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
  #441  
Old 02-14-2020, 5:07 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,128
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
This suggests that the court will deny a PI if the state can get its act together. AS I recall, this is not the first time the Court has asked for an update. In other words, if the system actually works, the court may not believe that it presents an unconstitutional impediment to keeping and bearing arms, any more than the mandatory background check for purchasing a firearm.
The State getting its act together?
Where and when did that ever happened before in Californistan?
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!

Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 02-14-2020, 5:52 PM
wolfmann wolfmann is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SO KALI mountains
Posts: 245
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This tells me the Judge has plans,and we will all be doing this
Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 02-15-2020, 10:56 AM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
This suggests that the court will deny a PI if the state can get its act together. AS I recall, this is not the first time the Court has asked for an update. In other words, if the system actually works, the court may not believe that it presents an unconstitutional impediment to keeping and bearing arms, any more than the mandatory background check for purchasing a firearm.
Big if. Conversely, if the data shows that the state has not been able to get its act together, the probability of a PI that stays the system gets closer to 1. Based on anecdotal feedback, I would say that the new submission by CA-DoJ is going to show continuing failure of the background check system.

Edit: I went back and reviewed the declaration of Mayra G. Morales submitted on 11/18/2019, and unless CA-DoJ have implemented some software updates, I don't see how they are going to convince Judge Benitez that their background check system is working. The main problem is with rejects due to mis-match on address between CA D/L and AFS. If AFS has your address as 123 Main Street and your D/L address is 123 Main St., you are going to be rejected. The mis-match can be fixed with a software revision, but absent the software revision being implemented, you are going to be rejected. An additional fix can occur via manual update (change Street to St. in the example) to the AFS database each time there is a reject that needs researching, but that is going to take time and I don't know whether CA-DoJ procedure/workflow allows for editing AFS records.

Edit: Net-net, absent updates to the software (or manual edits to AFS data), I don't think the picture will have changed much from Mayra's 11/18/2019 declaration to what gets submitted on 3/13/2020.

March 13, 2020 is less than a month away. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

Last edited by aBrowningfan; 02-15-2020 at 9:56 PM.. Reason: See Edit: above.
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 02-17-2020, 12:03 AM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,657
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Are people thinking this decision could be based on a technicality like "if your software were better the background checks would be fine"? What about the underlying idea that the entire bg check law is wrong? Are we presuming thats a lost cause due to firearm bg checks being ok?
Ammo is not a firearm and is not a controlled substance/product. Sure, CA can declare it to be controlled but then they could say the same about anything else they don't approve of. Where does it stop?
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 02-17-2020, 5:59 AM
Super Chicken's Avatar
Super Chicken Super Chicken is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: L.A.
Posts: 253
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Comrade Sputnik, one doesn't question Party Bosses. The State had our best interest in mind.

One a serious note, totally agree with you. Perhaps our side thinks there is a better chance to win with this approach?
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 02-17-2020, 10:04 AM
The Soup Nazi's Avatar
The Soup Nazi The Soup Nazi is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Jose, California / Princeton, New Jersey
Posts: 2,441
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
Are people thinking this decision could be based on a technicality like "if your software were better the background checks would be fine"? What about the underlying idea that the entire bg check law is wrong? Are we presuming thats a lost cause due to firearm bg checks being ok?
Ammo is not a firearm and is not a controlled substance/product. Sure, CA can declare it to be controlled but then they could say the same about anything else they don't approve of. Where does it stop?
For the purposes of securing a PI, it would be an easier to make an argument that the DOJ's system doesn't even properly do what the law says it tries to do.

The thing which is really damning is that if an entry level software engineer candidate was asked to implement a fix for the mismatch address bug and couldn't do it in less than an hour, they certainly would not be getting the job.

It's such a trivial solution that by not having implemented it, the DOJ has demonstrated at best, technical negligence, and at worst a desire to maliciously obstruct ammo purchases, which in any case sway the decision towards a PI.
__________________

"There is an old song which asserts that "the best things in life are free". Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 02-17-2020, 10:35 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,260
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi View Post
For the purposes of securing a PI, it would be an easier to make an argument that the DOJ's system doesn't even properly do what the law says it tries to do.

The thing which is really damning is that if an entry level software engineer candidate was asked to implement a fix for the mismatch address bug and couldn't do it in less than an hour, they certainly would not be getting the job.

It's such a trivial solution that by not having implemented it, the DOJ has demonstrated at best, technical negligence, and at worst a desire to maliciously obstruct ammo purchases, which in any case sway the decision towards a PI.
There is no reason to have an address match, have a gun in the “system” or any other nonsense. The NICS system works just fine instantly. The problem is DOJ doesn’t want to spend money on having a staff that can do instant BG checks for ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 02-17-2020, 12:51 PM
The Soup Nazi's Avatar
The Soup Nazi The Soup Nazi is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Jose, California / Princeton, New Jersey
Posts: 2,441
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
There is no reason to have an address match, have a gun in the “system” or any other nonsense. The NICS system works just fine instantly. The problem is DOJ doesn’t want to spend money on having a staff that can do instant BG checks for ammo.
When talking about address matching, I was referring to the reason why the AFS was turning up false positives. The fact that they can't even handle that shows how defunct the system is and why it would be easy to argue for a PI against it.

I know a pretty easy solution to the bug, but I'd rather not help the DOJ fix their system if it means having an ill functioning system causes a PI to be issued.
__________________

"There is an old song which asserts that "the best things in life are free". Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted… and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears."

Last edited by The Soup Nazi; 02-17-2020 at 12:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 02-17-2020, 1:10 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi View Post
When talking about address matching, I was referring to the reason why the AFS was turning up false positives. The fact that they can't even handle that shows how defunct the system is and why it would be easy to argue for a PI against it.

I know a pretty easy solution to the bug, but I'd rather not help the DOJ fix their system if it means having an ill functioning system causes a PI to be issued.
Any database analyst/developer with 1 year of experience writing database applications can make the change. Depending on which version of the Oracle database environment CA-DoJ has, it is as simple as selecting check boxes and entering the criteria to be checked. It is not rocket science, which is why I am thinking that the intent of the address mis-match is to specifically reject, which adds another hurdle ($19 fee and have to come back to the store in a day or two) to be cleared when purchasing ammunition.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 02-17-2020, 1:14 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
There is no reason to have an address match, have a gun in the “system” or any other nonsense. The NICS system works just fine instantly. The problem is DOJ doesn’t want to spend money on having a staff that can do instant BG checks for ammo.
You are too kind. I think the 'real' reason is that CA-DoJ wants a system that is going to reject for mis-matches, and address mis-matches are the easiest to explain. It gives them plausible deniability.
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 02-17-2020, 6:42 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,657
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Ok. I see how this could be the easiest route to a p.i. but I don't see how it'll stop the merry band of idiots in sac from just rewriting the regulations or rewording the same law next session and saying "look, we fixed it".

Eta. I guess we just have to wait and see what the good judge has to say. Maybe it won't be able to be brought back?

Last edited by Sputnik; 02-17-2020 at 6:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 02-17-2020, 8:57 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,260
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
You are too kind. I think the 'real' reason is that CA-DoJ wants a system that is going to reject for mis-matches, and address mis-matches are the easiest to explain. It gives them plausible deniability.
Not in front of a federal judge.
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 02-18-2020, 5:45 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 850
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
There is no reason to have an address match, have a gun in the “system” or any other nonsense. The NICS system works just fine instantly. The problem is DOJ doesn’t want to spend money on having a staff that can do instant BG checks for ammo.
afaik feds aren't on board with letting California use NICS for ammo background checks. That's what tanked the previous attempt at the ammo background check law iirc.

(going off memory here though, but someone feel free to correct me)
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 02-18-2020, 5:54 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 761
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
There is no reason to have an address match, have a gun in the “system” or any other nonsense. The NICS system works just fine instantly. The problem is DOJ doesn’t want to spend money on having a staff that can do instant BG checks for ammo.
Exactly. AFAIK, the statute does not call for any of this, this is all administrative rule making intended to make it as difficult as possible for people to buy ammo. What, you have to re-register your gun every time you move? There is no plausible reason for this requirement, and it discriminates against renters over owners. The only thing that the system is required by statute to determine is if the buyer is a prohibited person. The rest is simply an awkward attempt to prevent "straw sales" of ammunition.
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 02-18-2020, 7:41 PM
wolfmann wolfmann is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SO KALI mountains
Posts: 245
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The judge will rule that the system dosnt work as intended and will cite the many different failures of said system.
It will be interesting to see his wording as his decsion will be picked apart by the anti gunners.
So I think we will see it go away but of course have that LONG didling around process for a couple of years,or decades
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 02-18-2020, 10:24 PM
TFA777 TFA777 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 246
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfmann View Post
The judge will rule that the system dosnt work as intended and will cite the many different failures of said system.

It will be interesting to see his wording as his decsion will be picked apart by the anti gunners.

So I think we will see it go away but of course have that LONG didling around process for a couple of years,or decades
Yeah but when the system to register RAW didn't work they sure as hell didn't issue a PI.
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 02-18-2020, 10:30 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFA777 View Post
Yeah but when the system to register RAW didn't work they sure as hell didn't issue a PI.
If you are referring to the 2016 BBAW registration, most of the complaints came at the end of the registration period. There isn't much opportunity to issue a PI to force CA-DoJ to re-open registration pending the outcome of the litigation. If the litigation results in an order to process the denied applications that is upheld on appeal, that is a different situation, than not being able to purchase ammunition on an on-going basis because of a mis-match between your CA D/L and the AFS record(s).

Edit: Further, if the Miller litigation results in the AW PCs being ruled to be unconstitutional, your issue just got solved with the resulting Freedom Week.

Last edited by aBrowningfan; 02-18-2020 at 10:34 PM.. Reason: See Edit: above.
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 02-18-2020, 10:40 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfmann View Post
The judge will rule that the system dosnt work as intended and will cite the many different failures of said system.
It will be interesting to see his wording as his decsion will be picked apart by the anti gunners.
So I think we will see it go away but of course have that LONG didling around process for a couple of years,or decades
My concern is what happens after the ammunition BG check is ruled unconstitutional but the ruling is stayed pending appeal. This isn't like the magazine ban, where magazines purchased during Freedom Week can continue to be possessed and used at ranges during the appeal. At some point, ammunition purchased during Ammunition Freedom Week will be used and then it will likely be back to the present address mis-match zombie system.
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 02-19-2020, 12:58 PM
wolfmann wolfmann is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SO KALI mountains
Posts: 245
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
My concern is what happens after the ammunition BG check is ruled unconstitutional but the ruling is stayed pending appeal. This isn't like the magazine ban, where magazines purchased during Freedom Week can continue to be possessed and used at ranges during the appeal. At some point, ammunition purchased during Ammunition Freedom Week will be used and then it will likely be back to the present address mis-match zombie system.
True but I am looking at a bigger picture as a good ruling for us can then be used as precedent for other cases,domino effect so to speak.The Anti groups have been doing that to us for decades so turn about is fair play.
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 02-20-2020, 5:51 PM
hoystory's Avatar
hoystory hoystory is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 256
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
There is no reason to have an address match, have a gun in the “system” or any other nonsense. The NICS system works just fine instantly. The problem is DOJ doesn’t want to spend money on having a staff that can do instant BG checks for ammo.
The problem is, California can't use the NICS system to do ammo background checks because federal law only allows its use for firearms. California can piggyback its ammo "check" on the purchase of a firearm if it wants, but it cannot legally use the NICS system when there is only an ammo purchase.
__________________

Editor/Founder
RestrictedArms.com
Reply With Quote
  #461  
Old 02-21-2020, 10:59 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 17,260
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoystory View Post
The problem is, California can't use the NICS system to do ammo background checks because federal law only allows its use for firearms. California can piggyback its ammo "check" on the purchase of a firearm if it wants, but it cannot legally use the NICS system when there is only an ammo purchase.
Read what i wrote. No one is suggesting trying to use the NICS system for ammo.

What was said was, CA can do the same exact checks since only Californians can buy in CA. The state can do the same thing as NICS but they don't want to fund it. Thus, they created this BS system of having to be in the system or pay $19 for a background check for ammo. They know no one wants to pay that for ammo and has simply created a black market for ammo now
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 10:07 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical