Miller v. Bonta, SDCA - "assault weapons"

[GunnEnvy]

Originally Posted by blubullett

I don't think this will make SBR's legal in CA. You would still need a federal tax stamp and to get a tax stamp in CA you have to have a CA dangerous weapons permit, which CA will not give you and is not covered by the assault weapons law being challenged.

The barrel is 16.5". It's the oal that's less than 30", but more than 26" that California considers it an AW.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by blubullett

I don't think this will make SBR's legal in CA. You would still need a federal tax stamp and to get a tax stamp in CA you have to have a CA dangerous weapons permit, which CA will not give you and is not covered by the assault weapons law being challenged.

Um, if the courts were to deem CA AW’s laws unconstitutional, then you would be able to apply for an NFA item with ATF.

[steepdrop]

tag

[Solidsnake87]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Um, if the courts were to deem CA AW’s laws unconstitutional, then you would be able to apply for an NFA item with ATF.

No, you would not because the lawsuit does not target California's sbr law unfortunately. The sbr law is completely separate from the aw law.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Solidsnake87

No, you would not because the lawsuit does not target California's sbr law unfortunately. The sbr law is completely separate from the aw law.

Yes you would. The ENTIRE banning of rifles in common use are on the table here now. Including 50BMG.

[blubullett]

What statutes is it challenging? Doesn't a challenge to a law have to list the statutes it is challenging?

[tenemae]

Originally Posted by blubullett

What statutes is it challenging? Doesn't a challenge to a law have to list the statutes it is challenging?

How lazy are you? FIRST POST

[blubullett]

Originally Posted by tenemae

How lazy are you? FIRST POST

I'm so sorry sir. But in reality, how lazy are you jackwagon? You could have easily just listed it for my lazy ***. Probably in the amount of time it took to type up your BS response.

So, 30515 doesn't include the areas outlawing .50 bmg rifles or the requirements for obtaining a dangerous weapons permit, which is required for NFA items in CA.

So what it does is it gets rid of the prohibitions on pistol grips, flash suppressors, folding stocks on rifles, ect. Threaded barrels on handguns would be allowed. Semi auto shotguns with detachable mags would be allowed.

The only thing I would even be remotely interested in is AR pistols would be back I believe.

Here is a link to an amended version of the law for my fellow lazy ****s. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...5.&lawCode=PEN

[Solidsnake87]

Originally Posted by taperxz

Yes you would. The ENTIRE banning of rifles in common use are on the table here now. Including 50BMG.

No, they are not. Sbrs and 50s are covered by an entirely different statute, a statute not covered by this lawsuit. Only featured guns are being pursued in Miller.

https://www.shouselaw.com/are-short-...-in-california

https://www.shouselaw.com/are-50-bmg...-in-california

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Solidsnake87

No, they are not. Sbrs and 50s are covered by an entirely different statute, a statute not covered by this lawsuit. Only featured guns are being pursued in Miller.

https://www.shouselaw.com/are-short-...-in-california

https://www.shouselaw.com/are-50-bmg...-in-california

What's the reason for not including the make/model parts of the AWB?

[Solidsnake87]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

What's the reason for not including the make/model parts of the AWB?

It seems a lot of folks don't seem to understand the purpose of this case. This case targets the following statutes:

Pc30515 Make/Model
Pc30515 Features
Pc30600 Manufacture/Transport
Pc30605 Posession
Pc30910 Sale
Pc30915 Inheritance/Bequest
Pc30915/30925 New Resident Importation
Pc30945 Use Limitations
Pc30950 Use by Minors
Pc31000 Requiring Permits for Use
Pc31000 Restriction of Permits
Pc30800 Seizure (only the seizure sections, not 50BMG sections)
Title 11, CCR 5460 (Definitions of AWs) & 5471 (Registration of AWs)

In a nutshell.....The ability to file this lawsuit hinged on the window made open by the passage of prop 63 and the ruling in Duncan. Gavin got greedy with the forced confiscation portion of prop 63 (a 4th amendment violation) and, in conjunction with the ruling in Duncan which protects "large capacity magazines", an opportunity was created to sue. The lawsuit's logic is that if hi caps are legal, then surely the guns that use them must be legal and we should be able to use them in any gun we want. Prior to prop 63 and Duncan, AWs had been fully litigated in a liberal ninth and there was no ability to sue without outright dismissal.

This lawsuit targets the AW laws and ONLY, the AW laws. Why? I suspect if you take to big of a bite of the apple, your greed will be rewarded with punishment. The trick is to incrementally pick away at the core of the law. If you haven't already noticed, CA gun laws cross reference each other. Knock out one domino, and you leave holes in the others, which makes them easier to knock down.

So why doesn't this case go after SBRs and 50s? For starters, SBRs are federally restricted and the supreme court allowed those laws to stand by shooting down at least 3 NFA lawsuits by refusing to take them (Kettler v US and Cox v US were there definition of perfect cases to hear). The constitution allows for States Rights and, since there is no legal right to SBRs, the restrictions are allowed to stand. Also, if we're being honest, SBRs are not even relevant to the core of the lawsuit. SBRs will have to wait for another time. You can't have sbrs without aws, so aws are more important. So, Why leave out 50 cal bans? I dunno, I'm not a mind reader but it could have been simple oversight or perhaps it was also considered unrelated to the core matter at hand. Bottom line, SBRs and 50s are not covered by Miller. Taperxz, I strongly suggest you read through the amended complaint.

[EvoXguy]

Ok that clears up a few things. Thanks

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Solidsnake87

It seems a lot of folks don't seem to understand the purpose of this case. This case targets the following statutes:

Pc30515 Make/Model
Pc30515 Features
Pc30600 Manufacture/Transport
Pc30605 Posession
Pc30910 Sale
Pc30915 Inheritance/Bequest
Pc30915/30925 New Resident Importation
Pc30945 Use Limitations
Pc30950 Use by Minors
Pc31000 Requiring Permits for Use
Pc31000 Restriction of Permits
Pc30800 Seizure (only the seizure sections, not 50BMG sections)
Title 11, CCR 5460 (Definitions of AWs) & 5471 (Registration of AWs)

In a nutshell.....The ability to file this lawsuit hinged on the window made open by the passage of prop 63 and the ruling in Duncan. Gavin got greedy with the forced confiscation portion of prop 63 (a 4th amendment violation) and, in conjunction with the ruling in Duncan which protects "large capacity magazines", an opportunity was created to sue. The lawsuit's logic is that if hi caps are legal, then surely the guns that use them must be legal and we should be able to use them in any gun we want. Prior to prop 63 and Duncan, AWs had been fully litigated in a liberal ninth and there was no ability to sue without outright dismissal.

This lawsuit targets the AW laws and ONLY, the AW laws. Why? I suspect if you take to big of a bite of the apple, your greed will be rewarded with punishment. The trick is to incrementally pick away at the core of the law. If you haven't already noticed, CA gun laws cross reference each other. Knock out one domino, and you leave holes in the others, which makes them easier to knock down.

So why doesn't this case go after SBRs and 50s? For starters, SBRs are federally restricted and the supreme court allowed those laws to stand by shooting down at least 3 NFA lawsuits by refusing to take them (Kettler v US and Cox v US were there definition of perfect cases to hear). The constitution allows for States Rights and, since there is no legal right to SBRs, the restrictions are allowed to stand. Also, if we're being honest, SBRs are not even relevant to the core of the lawsuit. SBRs will have to wait for another time. You can't have sbrs without aws, so aws are more important. So, Why leave out 50 cal bans? I dunno, I'm not a mind reader but it could have been simple oversight or perhaps it was also considered unrelated to the core matter at hand. Bottom line, SBRs and 50s are not covered by Miller. Taperxz, I strongly suggest you read through the amended complaint.

I wasn't asking why it wasn't targeting SBR and .50 BMG laws. Not at all. I know it doesn't specifically go after them. I'm asking why, since they expanded the challenge beyond just fixed-hi-cap-mag type AWs, did they choose to only target the features-based parts of the AWB and not the make/model parts of the AWB. I read all of the statutes and regulations they are challenging already, which is why I'm curious as to why the rest of the AWB was left out, given that they are making a pretty broad attack against the AWB at this point.

[Solidsnake87]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

I wasn't asking why it wasn't targeting SBR and .50 BMG laws. Not at all. I know it doesn't specifically go after them. I'm asking why, since they expanded the challenge beyond just fixed-hi-cap-mag type AWs, did they choose to only target the features-based parts of the AWB and not the make/model parts of the AWB. I read all of the statutes and regulations they are challenging already, which is why I'm curious as to why the rest of the AWB was left out, given that they are making a pretty broad attack against the AWB at this point.

The amended complaint makes clear it targets the make/ model portion of the law as well. My post listed the specific portions of the law the suit targets. Not sure how much more clear I can be. We must be miscommunicating somehow if we still are not understanding each other.

[bigstick61]

Originally Posted by Solidsnake87

The amended complaint makes clear it targets the make/ model portion of the law as well. My post listed the specific portions of the law the suit targets. Not sure how much more clear I can be. We must be miscommunicating somehow if we still are not understanding each other.

I read the amended complaint some time ago (a couple of week ago, perhaps). I looked up every part of the PC and regs that were mentioned therein. None of the PC sections I looked up from the complaint dealt with Roberti-Roos or the AR/AK series bans. I looked up those for the PC section numbers and could not find them in the complaint. Only the features ban, which seems to be targeted in its entirety.

Has the complaint been amended in the last several days?

[Solidsnake87]

Originally Posted by bigstick61

I read the amended complaint some time ago (a couple of week ago, perhaps). I looked up every part of the PC and regs that were mentioned therein. None of the PC sections I looked up from the complaint dealt with Roberti-Roos or the AR/AK series bans. I looked up those for the PC section numbers and could not find them in the complaint. Only the features ban, which seems to be targeted in its entirety.

Has the complaint been amended in the last several days?

Nope. Nothing has changed.

[Transient]

Originally Posted by JCHavasu

This. We want cases like this to get to SCOTUS to put an end to this that will cover the entire US, not just regions. Hopefully it gets there, and hopefully, RBG is not on the court when it arrives.

SCOTUS already saw an AWB lawsuit, and chose to pass on it. If/when this lawsuit is petitioned to SCOTUS, I'd hope legal counsel would have cite the minority opinion written by SCOTUS in Friedman v Highland Park. The fact is, SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to back up its own words in Heller when it said common firearms can't be restricted. If SCOTUS meant what they said then this would've been settled law already. Friedman's lawyers included evidence in its filings that the AR platform is the Ford F150 of firearms, yet SCOTUS chose to not hear the case.

If this lawsuit makes it to SCOTUS, I have a nice little amicus that I've been working on for a few years for an AWB lawsuit. As much as the antis want to claim an AWB is settled law, the truth od it isn't. The problem is the jurisdictions that would rule against an AWB also have a place that won't pass an AWB. Virginia may become the first split we need in AWB rulings.

It is also worth noting the CA7 judges that heard Friedman are known to be anti-2A.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Transient

SCOTUS already saw an AWB lawsuit, and chose to pass on it. If/when this lawsuit is petitioned to SCOTUS, I'd hope legal counsel would have cite the minority opinion written by SCOTUS in Friedman v Highland Park. The fact is, SCOTUS doesn't have the balls to back up its own words in Heller when it said common firearms can't be restricted. If SCOTUS meant what they said then this would've been settled law already. Friedman's lawyers included evidence in its filings that the AR platform is the Ford F150 of firearms, yet SCOTUS chose to not hear the case.

If this lawsuit makes it to SCOTUS, I have a nice little amicus that I've been working on for a few years for an AWB lawsuit. As much as the antis want to claim an AWB is settled law, the truth od it isn't. The problem is the jurisdictions that would rule against an AWB also have a place that won't pass an AWB. Virginia may become the first split we need in AWB rulings.

It is also worth noting the CA7 judges that heard Friedman are known to be anti-2A.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But at the same time, the Seventh was the circuit that got shall issue CCW for citizens of Illinois, and continually hammered Chicago for its attempts to end run McDonald. I was rather surprised by a decision that essentially held that "feelz" trump 2A rights.

[walterSOBCHAK]

Can one of the more legal minded members here please chime in on the implications of another freedom week for AR pistols?

[Solidsnake87]

Originally Posted by walterSOBCHAK

Can one of the more legal minded members here please chime in on the implications of another freedom week for AR pistols?

As others have mentioned, pistols are off limits for freedom week. Sure, technically you could mod the gun and not get an AW charge. Instead, they'll claim you manufactured an unsafe handgun, also a felony. The roster would need to be killed too.

[taperxz]

Originally Posted by Solidsnake87

As others have mentioned, pistols are off limits for freedom week. Sure, technically you could mod the gun and not get an AW charge. Instead, they'll claim you manufactured an unsafe handgun, also a felony. The roster would need to be killed too.

Not if the pistol is already registered to you as an AW or a fixed mag that previously had a bullet button on it.

[walterSOBCHAK]

So as an example, if I went out today and dros'd an AR pistol. I would have to have it in fixed mag configuration? Would I still have to register it? I reckon putting a 50 round drum in it wpuld be a "no go" as well?

[igs]

Originally Posted by walterSOBCHAK

Can one of the more legal minded members here please chime in on the implications of another freedom week for AR pistols?

No need for mag lock AND you can use 30 round mags.

[FirearmFino]

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER B. COLWELL, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR JOHN J. DONOHUE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

DECLARATION OF BLAKE GRAHAM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[TruOil]

Donahue's declaration is clap trap. For many of his assertions and conclusions, no data is cited at all, for example his contention that mass shootings increased after the AW Ban expired in 2004--which is contrary to the results of a DOJ study that found no change (but which is not cited). He credits the AW Ban on a decrease in gun violence, despite the fact that DOJ data shows that the un violence peaked in 1992 and has steadily declined since. Almost all of his "research" is a recitation of small sample size polls, and not crime statistics. Claptrap.

[Uncivil Engineer]

Originally Posted by FirearmFino

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION



DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER B. COLWELL, M.D., IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION



DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR JOHN J. DONOHUE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION



DECLARATION OF BLAKE GRAHAM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

We need to respond to the lies from these doctors. We can leave aside the conflating "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" which is used interchangeable. We can even set aside the false "30,000" deaths when we know 2/3s of those are suicides.

We can focus on the fact they state a tec9 can cause greater damage than other weapons. How does the weapon used matter when examining the wound track of a 9mm? You might argue one weapon can improve the chances of a hit but once we are examining damage that argument is over. This is clearly false evidence. Not only do we need to argue against it in the case but we must have these "experts" held responsible for their false testimony. These lies are the heart of the argument for assault weapon bans. Allowing these people to continue to peddle this hogwash will only make restoring our rights harder.

[FirearmFino]

All exhibits

Motion by Everytown for leave to file amicus brief in support of Defendants Opposition and proposed brief

[Transient]

Originally Posted by TruOil

But at the same time, the Seventh was the circuit that got shall issue CCW for citizens of Illinois, and continually hammered Chicago for its attempts to end run McDonald. I was rather surprised by a decision that essentially held that "feelz" trump 2A rights.

Correction: CA7 didn't require Illinois to become a shall issue state. Illinois did that on their own. They could've become a may issue state, but nobody put forth may issue legislation. Furthermore, Valinda Rowe with Illinois Carry, Todd Vandermyde with the NRA, and Mr. Pearce (first name currently escapes me) with the Illiolnois State Rifle Association were very much involved in making sure the state was not only shall issue, but that the Firearm Carry and Conceal Act also included preemption for handguns. Unfortunately, the unforeseen consequence was the sudden push for AWBs. This brought the 2A sanctuary county push we've recently seen sweep Virginia. That was a grassroots initiative tat started in Illinois.

For the record, I was living in Highland Park, IL when all of this (and more) went down. I was considered as a plaintiff or co-plaintiff in Friedman v Highland Park (challenge to AWB) and Culp v Madigan (challenge to 14A violation of 2A rights). I have, at one point or another, been in the same room or at the same BBQ as all of these people named.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[thatrogue]

Originally Posted by Garrett52

There are a few FFL's that can still manufacture them as well. You have to buy them complete though.

Please do speak of these FFL’s and their contact info please.

[miglo]

Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer

We need to respond to the lies from these doctors. We can leave aside the conflating "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" which is used interchangeable. We can even set aside the false "30,000" deaths when we know 2/3s of those are suicides.

We can focus on the fact they state a tec9 can cause greater damage than other weapons. How does the weapon used matter when examining the wound track of a 9mm? You might argue one weapon can improve the chances of a hit but once we are examining damage that argument is over. This is clearly false evidence. Not only do we need to argue against it in the case but we must have these "experts" held responsible for their false testimony. These lies are the heart of the argument for assault weapon bans. Allowing these people to continue to peddle this hogwash will only make restoring our rights harder.

As a doc that reads trauma cases all day every day, nothing pisses me off more than this lomd BS from other physicians. Gunshot wounds are so rare in the vast majority of stuff I see on a daily basis. Vast majority of the traumas in northcal are from knife and other blunt traumas. I maybe see a GSW once every 2-3mos, IF that at all. Most of which is self-inflicted retardation.

The doc is a liberal living in ground zero of the liberal cesspool that is CA. His antigun rant is almost expected.

[Transient]

I'll see if I can get my wife to look at this docs. She has experience treating gunshot wounds in the ER of a hospital on Chicago's near west side. She's a CNS now and loves sifting through paperwork. She worked in medical records before obtaining her BSN.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[TFA777]

Hate this semblance of "statistics" being applied. The number of rounds used in the average (and averages are poor choices for legislation, average family has 2.2 children. Have you ever met 0.2 children?) is IRRELEVANT to magazine capacity.

The right to keep and bear arms is not restricted to how much you 'need'. It's like saying, for EPA restrictions since the average trip is 7 miles, and the average fuel economy is 25mpg, then gas tanks only 'need' to be 1/3rd of a gallon.

Dress it up with p values, std deviations and normal distributions doesn't add anything to the argument. it doesn't matter if the average number of rounds fired in self defense were ZERO, that should not guide policy.

If we follow their argument, then they're also missing what the average number of rounds are fired in a firefight with government forces. That should be the defining capacity restriction since 2A was included to allow people to fight against the government. So I'm guessing belts of 200+ rounds would be minimums

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by TFA777

Hate this semblance of "statistics" being applied. The number of rounds used in the average (and averages are poor choices for legislation, average family has 2.2 children. Have you ever met 0.2 children?) is IRRELEVANT to magazine capacity.

The right to keep and bear arms is not restricted to how much you 'need'. It's like saying, for EPA restrictions since the average trip is 7 miles, and the average fuel economy is 25mpg, then gas tanks only 'need' to be 1/3rd of a gallon.

Dress it up with p values, std deviations and normal distributions doesn't add anything to the argument. it doesn't matter if the average number of rounds fired in self defense were ZERO, that should not guide policy.

If we follow their argument, then they're also missing what the average number of rounds are fired in a firefight with government forces. That should be the defining capacity restriction since 2A was included to allow people to fight against the government. So I'm guessing belts of 200+ rounds would be minimums

Don't forget the fact that the government has full-auto weaponry. How are you going to argue for holding the NFA as being unconstitutional?

[andrewjmarotte]

So is this hearing taking place on 1/29/20 or 2/6/20 now?

[RLW]

Originally Posted by miglo

As a doc that reads trauma cases all day every day, nothing pisses me off more than this lomd BS from other physicians. Gunshot wounds are so rare in the vast majority of stuff I see on a daily basis. Vast majority of the traumas in northcal are from knife and other blunt traumas. I maybe see a GSW once every 2-3mos, IF that at all. Most of which is self-inflicted retardation.

The doc is a liberal living in ground zero of the liberal cesspool that is CA. His antigun rant is almost expected.

Agree 100% that the vast majority of traumas coming in to any trauma center are the result of people doing stupid things. But a GSW once every 2-3 months? There are trauma centers in the more populated areas getting them probably every day.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by RLW

Agree 100% that the vast majority of traumas coming in to any trauma center are the result of people doing stupid things. But a GSW once every 2-3 months? There are trauma centers in the more populated areas getting them probably every day.

South Central L.A. comes to mind. They are probably getting GSWs more than 1/day.

[Transient]

Originally Posted by RLW

Agree 100% that the vast majority of traumas coming in to any trauma center are the result of people doing stupid things. But a GSW once every 2-3 months? There are trauma centers in the more populated areas getting them probably every day.

Stroger Hospital on Chicago's near west side. My wife spent some time as an ER nurse there. She saw plenty of GSW. The real problem was that 1 patient with a GSW lead to more in the same night. "Family" of the first patient would talk to the GSW patient, then suddenly leave. Not long after more GSW patients were arriving. Then a cycle would repeat itself. Police would do nothing at the hospital, and medical staff were powerless to stop any of this.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[miglo]

Originally Posted by RLW

Agree 100% that the vast majority of traumas coming in to any trauma center are the result of people doing stupid things. But a GSW once every 2-3 months? There are trauma centers in the more populated areas getting them probably every day.

Not a lot of GSWs in SAC during graveyard shifts I guess. Been doing trauma med for over 10yrs up here now. Maybe the Level 1 centers get more action. We occasionally get pretty traumatic ones, but not nearly as much as the dems would lead you to believe. I'm sure places like Chicago would be a nightmare, but that's what happens when you are led be democrats for decades.

[kuug]

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...42089.33.0.pdf

AG argues that AWB are not in common use and are simultaneously not good for self defense while also being too good at killing people

[cxr]

Originally Posted by kuug

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...42089.33.0.pdf

AG argues that AWB are not in common use and are simultaneously not good for self defense while also being too good at killing people

OOOhh we know what going to happen with this argument due to freedom week #HappyDance