Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-01-2020, 2:39 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default State of California, et al. vs. BATFE, et al. - "Ghost Guns" - (6/3/21 Update)

Didn't see this posted, but it might be there and my eyes are just old and tired tonight...

State of California et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives et al

Complaint, 59 pages

Links to some of the documents.

California sues US regulator in bid to deter ‘ghost guns’

Quote:
Backed by the fathers of two slain children, California’s attorney general sued the Trump administration on Tuesday in an effort to crack down on “ghost guns” that can be built from parts and make it difficult to track or regulate owners.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives doesn’t consider the do-it-yourself kits to be firearms, so buyers don’t have to undergo the usual background checks and in most states the guns are not required to have serial numbers.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s lawsuit asks a federal judge in San Francisco to order the agency to change its policy, arguing that it violates the common definition of a firearm under federal law and that the agency’s decision in 2006 to stop considering the parts as firearms was arbitrary and capricious...
Update posted below on 15 October - The case was assigned to Obama appointed Judge Chen on 15 October, but the next scheduled event isn't until 1/14/21.

Update as of 12 January - There have been some changes made in the scheduling. The 1/14 event was rescheduled for 1/28 and has now been rescheduled for 2/25, evidently combining a number of motions. For more information, click on the Links to some of the documents.

Update as of 3 June - "...the parties respectfully request that the Court reschedule the status conference for September 16, 2021. Alternatively, the parties respectfully request that the Court reschedule the status conference during the week of September 20, 2021." (see Post #35 for more detail)

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-14-2021 at 10:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-01-2020, 2:59 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is a joke of a lawsuit. How do they think they are going to get around chevron deference.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-01-2020, 7:31 AM
cre8nhavoc's Avatar
cre8nhavoc cre8nhavoc is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 80
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm betting this has a large part to play with why the state wants to serialize all precursor parts and require background checks for purchase.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-01-2020, 11:09 AM
BryMan92 BryMan92 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 360
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

The ATF changed this definition in 2006? Can’t believe Donald Trump would do such a thing.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-01-2020, 11:21 AM
librarian72 librarian72 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 153
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
This is a joke of a lawsuit. How do they think they are going to get around chevron deference.
Maybe the 9th circuit will help break it?

Suckers
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
US Circuit Courts of Appeal have no deadlines; they work on what they want, when they want. The 9th also seems sometimes to Make Stuff Up in their opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-01-2020, 1:20 PM
NorCalRefuge's Avatar
NorCalRefuge NorCalRefuge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 685
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What's not helping this, unfortunately, are the volume of AR pistol "80%" builds being sold at gun shows right now without any serial on the lower.

I was at a gun show a few weekends ago and was shocked that none of the vendors selling these things were telling anyone about the process to get a registered serial and what needs to be done to stay on the legal side of things. Tons of people were snapping them up, since they're nearly all you can buy these days - most of whom are first time gun owners looking to get their hands on anything possible.

Slap a trigger, bolt catch, and a few odd parts and bam, instant felony. Kind of irresponsible of the vendors, even though, yes it's up to you to ensure you're legal. They could at least hand out a paper with guidance on how to register your AR pistol, etc - but then I'd wager they'd sell fewer of these $700 paper weights.

These are the same folks gouging the gun community with $0.80 per round 9mm 115gr ammo and worse.... there to make money and to hell with the community.

Last edited by NorCalRefuge; 10-01-2020 at 1:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-01-2020, 1:46 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 1,931
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If I own a business and my distributers raise there prices 400% on the few products they can still find should I lose my *** and sell it to you for a lot less than I have to pay for it. Do you understand how a business operates. There are whole states shut down with many factories closed because our Democrapic overlords demand it. There are others that are closed because they can't get the materials to produce anything. There are whole countries that are not producing parts or material for export because of the virus. Next time maybe you will figure out that waiting to buy in the middle of a mess like we are in is not the best way to do it. Stock up when it's cheap and store some. Probably sounds boring but it works and many here could ride out a pretty long drought. Learn grasshopper.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-01-2020, 1:51 PM
NorCalRefuge's Avatar
NorCalRefuge NorCalRefuge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 685
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
If I own a business and my distributers raise there prices 400% on the few products they can still find should I lose my *** and sell it to you for a lot less than I have to pay for it. Do you understand how a business operates. There are whole states shut down with many factories closed because our Democrapic overlords demand it. There are others that are closed because they can't get the materials to produce anything. There are whole countries that are not producing parts or material for export because of the virus. Next time maybe you will figure out that waiting to buy in the middle of a mess like we are in is not the best way to do it. Stock up when it's cheap and store some. Probably sounds boring but it works and many here could ride out a pretty long drought. Learn grasshopper.
Ya ok buddy. Parts to build an AR have not gone up - although scarcity has. These vendors are preying on folks who don't know any better, are scared during mass riots etc, and want something to protect themselves.

Instead, of getting help, guidance, assistance and a welcoming into the community - they get ripped off in a cash only transaction (literal tax dodging) by some goon looking to make 300% more profit on a paperweight with some serious legal implications attached. If any of these people actually complete the build, most will then posses these fabled "ghost guns" without any serial or registration. The vendor doesn't even mention you need to register.

Don't defend these jerks. Taking advantage of a community that usually goes out of it's way to help each other out is absurd.

Last edited by NorCalRefuge; 10-01-2020 at 1:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-01-2020, 2:10 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalRefuge View Post
What's not helping this, unfortunately, are the volume of AR pistol "80%" builds being sold at gun shows right now without any serial on the lower.

I was at a gun show a few weekends ago and was shocked that none of the vendors selling these things were telling anyone about the process to get a registered serial and what needs to be done to stay on the legal side of things. Tons of people were snapping them up, since they're nearly all you can buy these days - most of whom are first time gun owners looking to get their hands on anything possible.

Slap a trigger, bolt catch, and a few odd parts and bam, instant felony. Kind of irresponsible of the vendors, even though, yes it's up to you to ensure you're legal. They could at least hand out a paper with guidance on how to register your AR pistol, etc - but then I'd wager they'd sell fewer of these $700 paper weights.

These are the same folks gouging the gun community with $0.80 per round 9mm 115gr ammo and worse.... there to make money and to hell with the community.
Competing a 80% AR is more than just bolting on a few parts. Milling out the fire control group even with a good jig is still a good amount is work.

Now the 80% Glocks are much easier to finish. Milling the frame is just trimming the polymer and drilling some holes.

More than just gun shows these build kits have been very popular online for the last few years.

A few small guys have given in to the New Jersey AG so California is getting in on the action. The problem they are going to have is federally there isn't anything to do and the California market is big enough we might see some people fight it. But in the end it's a losing battle. Some drop shipper will take orders, ship to frames to California. Stop once they hey a notice setup a new domain and keep in going. This doesn't even get into the 3d printing of pistol lowers.

If California wants to stop home builds they need to make buying a gun easier and cheaper than building. That will dry up the 80% market which will mean they won't get into the hands of people going the home build route to get around their prohibited status. But I don't see our law makers figuring that out so see can expect more insane laws that ultimately only snag otherwise legal people.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-01-2020, 2:30 PM
NorCalRefuge's Avatar
NorCalRefuge NorCalRefuge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 685
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Competing a 80% AR is more than just bolting on a few parts. Milling out the fire control group even with a good jig is still a good amount is work.

Now the 80% Glocks are much easier to finish. Milling the frame is just trimming the polymer and drilling some holes.

More than just gun shows these build kits have been very popular online for the last few years.

A few small guys have given in to the New Jersey AG so California is getting in on the action. The problem they are going to have is federally there isn't anything to do and the California market is big enough we might see some people fight it. But in the end it's a losing battle. Some drop shipper will take orders, ship to frames to California. Stop once they hey a notice setup a new domain and keep in going. This doesn't even get into the 3d printing of pistol lowers.

If California wants to stop home builds they need to make buying a gun easier and cheaper than building. That will dry up the 80% market which will mean they won't get into the hands of people going the home build route to get around their prohibited status. But I don't see our law makers figuring that out so see can expect more insane laws that ultimately only snag otherwise legal people.
Good points you bring up. I'd argue most people going the 80% route, in normal non-panic times, are doing so because they want to either experience the build or are looking for something factory guns do not offer (ie. pre-stippled pink glock 19 frames, etc). The 80% AR Pistol thing is probably similar during normal times too.

What is happening right now though, isn't normal informed folks buying these things deliberately, already knowing what's involved and how to stay legal.

I didn't realize you needed to mill out the FCG area on these 80% AR's - the ones I saw seemed to be milled out already, but maybe not large enough to fit an actual FCG, I didn't look that closely.

If that's true, these vendors are even worse than I had thought - not a single one mentioned this.

I'm not sure California wants to stop home builds - I think they're wanting home builds be serialed so there's the appearance of control by the state. Simply adjusting the law so that 80% builds have to be serialed from the factory and go through DROS to transfer it would probably satisfy everyone. Ya that would probably make AR Pistol builds difficult... but that's better than banning home builds in total.

Last edited by NorCalRefuge; 10-01-2020 at 2:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-01-2020, 2:38 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalRefuge View Post
Good points you bring up. I'd argue most people going the 80% route, in normal non-panic times, are doing so because they want to either experience the build or are looking for something factory guns do not offer (ie. pre-stippled pink glock 19 frames, etc). The 80% AR Pistol thing is probably similar during normal times too.

What is happening right now though, isn't normal informed folks buying these things deliberately, already knowing what's involved and how to stay legal.

I didn't realize you needed to mill out the FCG area on these 80% AR's - the ones I saw already had a trigger whole and stuff, but maybe not large enough to fit an actual FCG, I didn't look that closely.

If that's true, these vendors are even worse than I had thought - not a single one mentioned this.
Any amount of the fcg milled out and it's not a 80%. My guess is what you saw were kits with compete lowers. Those would have been transferred like a completed gun and just left to you assemble. So far most parts are still at pre Covid pricing the only issue being availability. But that really hasn't been to bad.


Assuming these kits were compete the real danger they pose to buy is the chance they build an assault weapon or illegal pistol.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-01-2020, 2:52 PM
NorCalRefuge's Avatar
NorCalRefuge NorCalRefuge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 685
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Any amount of the fcg milled out and it's not a 80%. My guess is what you saw were kits with compete lowers. Those would have been transferred like a completed gun and just left to you assemble. So far most parts are still at pre Covid pricing the only issue being availability. But that really hasn't been to bad.


Assuming these kits were compete the real danger they pose to buy is the chance they build an assault weapon or illegal pistol.
Could have been. I specifically noticed no marking and no serial on the lowers, and was told I could walk away "today!" with the thing... which has got to be someone's definition of an 80% AR, even if wrong.

There were 3 vendors there, selling these 80% builds. Strangely enough, they all had some of the same blue and red hardware with TRUMP etchings on AR Pistol builds... perhaps they are really just one vendor group trying to appear differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
So far most parts are still at pre Covid pricing the only issue being availability. But that really hasn't been to bad.
I'd wager the ammo manufacturing costs haven't gone up much either, and I'd wager real distributors are still buying at around pre-covid prices too... it's obvious the end-user demand has definitely increased more than the manufacturing capabilities have decreased. Retailers, second tier distributors, and these gun show opportunists, however, are enjoying some handsome profits due to the increased demand.

Last edited by NorCalRefuge; 10-01-2020 at 2:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-01-2020, 3:12 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalRefuge View Post
...I'm not sure California wants to stop home builds - I think they're wanting home builds be serialed so there's the appearance of control by the state. Simply adjusting the law so that 80% builds have to be serialed from the factory and go through DROS to transfer it would probably satisfy everyone. Ya that would probably make AR Pistol builds difficult... but that's better than banning home builds in total.
That seems to be the intent, at least as presented, of the suit...

Quote:
...among other requirements, that any firearm sold or imported in the United States must have a unique serial number, and that licensed gun dealers must maintain identifying records, including the serial numbers of guns they sell and the identity of the buyer. These requirements allow law enforcement to trace guns recovered at crime scenes to their first retail purchaser...
The prohibition flows from the serial number. Since virtually all firearms purchases in California now must go through an FFL and/or be reported to the State insofar as even previously owned firearms being 'registered' when you move here, the serial numbers become the 'identity' of the firearm. With the Firearms Retailer Code of Conduct, they are going to attempt to make FFL's legally liable for knowingly AND unknowingly selling to prohibited persons.

The troubling portion insofar as future acts is...

Quote:
...Ghost guns are, in effect, a lethal do-it-yourself (“DIY”) project that allows anyone at home to build a fully operable firearm within minutes, using nothing more than commonly owned tools and a pre-packaged kit. The resulting DIY weapons are “ghosts” because, lacking serial numbers, they are not traceable by law enforcement when they are used in a crime, and they are not regulated by the federal government in any way...
Whatever their perceived reality of 'within minutes' and 'commonly owned tools' is, if we remember the "precursor parts" law and their ability to expand the definition of that term, if the premise of the suit hinges on "pre-packaged kits" which can be assembled "within minutes," what might that portend separate from serial numbers?

Put another way, for the moment the suit and the legislation focuses on "80%" lowers. What's the next step?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-01-2020, 3:23 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,128
iTrader: 168 / 100%
Default

Looks like Basura is banking on a Biden win, so that ATF doesn't defend against this lawsuit.
__________________
DiaHero Foundation - helping people manage diabetes. Sending diabetes supplies to Ukraine now, any help is appreciated.

DDR AK furniture and Norinco M14 parts kit: https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1756292
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-01-2020, 3:47 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Put another way, for the moment the suit and the legislation focuses on "80%" lowers. What's the next step?
Sell 75% lowers.

Practical path is to serialize and control barrels. I guess they will get there. Not sure why they bother with 80%..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-01-2020, 4:32 PM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,319
iTrader: 94 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nick View Post
Looks like Basura is banking on a Biden win, so that ATF doesn't defend against this lawsuit.
Then he will be disappointed.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-01-2020, 4:35 PM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,128
iTrader: 168 / 100%
Default

I hope so.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-01-2020, 7:17 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bear in mind that several cities, including San Jose, have also sued the BATFE over so-called "Ghost Guns" and there is a thread on it in OT, with another in General Guns.

Here's the actual complaint, all 51 pages, from the cities. That was filed in New York. Bacerra's was filed in San Francisco. The relief sought, in essence, appears to be the same; i.e., force BATFE to change their interpretation.

What it undoubtedly stems from is this - Feds drop case over AR-15 definition (Joseph Roh, building ARs)

There is a subtlety however. According to the CNN article that thread is premised upon...

Quote:
...Under US District Court Judge James V. Selna's interpretation of the law, convicted felons and other people prohibited from possessing firearms would be allowed to legally acquire all the parts necessary to assemble an AR-15-style rifle and other weapons, according to federal prosecutors.

Prosecutors and ATF officials declined comment for this story, noting that the case against Roh is technically an open matter because he remains subject to a deferred prosecution agreement.

Adam Winkler, a UCLA constitutional law professor and Second Amendment expert, predicted that Selna's tentative order would have "broad implications" and would encourage others to challenge existing law.

"This case could open up a huge loophole in federal law" he said. "It could lead to an explosion in the number of AR-15s out on the streets."...
What's Barrett's one, published document related to the 2nd Amendment? A dissent in Kanter v Barr related to restoration of rights to felons...

Quote:
History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward— legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety...

If the Second Amendment were subject to a virtue limitation, there would be no need for the government to produce—or for the court to assess—evidence that nonviolent felons have a propensity for dangerous behavior. But Heller forecloses the “civic right” argument on which a virtue limitation depends. And while both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data, cf. Skoien, 614 F.3d at 642, that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest. On this record, holding that the ban is constitutional as applied to Kanter does not “put[] the government through its paces,” see Williams, 616 F.3d at 692, but instead treats the Second Amendment as a “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). I therefore dissent.
There's a discussion specific to that dissent here - Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears: Amy Coney Barrett Tries to Overturn Law Banning People Convicted of Felonies from Possessing Firearms

Quote:
...In Kanter v. Barr, an individual convicted of felony federal mail fraud filed a lawsuit, claiming that it was unconstitutional to apply to him the federal and state laws that ban people convicted of felonies from possession of firearms. His claim was dismissed by a federal district court, and that decision was affirmed 2-1 by a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges Joel Flaum and Kenneth Ripple, both appointed by President Reagan, concluded that, in accord with the governing standard in cases concerning such constitutional claims, the government had established that the laws were “substantially related to the important governmental objective of keeping firearms away from those convicted of serious crimes.”

Judge Barrett did not disagree with that overall standard. She claimed, however, that the government had not introduced sufficient evidence that “disarming all nonviolent felons” substantially advances the government’s interest or that “Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence.” To prevent the Second Amendment from being treated as a “second-class right,” a phrase similar to that used by other Trump judges in firearms cases, she argued that the laws were unconstitutional as applied to Kanter...
The case in New York was filed approximately 3 weeks (8/26/20) prior to the announcement of RBG's death on 9/18/20. Bacerra's case was filed not quite two weeks after her announced death and only 3 days after Trump announced Barrett's nomination. Might that have been part of the calculus; i.e., anticipating Barrett's nomination and, potentially, create a line of questioning/criticism related to the nominee in terms her recorded dissent 'seeking' to give felons the right to keep and bear arms?

Yes. Barrett can sidestep at the confirmation hearings, declaring it to be inappropriate to comment on a case which might come before her. But, would her dissent be sufficient basis to raise calls for her to recuse herself from the case should it make it to SCOTUS? Then, even if she doesn't, could they then claim sufficient 'stench' to have it looked at by a future SCOTUS or "en banc" (so to speak) by a 'stacked' SCOTUS were they to run an enlarged Court similar to the District Courts?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-02-2020, 9:05 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's Becerra's official announcement.

Quote:
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence led a coalition today in filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration demanding the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) correct its interpretation of what qualifies as a firearm...

In today’s lawsuit, the coalition argues ATF violated the Administrative Procedure Act in relation to its policies on ghost guns for the following reasons:
  • ATF’s determinations are not in accordance with law because they disregard the Gun Control Act, which refers to a firearm as any weapon designed or easily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, including the frame or receiver of any such weapon; and
  • ATF’s position change on ghost guns without reason was arbitrary and capricious. Previously, ATF considered unfinished frames and receivers that are identical to the 80 percent receivers and frames on the market today as equivalent to finished frames and receivers, and therefore subject to regulation by the Gun Control Act.
Attorney General Becerra is committed to protecting the public and upholding California’s commonsense gun safety laws...
I'll let you read the rest of the last paragraph regarding how he's 'protecting' us. It includes a link to YouTube and "Meet the APPS Team". The last two minutes deal with "ghost guns," where the one exemplar cited the guy as building "machine guns" and "assault weapons."



If you go to their YouTube homepage, you find this video announcing the suit...

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-02-2020, 9:30 PM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

How does gifford's have standing ?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-03-2020, 9:37 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 8,091
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
How does gifford's have standing ?
This is CA. Unicorns have more standing than gun owners.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page


NRA Memberships at Discounted fee
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-04-2020, 8:39 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
How does gifford's have standing ?
Don't know. Maybe if you read the complaint linked to in the OP...

Quote:
...Plaintiff Giffords Law Center is a nonprofit unincorporated association operating under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Based in San Francisco, California, Giffords Law Center also has staff members located in New York, New York, and Washington, D.C. Plaintiff is one of the nation’s leading legal and policy organizations dedicated to finding sensible solutions that will prevent further gun violence...

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because Plaintiff State of California, and Giffords Law Center reside in this District, and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this case occurred in this District. Defendant ATF also maintains numerous Field Offices in this District...

Giffords Law Center. Plaintiff Giffords Law Center’s core mission is to save lives from gun violence by shifting culture, changing policies, and challenging injustice. ATF’s arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful stance on ghost guns directly affects Giffords Law Center’s interests and mission by permitting the proliferation of untraceable firearms that can be purchased by prohibited and dangerous persons and without any background check. Giffords Law Center’s ability to save lives is inhibited on a daily basis as a result of ATF’s approval of the sale of ghost guns. That ghost gun sales are unregulated requires Giffords Law Center to expend a substantial portion of its budget and substantial human capital and resources to educate the public and combat the violence ghost guns cause. Addressing ghost guns and the violence they facilitate is currently among the organization’s top policy and legislative priorities: over the last six years, Giffords Law Center has contributed technical assistance to or monitored and analyzed over 100 state and federal bills pertaining to ghost guns. Giffords Law Center has also launched a series of specific ghost gun initiatives, including drafting proposed legislation, publishing white papers, and helping produce videos and other educational materials for the public...

ATF’s actions on ghost guns have required Giffords Law Center to expend more resources and staff time because ATF’s regulatory classification undermines every other firearm policy that Giffords Law Center advocates for. This includes the organization’s core policy platform of supporting background check and licensing laws at the federal and state level. Background check laws and other efforts to ensure firearms are legally and responsibly possessed are impeded and undermined by ATF’s choice to create a loophole by which buyers can evade all otherwise applicable firearm sales regulations. This loophole has forced Giffords Law Center to redouble its violence prevention efforts and direct even more resources into addressing gun violence even in states with strong firearm laws, like the organization’s home state of California. Giffords Law Center has made this issue an urgent priority based on the fact that in parts of California, ATF has reported that ghost guns are now up to 30% of crime guns it recovers—representing one of the single most dangerous loopholes undermining the state’s laws. Every day, more lives are lost to ghost guns despite Giffords Law Center’s increased efforts and resource expenditures...

In addition to its legislative work, Giffords Law Center provides policy expertise and technical assistance in support of violence intervention programs in communities disproportionately impacted by gun violence and ghost gun violence. Giffords Law Center also frequently partners with community-based organizations that provide direct support services to victims of gun violence. While these intervention efforts have contributed to dramatic reductions in gun violence in cities such as Oakland, California in recent years, many of these cities are also experiencing a surge in the numbers of ghost guns recovered, meaning all of these hard-fought gains in community safety are being compromised by ATF’s actions. The risk of increased ghost gun violence and ATF’s failure to regulate ghost gun sales have therefore contributed to increased expenditure of human and financial capital and resources by Giffords Law Center toward work supporting violence intervention programs and violence reduction work by community-based organizations. In sum, ATF’s actions have forced Giffords Law Center to adjust many of its organizational priorities and divert substantial resources to combat ghost guns and resulting violence...

Statutory standing. The interests of all named Plaintiffs—the State of California, Bryan Muehlberger, Frank Blackwell, and Giffords Law Center are within the zone of interests protected by the GCA. In enacting the GCA, Congress found that the “ease with which any person can acquire firearms ... is a significant factor in the prevalence of lawlessness and violent crime in the United States.” Omnibus Crime Control & Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-357, § 901(a)(2), 82 Stat. 197, 225. All named Plaintiffs allege injury involving the increased likelihood of violent crime that ATF’s actions have caused. Therefore, all named Plaintiffs allege harm to interests within the zone of interests that the GCA protects...
I personally think it's a bit of a stretch. In a sense, it would mean practically any advocacy group could sign on as a plaintiff to virtually any such suit if they have to expend resources to change existing law/regulation. You'll have to ask the lawyers why such would constitute an "injury" insofar as "standing" is concerned; though an hint might be found in the one link provided in the definition for "injury" I just provided.

Quote:
...An injury or harm done is also an essential element of unintentional torts. In California for example, a negligent act or omission is a breach of the duty of care to “prevent harm to oneself or others.”...
At that link, you will find...

Quote:
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others. A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act.

A person is negligent if he or she does something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation...
Which seems to be what the suit is alleging; though I still think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the expenditure of resources to advocate for something and/or explain existing law/regulation is an "injury" on that basis.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-04-2020, 9:17 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,887
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

"ease with which any person can acquire firearms ... is a significant factor in the prevalence of lawlessness and violent crime in the United States"

This is why the law is a joke. They can literally make up facts.
__________________
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." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-04-2020, 9:37 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,877
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is a mortally wounded opponent lashing out wildly...

Very soon California won't be able to afford the basics, let alone things like this.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-09-2020, 7:28 PM
mrb865's Avatar
mrb865 mrb865 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 237
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Here is an analysis from JPFO......short read but pokes many holes in California's lawsuit.
http://jpfo.org/articles-2020/ca-sue...JZKDPRPOtlZn_P
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-09-2020, 7:40 PM
357manny's Avatar
357manny 357manny is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: PRK
Posts: 1,677
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrb865 View Post
Here is an analysis from JPFO......short read but pokes many holes in California's lawsuit.
http://jpfo.org/articles-2020/ca-sue...JZKDPRPOtlZn_P

Wow never heard of JPFO before. I hope they are as aggressive as they say. Glad to have more pro-2A orgs!
__________________
this is a signature
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-10-2020, 7:24 AM
usr1987 usr1987 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
This is a joke of a lawsuit. How do they think they are going to get around chevron deference.
Nothing is a joke, its was also a joke when bullet button and 10 rd mags etc..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-10-2020, 10:18 AM
AregularGuy's Avatar
AregularGuy AregularGuy is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,752
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalRefuge View Post
What's not helping this, unfortunately, are the volume of AR pistol "80%" builds being sold at gun shows right now without any serial on the lower.

I was at a gun show a few weekends ago and was shocked that none of the vendors selling these things were telling anyone about the process to get a registered serial and what needs to be done to stay on the legal side of things. Tons of people were snapping them up, since they're nearly all you can buy these days - most of whom are first time gun owners looking to get their hands on anything possible.

Slap a trigger, bolt catch, and a few odd parts and bam, instant felony. Kind of irresponsible of the vendors, even though, yes it's up to you to ensure you're legal. They could at least hand out a paper with guidance on how to register your AR pistol, etc - but then I'd wager they'd sell fewer of these $700 paper weights.

These are the same folks gouging the gun community with $0.80 per round 9mm 115gr ammo and worse.... there to make money and to hell with the community.

Your post makes you sound terribly underinformed. A lot more goes into finishing off an 80% lower than just slapping on some parts, otherwise it would just be a "lower". Ask yourself, who would buy an already serialized 80% lower when there is still so much work to be done to it? Furthermore, how would any FFL go about getting the part serialized when they aren't even firearms yet?

I also doubt most first time gun buyers are buying 80% lowers due to what it takes to finish them. Maybe all of those people snapping them up don't want them serialized and stick them in the back of the safe as insurance. Registering/making an 80% pistol is much different than an 80% rifle, at least here in California.

ETA: In California building a functional, semi-automatic AR pistol from anything other than a registered AR pistol lower is basically dead,
__________________
All posts dedicated to the memory of Stronzo Bestiale

"You want my sister but now scam my Glocks too?
How about my sister? what can she do now? Still virgin and need Glcok."

---ARegularGuy

NRA Patron Member

Last edited by AregularGuy; 10-10-2020 at 10:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-14-2020, 10:12 AM
sbo80's Avatar
sbo80 sbo80 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,225
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

In a case of "don't poke the bear" I really hope this bites them. Since the ATF was almost backed into a corner to admit that 100% lowers are not even firearms under the law, how would they go the opposite direction and rule that 80% are firearms? The feds dropped a criminal case to avoid dealing with the issue, and now CA wants to force it.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-15-2020, 2:35 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The case has been assigned to Obama appointed... Judge Edward M. Chen.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-16-2020, 7:23 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Sell 75% lowers.

Practical path is to serialize and control barrels. I guess they will get there. Not sure why they bother with 80%..
I believe Europe regulates barrels not receivers. That said we have seen some interesting diy home builds barrels recently. Using 3d printed mandrels to electro etch rifling. So 80% barrels could become a thing. Really the only way to dry up the home build is to make the regulated buying route cheap and easy as compared to home builds. Then you are left with the few builders that no amount of regulation parts sellers can stop, aka 0% .
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-20-2020, 6:15 PM
UCT UCT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 375
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Someone needs to move to intervene in this lawsuit in case lawyers on both sides conspire to settle the case in a way that screws us. Especially likely to happen if Trump loses.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-12-2021, 6:08 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Update posted in OP...

Update posted below on 12 January - There have been some changes made in the scheduling. The 1/14 event was rescheduled for 1/28 and has now been rescheduled for 2/25, evidently combining a number of motions. For more information, click on the Links to some of the documents.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-04-2021, 4:12 PM
darkwater34 darkwater34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 738
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can't regulate everything springs and cotter pins included.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-14-2021, 10:36 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,493
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Filed 6/3/21...

Quote:
Subject to the Court’s approval, Plaintiffs and Defendants stipulate as follows:

1. On May 21, 2021, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay this case until the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives issues a final rule based on its recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 86 Fed. Reg. 27720 (proposed May 21, 2021) (to be codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 478, and 479). See Order, ECF No. 88.

2. Five days later, the Court scheduled a status conference “with Plaintiffs, Defendants, and all applicants in intervention” for September 9, 2021. See Order, ECF No. 89.

3. Defendants’ counsel will be away from the office without access to internet on September 9, 2021.

4. Thus, the parties respectfully request that the Court reschedule the status conference for September 16, 2021. Alternatively, the parties respectfully request that the Court reschedule the status conference during the week of September 20, 2021.
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 3:48 AM.




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