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
  #521  
Old 10-18-2020, 6:50 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 3,269
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

When we fail to engage those that spew nonsense then nonsense becomes the norm.
Reply With Quote
  #522  
Old 10-18-2020, 6:57 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,249
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

i can easily see a court hostile to the right adopting the very arguments mrrabbit is making to scuttle both Rupp and Miller (the contemporary one).

Or similar contortions. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility. For that reason, it behooves all of us to take him seriously. I know I do, even if I disagree with much of what he says. I certainly agree more often with him than I ever did with FGG.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #523  
Old 10-18-2020, 8:06 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
Win win win win
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County, Caught Between My Woman And My Pistol And My Chips
Posts: 8,681
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CandG View Post
I can't see what rabbit has been jabbering about
Heller, something, open carry something, Nichols is the ish something something.

Sums it up?
__________________
Stand up and be counted, or lay down and be mounted... -Mac

Reply With Quote
  #524  
Old 10-19-2020, 12:53 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,465
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
i can easily see a court hostile to the right adopting the very arguments mrrabbit is making to scuttle both Rupp and Miller (the contemporary one).

Or similar contortions. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility. For that reason, it behooves all of us to take him seriously. I know I do, even if I disagree with much of what he says. I certainly agree more often with him than I ever did with FGG.
Fabio Gets Goosed is an interesting fella, but I always had the feeling that he was holding back too much on "inside info".

__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #525  
Old 10-19-2020, 10:07 AM
SandHill's Avatar
SandHill SandHill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,843
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by readysetgo View Post
Heller, something, open carry something, Nichols is the ish something something.

Sums it up?
Yep. And if you don't believe him, you have to read Heller. Better.
__________________
Roza Shanina and Mosin-Nagant. Two of the finest flowers Mother Russia ever conceived. Unfortunately, only one was mass produced.
Reply With Quote
  #526  
Old 10-19-2020, 4:56 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 3,269
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Even more curious is the contention that criminals set the stage for how a right is interpreted. SCOTUS and Scalia really screwed the pooch here.
Reply With Quote
  #527  
Old 10-19-2020, 8:43 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,932
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Even more curious is the contention that criminals set the stage for how a right is interpreted. SCOTUS and Scalia really screwed the pooch here.
The shift in what constitutes the central component of the right plus watering it down with all of that stuff seems to be the price that had to be paid in order to get Kennedy (and in retrospect, perhaps Roberts as well) to recognize an individual RKBA. I think Scalia did the best he could with the circumstances he was given.
Reply With Quote
  #528  
Old 10-19-2020, 9:05 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,249
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigstick61 View Post
The shift in what constitutes the central component of the right plus watering it down with all of that stuff seems to be the price that had to be paid in order to get Kennedy (and in retrospect, perhaps Roberts as well) to recognize an individual RKBA. I think Scalia did the best he could with the circumstances he was given.
I agree. I also suspect all of this was to get "militia" disconnected from the right.

What is annoying is that people hostile to the right cite all of those compromises as something Scalia "believed" which to me is likely totally inaccurate.

He was handcuffed to Roberts and Kennedy, as you rightly observe.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #529  
Old 10-19-2020, 11:36 PM
VISIONTEST VISIONTEST is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Does the case the Bullet Button rule that you cannot take it off?

Does this case effect the Bullet Button rule that you cannot take it off if purchased in that era of law?
Reply With Quote
  #530  
Old 10-19-2020, 11:37 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,043
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No.
Reply With Quote
  #531  
Old 10-20-2020, 12:02 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,807
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
I agree. I also suspect all of this was to get "militia" disconnected from the right.

What is annoying is that people hostile to the right cite all of those compromises as something Scalia "believed" which to me is likely totally inaccurate.

He was handcuffed to Roberts and Kennedy, as you rightly observe.
It's a double-edged sword. It works both for us and against us. The proper meaning of the Constitutional protection of the right to arms is that the militia purpose is a minimum purpose of the protection, not the only purpose. Which is to say, the weapons that are necessary for the militia to serve its purpose are the minimum that are protected by the 2nd Amendment, but the founders and the founding generation knew that arms serve a critically important role in more than just the militia's purposes, and so knew that all weapons needed protection. This is why there is no qualifier in the 2nd Amendment as to what arms are protected.

"Disconnecting" the right prevents courts from interpreting the protection as being only for military weaponry (like what Miller seemed to be attempting). But the way some would read Heller (like mrrabbit here) would render the prefatory clause null and void, and that is forbidden by Marbury v Madison:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 at 174
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.
Now, the way Scalia in Heller "disconnected" the two was actually very clever. Read this very carefully:

Quote:
Originally Posted by District of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 at 2817
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
It may be objected. That if weapons like the M-16 may be banned.

If. Scalia is describing a hypothetical. Read literally, the above stands for nothing more than the proposition that the Court hasn't decided the issue of protection of military arms. And it may be that if one combines Heller's claim that the scope of the right is that which was understood at its adoption with Marbury v Madison's command that no clause of the Constitution shall ever be read to have no effect unless the words themselves demand it (and they do not here), one would be able to successfully argue that military arms are indeed protected by the 2nd Amendment because, firstly, the founding generation understood that to be the case and, secondly, because doing so preserves the original understanding of the purpose and meaning of the prefatory clause.

Of course, the argument would have to be raised first.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #532  
Old 10-20-2020, 12:41 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 344
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Judge Hurwitz brought up the same line of questioning, kcbrown, and attempted to correct (although he may have actually misquoted it, to be fair) the State’s lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #533  
Old 10-20-2020, 9:49 AM
CandG's Avatar
CandG CandG is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 16,104
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VISIONTEST View Post
Does this case effect the Bullet Button rule that you cannot take it off if purchased in that era of law?
It almost certainly would eliminate the bullet button regulations, if/when this case (and/or Miller) is totally finished, with all appeals exhausted, and with a victorious outcome for us.

Until that might happen, there's no change to the bullet button regulations or the enforcement of said regulations.
__________________
BLM has given me inspiration for a new idea.
We should start a new gun rights organization and call it Heroin-Free Babies Matter.
Critics of HFBM's gun rights pursuits will be chastised and dismissed, by default, for apparently being okay with babies using heroin.
Social justice warriors and the media will basically have no choice but to support us.
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 12:21 PM.




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