|
2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
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:
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.. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Suckers
__________________
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
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.. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Assuming these kits were compete the real danger they pose to buy is the chance they build an assault weapon or illegal pistol. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. 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.. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
The troubling portion insofar as future acts is... Quote:
Put another way, for the moment the suit and the legislation focuses on "80%" lowers. What's the next step? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Practical path is to serialize and control barrels. I guess they will get there. Not sure why they bother with 80%.. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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? |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Here's Becerra's official announcement.
Quote:
If you go to their YouTube homepage, you find this video announcing the suit... |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Don't know. Maybe if you read the complaint linked to in the OP...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
"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 |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
The case has been assigned to Obama appointed... Judge Edward M. Chen.
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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% .
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Filed 6/3/21...
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|