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
  #41  
Old 07-30-2018, 6:49 PM
jj805's Avatar
jj805 jj805 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Moorpark
Posts: 4,492
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
There is an email notice sent by DoJ that precedes the hardcopy letter that is mailed. If you did not receive the hardcopy in say, 10 days after receiving the email notice, you could email or call about the missing letter.
I never got the email. The letter just showed up one day.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-30-2018, 7:27 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,081
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Tungsten View Post
I registered weeks in advance, and had no trouble doing so. I tried to get back into the system in the days immediately before the deadline, and the system was completely borked. While I believe people should have registered early, it's definitely the states fault the system was total crap. It should have remained 100% functional until midnight on the 29th.
I guess it's an accountability thing. There are those that find themselves late to work... and when pressed, they had a flat tire, they hit traffic, they had for all intents and purposes "a good excuse" and then there are those that in four years have never been late.

It's not that one person is more prone to trouble, it's that some people take attention to detail to maintain their vehicles, get to bed early, leave an hour before they are supposed to, et cetera so they are less likely to have their backs against the wall.

When it comes to registering or not registering a rifle forEVER... and one waits until THE last day when he had 6 months to prepare who has more of the blame there?

As an IT guy, I understand what happens to web servers when it's designed to handle x users and 500x try to use it at the same time. The state should not have to pay for infrastructure upgrades to handle 2 days worth of traffic.

One thing is for sure: no matter how much money they dump into a lawsuit, they will not be allowed to register their rifles...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-30-2018, 8:32 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
...As an IT guy, I understand what happens to web servers when it's designed to handle x users and 500x try to use it at the same time. The state should not have to pay for infrastructure upgrades to handle 2 days worth of traffic.
There are alternatives that don't require paying for infrastructure upgrades....

Amazon has made a small fortune providing demand-based infrastructure with Amazon Web Services. Oracle claims to offer more scalable services at lower cost than AWS.

The point being that this isn't the first rodeo for the state regarding registration of AWs. It would have been relatively easy to create a service that scaled up to meet demand and then scaled down afterward (Oracle is a current vendor to the state of CA - indeed, one of the development line items was for PL/SQL development resource(s)).

The attempt at a web site for performing the registration effort was textbook amateur hour.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-30-2018, 8:39 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jj805 View Post
I never got the email. The letter just showed up one day.
You are one of the very few who received a letter without first receiving an email from DoJ.

Out of curiosity, when did you submit your registration and how long from submission of registration to when the letter showed up? I am trying to get some idea on current processing timeframes - I am almost at 90 days from submission of registration application. For a plain-vanilla CA-compliant BBAW (based on manufacturers model number) and so far, crickets (the CFARS website shows In Progress, but nothing from DoJ in the way of email communication or letter).
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-30-2018, 8:40 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,081
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
The point being that this isn't the first rodeo for the state regarding registration of AWs. It would have been relatively easy to create a service that scaled up to meet demand and then scaled down afterward (Oracle is a current vendor to the state of CA - indeed, one of the development line items was for PL/SQL development resource(s)).
Yeah... I've been here for all of them. The first one was so bad, standard ARs went from $1000 to $1800 overnight so I could not afford one.

The second one was the 50 caliber ban, and for that one you needed to go get fingerprinted and the process was so long, time-consuming and offered no online support I never got anything registered.

This time it was a sinch. Register. Take Pictures. Upload. Pay. Good to Go
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-30-2018, 8:52 PM
aBrowningfan aBrowningfan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,475
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
Yeah... I've been here for all of them. The first one was so bad, standard ARs went from $1000 to $1800 overnight so I could not afford one.
Sounds like what happened to prices after the election that launched this whole cluster**** back in 2016 - prices went from ~$750 to ~$1,500 for lightly used BBAWs overnight. At a certain point (October, 2016?) there were no more new BBAWs that could be delivered in time for the purchaser to take possession before the DROS window closed on December 31, 2016. Then prices jumped by around $1,000 for the BBAWs that remained in dealer inventory.

Quote:
This time it was a sinch. Register. Take Pictures. Upload. Pay. Good to Go
I wouldn't go that far. If it was a cinch, I would have already received my registration letter. And there wouldn't be folks who have had their application in a pending status (In Progress) for more than 120+ days and still crickets from DoJ.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-30-2018, 9:42 PM
E Pluribus Unum's Avatar
E Pluribus Unum E Pluribus Unum is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,081
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
I wouldn't go that far. If it was a cinch, I would have already received my registration letter. And there wouldn't be folks who have had their application in a pending status (In Progress) for more than 120+ days and still crickets from DoJ.
Whether they were instantly processed or it takes six months, the process of getting to an "In-Process" state was the same. Compared to the 50 caliber ban, trust me; this was cake.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Gura
The Second Amendment now applies to state and local governments. Our lawsuit is a reminder to state and local bureaucrats that we have a Bill of Rights in this country, not a Bill of Needs
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
12050[CCW] licenses will be shall issue soon.

-Gene
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Ignorance of the law is no excuse……..except for police.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-31-2018, 4:34 AM
jj805's Avatar
jj805 jj805 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Moorpark
Posts: 4,492
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aBrowningfan View Post
You are one of the very few who received a letter without first receiving an email from DoJ.

Out of curiosity, when did you submit your registration and how long from submission of registration to when the letter showed up? I am trying to get some idea on current processing timeframes - I am almost at 90 days from submission of registration application. For a plain-vanilla CA-compliant BBAW (based on manufacturers model number) and so far, crickets (the CFARS website shows In Progress, but nothing from DoJ in the way of email communication or letter).
I had two submissions. One for store bought receivers, and one for competed home builds. While I was waiting for serial numbers to be issued I decided to complete the registration on the store bought recivers. These were also registered jointly. BTW, the wife never got the email either, the letter just showed up on the same day my letter did.

Store bought receivers were submitted on 03/24/18 (both the regular and joint registrations were completed the same day) and the letters showed up about 5 weeks later.

Completed 80% receivers were submitted on 05/13/18 (again, both standard and joint registrations) and I haven't heard a peep from the DOJ.
__________________

Last edited by jj805; 07-31-2018 at 4:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-27-2019, 2:58 PM
FirearmFino FirearmFino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.

Link

Quote:
Here, Defendants allege that any risk to Plaintiffs’ property interest is “minimal” in the first place because Plaintiffs can “(1) sell the assault weapon either out of the state or to a licensed gun dealer within the State (Cal. Penal Code §31055); (2) modify the assault weapon to make it compliant with state law; or (3) store the assault weapon outside of the state.” Defs.’ Mot. to Dism., ECF No. 14-1, 10:23-25. This argument borders on the nonsensical. The fact that Plaintiffs can dispossess themselves of their unregistered firearms does not obviate the loss of their own right to lawfully possess and use their firearms without the threat of criminal sanctions attaching to prohibited unregistered weapons.

Defendants’ second argument, that the implementation of the CFARS online registration system provided adequate procedural protection in any event, is no more availing. Defendants claim that “[w]aiting until the last days of a nearly year-long registration window to register. . . is not the basis of a due process violation,” with any injury Plaintiffs sustained as a result being “of their own making.” Id.at 11:15-16, 28. The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed and refused “to establish and maintain a consistently reliable online system for processing all the necessary registration[s] during the fixed application period.” Pls.’ Opp., ECF No. 17, 12:7-8. Moreover, as indicated above, the fact that Defendants’ registration system used a “countdown clock” delineating the weeks, days, hours and seconds within which registration could be completed at least arguably supports an inference that Plaintiffs could successfully process an application even during the registration period’s final moments. The fact that this was not the case is sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss alleging that adequate procedural safeguards were employed.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-27-2019, 3:01 PM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,623
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

FF, thanks for posting that and the link.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-29-2019, 11:14 AM
PMACA_MFG's Avatar
PMACA_MFG PMACA_MFG is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: California
Posts: 620
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E Pluribus Unum View Post
I guess it's an accountability thing. There are those that find themselves late to work... and when pressed, they had a flat tire, they hit traffic, they had for all intents and purposes "a good excuse" and then there are those that in four years have never been late.

It's not that one person is more prone to trouble, it's that some people take attention to detail to maintain their vehicles, get to bed early, leave an hour before they are supposed to, et cetera so they are less likely to have their backs against the wall.

When it comes to registering or not registering a rifle forEVER... and one waits until THE last day when he had 6 months to prepare who has more of the blame there?

As an IT guy, I understand what happens to web servers when it's designed to handle x users and 500x try to use it at the same time. The state should not have to pay for infrastructure upgrades to handle 2 days worth of traffic.

One thing is for sure: no matter how much money they dump into a lawsuit, they will not be allowed to register their rifles...
Now, a mailed in form , on the other hand, is completely scalable.

Online + Deadline = Problem.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-31-2020, 12:58 AM
mickey5150 mickey5150 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any udpates on this one? I'm one of those that got kicked off the system while trying to register. And it's hilarious that people on here try to defend the state as being ok to design a faulty system. There are all sorts of reasons to wait until the last day, namely the state gave a very delineated deadline. Good for you for getting it done 6 months early. Some of us didn't even know about it until it was almost expired. Most my friends still don't know their bb rifles are now illegal
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-18-2021, 12:12 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Wait, WHAT?!?

Quote:
DOJ will re-open “assault weapon” registrations under Penal Code section 30900(b) for individuals who possessed eligible firearms and started the process of submitting applications to the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms before July 1, 2018, but who were unable to complete the submission process because of technical difficulties.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-18-2021, 12:43 PM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,623
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So FPC settled and registration is to be reopened. I am not sure I consider this a win.
Quote:
DOJ will re-open “assault weapon” registrations under Penal Code section 30900(b) for individuals who possessed eligible firearms and started the process of submitting applications to the Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms before July 1, 2018, but who were unable to complete the submission process because of technical difficulties.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-18-2021, 12:50 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vino68 View Post
So FPC settled and registration is to be reopened. I am not sure I consider this a win.
Um, a gov't agency caved in is not a win??
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

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

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-18-2021, 12:55 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 989
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vino68 View Post
So FPC settled and registration is to be reopened. I am not sure I consider this a win.
For this particular case, what would be a win? I think everyone that could be asked for in regards to this particular case has been granted, and FPC even gets some money from the state.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-18-2021, 1:06 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Um, a gov't agency caved in is not a win??
That's the way I see it. I won't benefit from this at all, but that's fine, I'm just happy to see DOJ lose something.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-18-2021, 1:10 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
That's the way I see it. I won't benefit from this at all, but that's fine, I'm just happy to see DOJ lose something.
This also protects matters for 210 days till we wait for Miller.

It also protects EXISTING PROSECUTIONS/SEIZURES.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

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

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

Last edited by bwiese; 03-18-2021 at 1:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-18-2021, 2:31 PM
Drathen Drathen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Joaquin County
Posts: 139
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I read the settlement summary on FPC’s website and there was no mention about requiring the state to fix, upgrade, or improve the registration site (maybe it’s in the actual court order which I don’t have time to read right now). What if the state simply re-opens registration via the same CFARS site as before and it is another fiasco?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 03-18-2021, 2:39 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drathen View Post
I read the settlement summary on FPC’s website and there was no mention about requiring the state to fix, upgrade, or improve the registration site (maybe it’s in the actual court order which I don’t have time to read right now). What if the state simply re-opens registration via the same CFARS site as before and it is another fiasco?
The settlement requires them to accept paper registrations by mail this time, as an alternative to their online registration.

Mailed registrations need only be postmarked by the deadline date, and as before, DOJ is again required to "provide registrants [the] ability to cure any defects in their submissions, whether submitted electronically or by paper" as long as the registration was submitted before the deadline.

Also I doubt the web registration will see the same influx of registrations as before. I don't know how many people will do this, but I'm guessing it'll be a few hundred, maybe a couple thousand at most. Certainly not 100,000 like last time.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.



Last edited by CandG; 03-18-2021 at 2:50 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-18-2021, 3:11 PM
Drathen Drathen is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Joaquin County
Posts: 139
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
The settlement requires them to accept paper registrations by mail this time, as an alternative to their online registration.

Mailed registrations need only be postmarked by the deadline date, and as before, DOJ is again required to "provide registrants [the] ability to cure any defects in their submissions, whether submitted electronically or by paper" as long as the registration was submitted before the deadline.

Also I doubt the web registration will see the same influx of registrations as before. I don't know how many people will do this, but I'm guessing it'll be a few hundred, maybe a couple thousand at most. Certainly not 100,000 like last time.
Thank you for the additional information. You are probably right about the low number of people who will end up registering given it is only being opened for those who were eligible at the time.

I wonder if there will be issues with people trying register during this 3 month window who are not eligible and if that will put them in legal jeopardy? Also are pictures of the firearms still required?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-18-2021, 3:20 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drathen View Post
I wonder if there will be issues with people trying register during this 3 month window who are not eligible and if that will put them in legal jeopardy?
I hope not, but it's a big state with a lot of people with a wide variety of intelligence levels, so I'd bet someone is going to try it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drathen View Post
Also are pictures of the firearms still required?
It sounds like yes. From what I read, it seems like even for mail-in registrations they're expecting photos (printed, I guess?) to be included, along with all the other stuff that the online registration requires; date and place of purchase, etc.

The online registration is likely going to be identical to the one we had before.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.



Last edited by CandG; 03-18-2021 at 3:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-18-2021, 3:26 PM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
I just read the complaint, and it looks like all we're asking for is an opportunity to register for those who missed the deadline. That's good I guess, but not really earth-shattering.

Either way, hopefully we win, and hopefully it doesn't take 5 years.
It only took 3
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.


Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-18-2021, 3:37 PM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 989
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drathen View Post
I wonder if there will be issues with people trying register during this 3 month window who are not eligible and if that will put them in legal jeopardy?
Yes. And it it doesn't take much searching to find people who got in trouble during the original registration period.

Quote:
The Department shall clearly notify any individuals registering firearms during the new Registration Period of the following: (a) that the Department may attempt to verify whether any particular registrant attempted to register their weapon(s) before July 1, 2018; (b) the potential consequences of providing false statements in connection with such registrations; and (c) that if they submit a weapon that was not attempted to be registered before July 1, 2018, they could be subject to consequences as prescribed by law.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-19-2021, 7:44 AM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: California to Tennessee...back to California
Posts: 7,989
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

So a whole ton of people will submit evidence against themselves, many likely not actually eligible, and the DOJ will use that to target seizures and arrests...what a win.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-19-2021, 8:15 AM
sdsu sdsu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 231
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

what about 80%s?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 03-19-2021, 8:16 AM
NorCalRT NorCalRT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,327
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

With 120 day comment period plus 90 day window, this likely will open up after Benitez rules on Miller. Lots of strange possibilities going forward.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 03-19-2021, 8:26 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vino68 View Post
So FPC settled and registration is to be reopened. I am not sure I consider this a win.
I am still trying to wrap my head around who this benefits.

Those who attempted to registered and could not. They can now resubmit within the window.

I would imagine that upon failure to register, these AW were either made featureless or removed from the state. Most likely not kept in the AW configuration. Although they are protected now, they didn't know that 3 years ago.

Also, what about all those people who saw the ****-show of a process and never attempted to register, and either went featureless or sold it out of state. It appears there is no relief for this group, and I presume they would have to sue as well.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 03-19-2021, 8:43 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Spent $299 for this text!
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,970
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdsu View Post
what about 80%s?
Very bad idea to try to register a FMBUS (Firearm Manufactured by Unlicensed Subject - aka, 80%), unless you already got a DOJ serial number and engraved it onto the receiver before 7/1/2018.

If you did not get a serial number for the firearm from DOJ before 7/1/2018, then don't even think about trying to register it as a RAW.

If you got a serial number for it before 7/1/2018, then you should be ok.
__________________
Settle down, folks. The new "ghost gun" regulations probably don't do what you think they do.



Last edited by CandG; 03-19-2021 at 8:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 03-19-2021, 11:40 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdsu View Post
what about 80%s?
What about them?

If you have an unpapered 80% and did not file for serial# etc
you already have separate issues. See C&Gs comments above.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

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

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 03-19-2021, 11:41 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalRT View Post
With 120 day comment period plus 90 day window, this likely will open up after Benitez rules on Miller. Lots of strange possibilities going forward.
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding ... YOU GOT IT BRO!
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

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

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-19-2021, 11:42 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Browning View Post
So a whole ton of people will submit evidence against themselves, many likely not actually eligible, and the DOJ will use that to target seizures and arrests...what a win.
No, only idiots that try to reg a BBRAW where the receiver or gun has a post 1/1/16 DROS date or other paperwork evidence.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

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

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-19-2021, 11:45 AM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowGuy View Post
I am still trying to wrap my head around who this benefits.

Those who attempted to registered and could not. They can now resubmit within the window.
Yes, but more importantly an agency and its legal staff is now on Fed record trying to felonize a lack of due process.


Quote:
I would imagine that upon failure to register, these AW were either made featureless or removed from the state. Most likely not kept in the AW configuration. Although they are protected now, they didn't know that 3 years ago.
It offers another window to grow the RAW numbers, helping Heller "not unusual" concept, esp compared to other states.

Remember the 210 day window brings us into Miller territory.



Quote:
Also, what about all those people who saw the ****-show of a process and never attempted to register, and either went featureless or sold it out of state. It appears there is no relief for this group, and I presume they would have to sue as well.
Now you're starting to think.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

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

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 03-19-2021, 11:57 AM
ShadowGuy's Avatar
ShadowGuy ShadowGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 467
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Yes, but more importantly an agency and its legal staff is now on Fed record trying to felonize a lack of due process.
I think this is probably the most important thing. You take this collectively with the disaster Benitez exposed with the ammo background check, and all the BS gamesmanship the State and CA9 have played with Peruta, Young, Miller, Duncan, SCOTUS is bound to take notice.
__________________
Quote:
...Well, Mr. Dangerfield can feel better about himself now, because with Proposition 63, the Second Amendment gets even less respect than he does....
- Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 03-19-2021, 1:37 PM
The Soup Nazi's Avatar
The Soup Nazi The Soup Nazi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 2,455
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
Yes, but more importantly an agency and its legal staff is now on Fed record trying to felonize a lack of due process.
You mean like with the foot dragging on adding Other firearms to the DROS drop down menu in the context of Title 1?
__________________
"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
  #77  
Old 03-19-2021, 3:53 PM
vino68's Avatar
vino68 vino68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,623
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

OK, I thought this was the one to throw out the regs.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-20-2021, 5:42 AM
NATO762's Avatar
NATO762 NATO762 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: SF Bay-ish Area
Posts: 396
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In the massive game of chess that is the set of 2A lawsuits against the state, they just lost a knight or bishop. Amazing.
__________________
"Never! Jesus Christ, what dont you understand about never?"

-Sen. Joe Manchin on eliminating the filibuster
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-24-2021, 3:25 PM
sheepdawg sheepdawg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 214
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Browning View Post
So a whole ton of people will submit evidence against themselves, many likely not actually eligible, and the DOJ will use that to target seizures and arrests...what a win.
Exactly. This isn’t a win, but a trap. Why would the California DOJ willing “settle” a case, when they know they can go all the way in courts and eventually win, unless settlement gets them a lot more. Settlement means no admission of wrongdoing, and a way to trick many more Californians into being felons and prohibited people.
__________________
?When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.?- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 03-24-2021, 8:27 PM
bwiese's Avatar
bwiese bwiese is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 27,604
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdawg View Post
Exactly. This isn’t a win, but a trap. Why would the California DOJ willing “settle” a case, when they know they can go all the way in courts and eventually win, unless settlement gets them a lot more. Settlement means no admission of wrongdoing, and a way to trick many more Californians into being felons and prohibited people.
They settled because Becerra is changing jobs, and in combination with the fact that gov't failure cannot be allowed to create felons.

Note that it 'clears the deck' for various ongoing prosecutions related to this and opens a nice 210 day window into when Miller should be handed down.
__________________

Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

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

No postings of mine here, unless otherwise specifically noted, are
to be construed as formal or informal positions of the Calguns.Net
ownership, The Calguns Foundation, Inc. ("CGF"), the NRA, or my
employer. No posts of mine on Calguns are to be construed as
legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
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 12:56 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy