ago, but it's still true today.

We are our own worst enemy through our own inaction.



Just for the record, I feel trapped too.
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #2634  
Old 10-15-2018, 9:12 PM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 6,116
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
I know, that was just my frustration speaking. You see, if others see it, they either don't care or they support it. How else can we explain the remarkable lack of turn out at the polls?

If we, the conservative 2A supporters, were to get even 70% of our numbers to the polls, we'd smoke every election to the point that this state would be solid red. That was probably more true 10 or 15 years ago, but it's still true today.

We are our own worst enemy through our own inaction.



Just for the record, I feel trapped too.
Um, I don’t think there are that many pro 2nd Amendment conservatives in California. We are grossly outnumbered by the mindless sheep and independents that are severely afflicted with the Stockholm Syndrome. Just the way it is. Everyone I know that is a pro 2nd conservative votes. But there are numerous idiots in California, they are the majority. Again, just the way it is.
Reply With Quote
  #2635  
Old 10-15-2018, 9:25 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 867
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
Um, I don’t think there are that many pro 2nd Amendment conservatives in California. We are grossly outnumbered by the mindless sheep and independents that are severely afflicted with the Stockholm Syndrome. Just the way it is. Everyone I know that is a pro 2nd conservative votes. But there are numerous idiots in California, they are the majority. Again, just the way it is.
+1. Unfortunately, it is what it is. If the mindless sheep could get peeled off, there might be a chance. But I don't honestly see that happening. Stockholm syndrome explains part of the reason, inertia explains part of the reason, but net-net, the votes aren't there.
Reply With Quote
  #2636  
Old 10-16-2018, 6:23 AM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 740
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
Um, I don’t think there are that many pro 2nd Amendment conservatives in California.
This right here is the problem we're faceing. Too many are too busy "thinking" we're out numbered.

When I sat at a table outside a gun store, trying to get signatures to put the Gunmegeddon stuff on the ballot, 50% or more of those walking into/out of the store weren't even registered to vote. Further, we had a hard time even getting those we saw to put a signature down. Most didn't even know about the laws that were coming. I can assure you there were zero liberals in that calculation.

All my friends vote too, but my numbers are based not on my close knit community, but on a much larger group.
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #2637  
Old 10-16-2018, 7:03 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 692
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
Too many are too busy "thinking" we're out numbered.
The simple fact is, we ARE outnumbered, at least in terms of registered voters.

Proposition 63... 8,663,159 (63.08%) Yes; 5,070,72 (36.92%) No

While Party affiliation isn't a strict indicator of gun ownership, there are discernible trends in the voting patterns when it comes to gun control or the perceptions thereof. In California, as of May, 19 million of the 25.1 eligible adults were registered to vote. The distribution is 44.4% Democrat, 43.4% Independent, and 28.4% Republican. In other words, Democrats, which predominantly vote in favor of gun control and who keep electing the politicians which ram through gun control measures constitute nearly half the registered voters in California, while Republicans represent just over a quarter.

Back in March... Poll: Vast Majority Of Californians Support Stricter Gun Laws

Quote:
...Even so, a new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California finds 70 percent of likely voters favor stronger gun controls. Only 24 percent of people surveyed think gun laws should stay the same...
The breakdown of gun related voters is on page 19 of the report linked to under "poll" in the above quote. Only 5% indicated gun laws should be made "less strict." Say what you want about polls and the organizations, but that's well outside the margin of error. Remember, that poll was taken shortly after Parkland. But, even allowing for a 'cooling off' of the electorate, the numbers simply aren't on our side.

You can lament unregistered voters and those who don't vote with some justification. However, where the rubber meets the road, they aren't helping and must be counted as not on our side either.

It's not about sitting around, thinking we're outnumbered. It's about knowing we're outnumbered. That's why you have so many posts on this site where people are talking about interacting with the potentially persuadable; anything from simply talking to educating to taking them shooting. It isn't simply a matter of getting more people to vote or sign petitions. To get them to do so requires that you have them aligned on "our side" to begin with. Unfortunately, even gun owners can't agree on what is 'acceptable' in terms of 'gun control.' Thus, simply thinking that getting 'gun owners' in this State together as an homogeneous voting block will allow us to change things is a bit 'pie in the sky.'

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 10-16-2018 at 7:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2638  
Old 10-16-2018, 10:09 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,710
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post

When I sat at a table outside a gun store, trying to get signatures to put the Gunmegeddon stuff on the ballot, 50% or more of those walking into/out of the store weren't even registered to vote. Further, we had a hard time even getting those we saw to put a signature down. Most didn't even know about the laws that were coming. I can assure you there were zero liberals in that calculation.
That's entirely consistent with every other attempt at 'grass roots' activism we have seen in the last 20 or so years.

Gun owners are an extreme example of 'I don't bother you, you should not bother me' - which has been a fantasy forever.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


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 11:17 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.