Miller v. Bonta, SDCA - "assault weapons"

[Discogodfather]

Been trying to follow this for a few months. It seems vague as to the implications at this point, and anything "FPC" I am a little skeptical about to begin with. The theory is that Beneitez would rule in a similar fashion to the LCM issue, declaring that the entire California AWB is unconstitutional. Then some kind of week period would occur where they would request a stay of the motion, etc.

This is really difficult to analyze and prepare for. Like to hear peoples ideas on some thought experiments pertaining to a 2nd freedom week where AW is no longer AW. If everything Roberti-Roos forward pertaining to AW is not constitutional, then what does this mean? This assumes all existing AW (outside of other SBR laws, etc.) would not be AW anymore during this injunction.

1) Pre 2001 reg period AW could be transferred or sold
2) 2017 reg period AW could loose the bullet button
3) Standard rifles could be sold in CA (meets all FED standards of course)
4) Transport rules don't apply

But if you buy or modify your rifle in that period, what happens when the stay is issued? Remember the original LCM never went into effect, so it wasn't illegal to posses and then the injunction was stayed, meaning gray area. Seems much different for a situation where things have been established law for 30+ years.

If the stay is in effect, doesn't the status quo prevail and everything becomes instantly a felony again? What worth would this be? Can the injunction be partially stayed and the law be invalid from that date forward until something else is decided?

It seems like a long shot that 2nd freedom week could go down like the first?

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by Discogodfather

Been trying to follow this for a few months. It seems vague as to the implications at this point, and anything "FPC" I am a little skeptical about to begin with. The theory is that Beneitez would rule in a similar fashion to the LCM issue, declaring that the entire California AWB is unconstitutional. Then some kind of week period would occur where they would request a stay of the motion, etc.

This is really difficult to analyze and prepare for. Like to hear peoples ideas on some thought experiments pertaining to a 2nd freedom week where AW is no longer AW. If everything Roberti-Roos forward pertaining to AW is not constitutional, then what does this mean? This assumes all existing AW (outside of other SBR laws, etc.) would not be AW anymore during this injunction.

1) Pre 2001 reg period AW could be transferred or sold
2) 2017 reg period AW could loose the bullet button
3) Standard rifles could be sold in CA (meets all FED standards of course)
4) Transport rules don't apply

But if you buy or modify your rifle in that period, what happens when the stay is issued? Remember the original LCM never went into effect, so it wasn't illegal to posses and then the injunction was stayed, meaning gray area. Seems much different for a situation where things have been established law for 30+ years.

If the stay is in effect, doesn't the status quo prevail and everything becomes instantly a felony again? What worth would this be? Can the injunction be partially stayed and the law be invalid from that date forward until something else is decided?

It seems like a long shot that 2nd freedom week could go down like the first?

If past is prolog...:

1) The AW Freedom Week would probably not apply due to the 10-day DROS waiting period. However, if a similar 'bought' exception was included, then there would be a safe harbor for all transactions that occurred during the AW Freedom Week. I wonder whether CA-DoJ would permit the processing of the transfer requests (I wouldn't put it past them to just issue blanket denials...)?

How about a scenario 1.a) for 2017 BBAWs? I would imagine a similar circumstance for 2017 BBAWs being 'bought' during AW Freedom Week would apply as for 2001 RAWs.

2) I think that is a safe scenario to expect. While you didn't mention it, I suspect a similar logic could apply to the featureless firearms that were purchased after 2017-01-01 - they get to lose their featureless 'features'.

3) Seems to be dependent on scenario 1) safe harbor ('bought' language) occurring.

4) Transport rules would be interesting. If the ruling that the AW regs are unconstitutional is stayed for the period of the appeal, then it would seem that the transport rules are still applicable.

[cyphr02]

We're not talking about a like for like case. The LCM case came about to prevent a prohibition on ownership, the injunction permitted acquisition, and the stay returned to the prior state, where possession is legal, but acquisition is not.
Currently, possession of an unregistered AW is illegal, so even if a injunction is issued, if a stay a week later were issued returning us to the current state, possession is still illegal unless there was a specific provision to grandfather everything in, or force the CDOJ to allow registrations to be updated even... which would be nice, but I believe is a bit of a stretch.

That being said, since we're throwing in our hopes and dreams, I'm hoping for an injunction, and no stay. I think it'd be much more difficult for the DA to claim that the state is suffering undue harm by allowing features, since he so clearly believes its easy enough to get a featureless rifle and that we're lousy with them. There won't be millions of new acquisitions like there were mags. And since he thinks it's totally reasonable to have to wait for cases to clear the 9th circuit for this case he shouldn't mind waiting for his day in court for the appeal.

[mshill]

I would imagine that Benitez, being a Federal District Court Judge, would wait for guidance from the Supreme Court on something like NYSRPA before pulling the trigger so to speak.

[BajaJames83]

Todays ruling on the immigration case could be interesting as they mentioned how just one federal judge has too much power.

[17+1]

It may be posted somewhere in here but who is funding this? I see FPC mentioned in the first post but I’m guessing CRPA. I’m a lifer but I’ll send them more $ if they’re footing the bill.

[neffect]

When is this case being heard? People keep asking me about it. I would say this would never happen in CA but we had the first freedom week, why not a second.

[CandG]

Originally Posted by 17+1

It may be posted somewhere in here but who is funding this? I see FPC mentioned in the first post but I’m guessing CRPA. I’m a lifer but I’ll send them more $ if they’re footing the bill.

CRPA is doing the similar, but different, Rupp case. According to the OP in this thread,

This case is supported by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the California Gun Rights Foundation (CGF).

[Transient]

Originally Posted by cockedandglocked

CRPA is doing the similar, but different, Rupp case. According to the OP in this thread,

Is Alan Gura arguing on behalf of 2A Foundation?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Sputnik]

Just my 2¢ but I do not see any reason to expect another freedom week for MSRs.
IF the good judge does decide Roberti-Roos, et al is unconstitutional there will be a stay on the decision pending the appeal to the 9th CCofA and the status quo will be maintained pending the outcome of said appeal. IOW keep your grip fins firmly attached in public. We'll need something more final before MSRs in common use get to be common in CA again.

[prerunners4life]

Anyway to tune in to listen to this today or not possible?

[AKSOG]

Originally Posted by neffect

When is this case being heard? People keep asking me about it. I would say this would never happen in CA but we had the first freedom week, why not a second.

[Solidsnake87]

Fyi, If we do get an early decision on this case, I promise it won't come earlier than Friday. Benitez waited till Friday to drop his grenade last time because he knew the courts couldn't begin responding until Monday.

[BBot12]

I believe it’s being heard today. When we will hear a ruling? I have no clue. However long it takes Benitez to formulate his thoughts will be the item we’re all waiting on

[neffect]

Would it even be possible be possible to de-resistering all your BBAW durning that time and some how make them full function? Probably be easier just to buy new lowers. Who knows they could try and grandfather everything. It's going to be a mess either way.

[kuug]

Originally Posted by neffect

Would it even be possible be possible to de-resistering all your BBAW durning that time and some how make them full function? Probably be easier just to buy new lowers. Who knows they could try and grandfather everything. It's going to be a mess either way.

How difficult to you think taking apart a lower is? Only an hour of your time at most if you don't know what you're doing. It's all relatively straightforward

[kuug]

Originally Posted by BBot12

I believe it’s being heard today. When we will hear a ruling? I have no clue. However long it takes Benitez to formulate his thoughts will be the item we’re all waiting on

No, it was changed to February 6th

[BBot12]

I’ve seen people post about the 6th but the only actual date I’ve seen in court documents was the 29th.

Must’ve missed it I guess

Nvm, just saw it on FPC’s website. It is in fact updated to 2/6

[solidfreshdope]

I wish I had threaded barrels ready to go for some pistols.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Transient]

Originally Posted by solidfreshdope

I wish I had threaded barrels ready to go for some pistols.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Like this?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[solidfreshdope]

Originally Posted by Transient

Like this?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Like that. Will have to see what we can come up with in the next week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by kuug

How difficult to you think taking apart a lower is? Only an hour of your time at most if you don't know what you're doing. It's all relatively straightforward

An hour to swap out the magazine release? Are you serious? More like 5 minutes start-to-finish. If you aren't mechanically inclined, buy one of the magnets that fit inside of the bullet button housing. That will reduce the time into maybe 30 seconds territory.

[Transient]

Originally Posted by solidfreshdope

Like that. Will have to see what we can come up with in the next week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That took about 5-6 weeks to receive after placing the order. "If" there's a freedom week 2.0, would it still be lawful to receive?

Btw, that barrel is for my gen 4 Glock 34 MOS that I've been building. Finally have all the parts and not cleaning and lubricating to finally assemble. Red dot is a Vortex Razor.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[solidfreshdope]

Originally Posted by Transient

That took about 5-6 weeks to receive after placing the order. "If" there's a freedom week 2.0, would it still be lawful to receive?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

The OEM’s for what I want won’t even ship to CA... so there’s that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Transient]

Originally Posted by solidfreshdope

The OEM’s for what I want won’t even ship to CA... so there’s that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sounds like you need a UPS store mailbox in a neighboring state, lol.

For the record, I'm in Virginia. I'm not breaking any laws, yet. We'll see what goes into affect on July 1.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[sreiter]

place maker for future reference

[jlist]

Originally Posted by solidfreshdope

I wish I had threaded barrels ready to go for some pistols.

You could order one today but if we can't get suppressor stamps in CA, what's the benefit of threaded barrels?

[tsoiky]

Originally Posted by jlist

You could order one today but if we can't get suppressor stamps in CA, what's the benefit of threaded barrels?

Compensator you’re look cool


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kuug]

Originally Posted by tsoiky

Compensator you’re look cool


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

did you have a stroke?

[NapaPlinker]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

An hour to swap out the magazine release? Are you serious? More like 5 minutes start-to-finish. If you aren't mechanically inclined, buy one of the magnets that fit inside of the bullet button housing. That will reduce the time into maybe 30 seconds territory.

To swap out the parts on a registered BBAW LOWER to one that isn't...


Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by NapaPlinker

To swap out the parts on a registered BBAW LOWER to one that isn't...

I must be missing something. Why would one want to swap out the parts from a registered BBAW lower receiver to one that wasn't registered during the period of a PI? The PI likely wouldn't allow new, previously unregistered AWs to magically be imported/purchased during the period of the PI (taking the cue from the PI covering magazines with a capacity > 10 rounds). If so, any benefit from the PI would seem to be limited to the previously registered BBAW or the featureless AW.

[aBrowningfan]

Originally Posted by Transient

That took about 5-6 weeks to receive after placing the order. "If" there's a freedom week 2.0, would it still be lawful to receive?

Btw, that barrel is for my gen 4 Glock 34 MOS that I've been building. Finally have all the parts and not cleaning and lubricating to finally assemble. Red dot is a Vortex Razor.

It depends on the ruling. Also, don't the barrel threads require a NFA stamp? If so, I doubt a ruling holding the AWCA to be unconstitutional would cover the threaded barrel.

[Transient]

Originally Posted by aBrowningfan

It depends on the ruling. Also, don't the barrel threads require a NFA stamp? If so, I doubt a ruling holding the AWCA to be unconstitutional would cover the threaded barrel.

No, threaded barrels don't require a NFA stamp. If they did them every barrel outside of California would have one. My shotguns came from a big box store with a muzzle brake sans a NFA stamp. All of my ARs have threading at the end for a flash hider or muzzle brake. No NFA stamps anywhere in my house.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Transient

No, threaded barrels don't require a NFA stamp. If they did them every barrel outside of California would have one. My shotguns came from a big box store with a muzzle brake sans a NFA stamp. All of my ARs have threading at the end for a flash hider or muzzle brake. No NFA stamps anywhere in my house.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Pistols are not allowed to have threaded barrels.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Pistols are not allowed to have threaded barrels.

There's lots of pistols that can have threaded barrels.

In California, only semi-automatic pistols, and having a detachable magazine, are effectively banned from having threaded barrels when possessed by non-exempt folks (due to their meeting "Assault Weapon" definition).

[AKSOG]

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

Last I checked they were still holding Worman v Healy

[solidfreshdope]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Pistols are not allowed to have threaded barrels.

I was originally going to register a few handguns as BBAW by dremelling down the mag release and swapping in a threaded barrel, with the hopes of being able to remove the “Bullet button” later on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by RickD427

There's lots of pistols that can have threaded barrels.

In California, only semi-automatic pistols, and having a detachable magazine, are effectively banned from having threaded barrels when possessed by non-exempt folks (due to their meeting "Assault Weapon" definition).

Last I checked, there are pistols and revolvers. Other than the random bolt action pistols (why do these exist?), there are by definition semi-automatic and magazine fed. What am I missing?

[pratchett]

Can someone post another several images in the 7,000 pixel range? Thanks.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Last I checked, there are pistols and revolvers. Other than the random bolt action pistols (why do these exist?), there are by definition semi-automatic and magazine fed. What am I missing?

For the most part you're not missing much. My point is that you made an all-encompassing statement that over-represented the requirements of law. Here's what I think that you're missing:

1) The usage of "Pistol" to mean only self-feeding handguns to the exclusion of revolvers is not contained anywhere in statute, nor is it an exclusive use of the term. I follow that usage myself, but there is no source of authority that makes it improper to refer to a revolver as a "Pistol". In fact the California Penal Code defines pistols and revolvers collectively and does not distinguish between them (please refer to sections 16530 and 17010). A "pistol" having a fixed magazine, or that fires rounds from a cylinder, may have a threaded barrel.

2) Even in the case of a Semi-Automatic Pistol having a detachable magazine, it is still possible for that weapon to have a threaded barrel and still be legal to possess. That is true if the weapon were registered to a non-exempt person as an RAW. It is also true when possessed by an exempt person.

As to your question about the "Bolt Action" pistols. The first such photos I saw were posted as a joke, a parody on the then-new single shot exemptions to the safe handgun statute, but I've seen some folks do it for real. Just an attempt to circumvent the requirements of statute. I'd prefer to see the efforts directed at removing the fools from office that created such statutes.