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 06-24-2019, 10:23 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is online now
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,902
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default UNITED STATES v. DAVIS ET AL.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-431_7758.pdf

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/24/g...ls-gun-crimes/

"Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc to deal victory for criminal defendants Monday, striking down a federal law that punishes gun crimes as unconstitutionally vague.

The law at issue authorizes heightened penalties for individuals who use firearms to a commit a “crime of violence.” In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned the decision would undermine public safety."

Hmmm ... I don't see this as necessarily bad considering the penchant for targeting gun owners in this State.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-24-2019, 10:48 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy 🔫
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 13,902
iTrader: 161 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleCountryActuary View Post

Hmmm ... I don't see this as necessarily bad considering the penchant for targeting gun owners in this State.
I agree - no one writes more vague gun laws than CA, and it is us who are subject to the whims of prosecutors because of it.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-24-2019, 12:17 PM
nu2gunstuff nu2gunstuff is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Huh. Only time I've sided with libs on the court in a long time, if ever. All the BS ads I hear on the radio about "gun crime" drives me bonkers.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-24-2019, 12:37 PM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is online now
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,902
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nu2gunstuff View Post
Huh. Only time I've sided with libs on the court in a long time, if ever. All the BS ads I hear on the radio about "gun crime" drives me bonkers.
The SCOTUS libs weren't thinking about us, only about a couple of scummy criminals but, hey, the Constitution applies to us, too.
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-24-2019, 12:50 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is online now
Code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: ҚФꙦꙦѤ ꙆꚈҊԂ ™
Posts: 1,130
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
I agree - no one writes more vague gun laws than CA, and it is us who are subject to the whims of prosecutors because of it.
Quote:
[A lawmaking body] has to write statutes that give ordinary people fair warning about what the law demands of them.
If only. It's true the Ca legislature may be the worst offender in this respect, but I don't see this ruling helping any of us... unless you want to rob convenience stores at gunpoint

Quote:
Monday’s case involved defendants Maurice Davis and Andre Glover, who were charged and convicted with robbery and conspiracy arising from a string of gas station robberies in Texas in June 2014. Prosecutors also charged the pair under the heightened penalty law because they brandished a short-barreled shotgun in the course of those robberies.
This is basically what CA did with prop 47- decriminalization of crime. Nothing good will come of this.

Gorsuch is going to be another swing vote and pain in our collective asses. But go ahead and convince me otherwise. I'd love to be foolishly optimistic.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-24-2019, 5:04 PM
OCGun OCGun is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 40
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The problem with these "gun crimes" is it strengthens the perception that guns are the problem. The use of a specific tool doesn't make a crime any worse.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-24-2019, 5:21 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 6,196
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
I agree - no one writes more vague gun laws than CA, and it is us who are subject to the whims of prosecutors because of it.
It is my own personal opinion/observation. That this "vagueness" is a planned situation. Legs make a poorly worded/vague law. It passes, of course. Then the DOJ steps in and "interprets" this vague law, to include many restrictive aspects not actually included in the text of the legislation. And it is their "interpretation" that is codified into the PC.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-24-2019, 11:07 PM
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,097
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Hopefully this will lead to many more challenges in this state in the next few years.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-25-2019, 6:06 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,029
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Gorsuch is going to be another swing vote and pain in our collective asses. But go ahead and convince me otherwise. I'd love to be foolishly optimistic.
Gorsuch is the, “guys, you’re making this too complicated” Justice which I think could be helpful for us in steering decisions away from more frilly tests that the lower courts can use against us. The only problem it may cause is if Roberts and Gorsuch have difficulty agreeing with each other on firmness of language in the decision.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-25-2019, 9:18 AM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,905
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
If a felon has three or more prior convictions for offenses that are "violent felony" offenses or "serious drug offenses,"[2] the Act provides a minimum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment, instead of the ten-year maximum prescribed under the Gun Control Act. The Act provides for an implied maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
So no, this ruling is not the equivalent of prop 47 in California.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-431_7758.pdf
For anyone interested in reading the opinion rather than making broad, sweeping claims about how Gorsuch is going to rule going forward, the opinion is above.

I am not saying this doesn't mean anything, but we are talking about statutory interpretations of the residual clause ACCA, which defines a two part standard for a crime of violence. This opinion may very well mean something, but let's stop pretending like most of us have an adequate enough understanding of constitutional law to definitively argue what this means about Gorsuch going forward, especially since we are talking about the vagueness doctrine which has addressed the ACCA's violent crime terminology several times in the past few years.

And by the way, the vagueness of the residual clause in the ACCA was ruled as unconstitutional in 2015 with the majority written by Scalia.

Quote:
"Under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm faces more severe punishment if he has three or more previous convictions for a 'violent felony,' a term defined to include any felony that 'involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.' 18 U. S. C. §924(e)(2)(B). We must decide whether this part of the definition of a violent felony survives the Constitution’s prohibition of vague criminal laws...We hold that imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Our contrary holdings in James and Sykes are overruled. Today’s decision does not call into question application of the Act to the four enumerated offenses, or the remainder of the Act’s definition of a violent felony."
I am attempting to show my limited understanding of how this may affect Gorsuch's vote going forward. I am sure I could spend 30min and argue this from the opposite perspective though. Gorsuch was endorsed by the Federalists Society, and he dissented in denial of cert for Peruta and Guedes- Guedes was the bumpstock ban. Gorsuch and Thomas were the only ones who dissented. So my gut instinct is, this case probably doesn't mean anything, but I am not naive or narcissistic enough to think I know what this means since I did not go to law school or pass the Bar Exam.

A list of 5-4 decisions for this term so far

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-25-2019, 12:35 PM
sixtringr's Avatar
sixtringr sixtringr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The capital of the wealthiest state, in the most powerful country in the world.
Posts: 156
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

John Paul Stevens said “I know it when I see it”.
Justice should be blind but Gorsuch needs a cane.
The law 28 usc blah blah defined what violent means.
Back to my first point. This seems all rather pornographic to me. It insults my senses and does nothing good for society.
__________________
Imagine the banning of Assault Articles, High Capacity Editorials, and the existance of Off List Periodicals
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-25-2019, 4:55 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'll happily admit that I am not a lawyer (haven't even visited the campus of a law school) and that I've not done much research on this case.

That said, from what little I know, I'm with the Liberals and Gorsuch on this one.

The term "crimes of violence" is, IMHO as a non-lawyer, ridiculously vague.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-26-2019, 8:37 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,826
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The only kind of gun control liberals don't like is the kind that impacts criminals, mostly minorities. You notice that they will support the most crazy things, but tough sentences on someone who commits a crime with a gun, or stop / query / frisk systems, or federal charges for felon in possession, are all opposed by liberals. Why is that?
__________________
"H--l, yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
- Robert "Beto" O'Rourke

Math denialism: We can have free, universal healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, and open borders.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-26-2019, 8:49 AM
njineermike's Avatar
njineermike njineermike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: CO
Posts: 9,801
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
If only. It's true the Ca legislature may be the worst offender in this respect, but I don't see this ruling helping any of us... unless you want to rob convenience stores at gunpoint



This is basically what CA did with prop 47- decriminalization of crime. Nothing good will come of this.

Gorsuch is going to be another swing vote and pain in our collective asses. But go ahead and convince me otherwise. I'd love to be foolishly optimistic.
No, this judgement means the CADOJ will have problems prosecuting the random firearms owner who doesn't know the byzantine methods to determine whether any random firearm is considered an assault weapon, unless they KNOW it's an assault weapon and have it anyway.

When did the laws having to be direct and easily interpreted by everyone become bad? You do realize a vague open ended law can imprison the innocent just as easily as the guilty, right?
__________________
NRA lifetime member
2AF Defender member

When did I go from being a "citizen" to a "taxpayer"?

Jon Lovitz: ‘I can’t wait to go to a hospital run by the DMV!’

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Dude went full CNN...
Peace, love, and heavy weapons. Sometimes you have to be insistent." - David Lee Roth
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-26-2019, 9:50 AM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,342
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by njineermike View Post
No, this judgement means the CADOJ will have problems prosecuting the random firearms owner who doesn't know the byzantine methods to determine whether any random firearm is considered an assault weapon, unless they KNOW it's an assault weapon and have it anyway.

When did the laws having to be direct and easily interpreted by everyone become bad? You do realize a vague open ended law can imprison the innocent just as easily as the guilty, right?
Good. I'm all for anything that impedes the CADOJ's enforcement of ridiculous gun laws. Hopefully this saves the bacon of people who legit are confused by the AW laws, like the 70 year old guy at the range with the Colt SP1 who thinks he registered the gun when he bought it, not understanding the RAW registration scheme etc.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-26-2019, 10:37 AM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,215
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
I agree - no one writes more vague gun laws than CA, and it is us who are subject to the whims of prosecutors because of it.
Can laws be complicated and vague at the same time? By way of example, let's use the CA definition of a "flash hider" and general definition of an "assault weapon".

CA DOJ defines a FH exactly and I would say it's complicated. Defined to the extent of stating the device must be attached to the muzzle and serve to "divert" the flash away from the shooter's field of view. The same could be said of a muzzle brake. Exact, but vague too. Because it encompasses something it ought not include.

It seems to me that where CA law is most vague is the contrived definition of "assault weapon". It's a term without applicable meaning, other than the one created by the legislature. More so, as used in law it is counter to the long standing and "term of art" definition of an AW as a select fire weapon.

The ability to define and legislate against on that basis seems a very dangerous one. My question is, could this decision helps us strike down laws based on such artificially crafted definitions such as assault weapon, unsafe handguns (wherein exact models are allowed or prohibited based on DOM or finish, barrel length, sights, etc) or "large capacity feeding devices"? Large capacity is about as vague as it gets.

Last edited by dfletcher; 06-26-2019 at 10:39 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-26-2019, 8:49 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,082
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
...The ability to define and legislate against on that basis seems a very dangerous one. My question is, could this decision helps us strike down laws based on such artificially crafted definitions such as assault weapon, unsafe handguns (wherein exact models are allowed or prohibited based on DOM or finish, barrel length, sights, etc) or "large capacity feeding devices"? Large capacity is about as vague as it gets.
Then there was Kisor v. Wilkie decided today.

In an opinion analysis posted on SCOTUSblog...

Quote:
...In her opinion for the court, Kagan stressed that courts should not reflexively defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation. Instead, she explained, deference should be given only if the agency’s regulation is genuinely ambiguous. If it isn’t ambiguous, she continued, the “regulation then must means what it means—and the court must give it effect, as the court would any law.” And she suggested that courts must try hard to resolve any ambiguities that it thinks it sees in a regulation: She acknowledged that “regulations can sometimes make the eyes glaze over,” but emphasized that “hard interpretative conundrums, even relating to complex rules, can often be solved.” ... Roberts and Kavanaugh also took pains to make clear that today’s decision is limited to Auer deference and does not affect the doctrine known as Chevron deference, which generally requires courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes enacted by Congress.
There is discussion of this case from back in December...

Kisor v. Wilkie and the Chevron Doctrine

Kisor v. Wilkie challenge to Auer deference (granted cert)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-26-2019, 10:40 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,192
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post

CA DOJ defines a FH exactly and I would say it's complicated. Defined to the extent of stating the device must be attached to the muzzle and serve to "divert" the flash away from the shooter's field of view. The same could be said of a muzzle brake. Exact, but vague too. Because it encompasses something it ought not include.

It seems to me that where CA law is most vague is the contrived definition of "assault weapon."

My question is, could this decision helps us strike down laws based on such artificially crafted definitions such as assault weapon, unsafe handguns (wherein exact models are allowed or prohibited based on DOM or finish, barrel length, sights, etc) or "large capacity feeding devices"? Large capacity is about as vague as it gets.
If the law has a detailed definition, it is not vague or ambiguous. If a reasonable construction of a statute can be made, it will not be struck down as void due to vagueness. A statute cannot be held void for uncertainty if any reasonable and practical construction can be given to its language. Personal Watercraft Coalition v. Board of Supervisors (App. 1 Dist. 2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 129, review denied. For example, “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following: (a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds, (b) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device., (c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm. Cal. Penal Code § 16740.

Difficulty in attempting to ascertain statutory meaning will neither excuse the failure to make the attempt to determine whether a contemplated course of conduct falls under the statute, nor will it nullify the statute. Personal Watercraft Coalition v. Board of Supervisors (App. 1 Dist. 2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 129, review denied.

Statutes drafted contrary to the science of arms may be challenged on other bases such as the 2nd Am. (heightened level of review) or the dormant commerce clause. See Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. (The District Court found that the initial cost of installing those [curved] mudguards on all the trucks owned by the appellees ranged from $4,500 to $45,840. There was also evidence in the record to indicate that the cost of maintenance and replacement of these guards is substantial... it was conclusively shown that the contour mud flap possesses no advantages over the conventional or straight mud flap previously required in Illinois and presently required in most of the states . . .)

Last edited by sarabellum; 06-26-2019 at 11:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-27-2019, 6:33 AM
champu's Avatar
champu champu is offline
NRA Member, CRPA Member,
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Redondo Beach
Posts: 1,029
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
Can laws be complicated and vague at the same time? By way of example, let's use the CA definition of a "flash hider" and general definition of an "assault weapon".

CA DOJ defines a FH exactly and I would say it's complicated. Defined to the extent of stating the device must be attached to the muzzle and serve to "divert" the flash away from the shooter's field of view.
That's not the full definition, reference this discussion from the DoJ's SB23 FSOR

Quote:
978.20 (b) - Flash Suppressor
This term was originally defined as “any device that reduces or conceals the visible light or flash created when a firearm is fired. This definition includes flash hiders, but does not include compensators and muzzle brakes (devices attached to or integral with the muzzle barrel to utilize propelling gasses for counter-recoil).” There were two primary problems with the definition when it was originally noticed to the public (December 31, 1999 through February 28, 2000). The most significant problem with the original definition was that it included and/or excluded particular devices by name (flash hider, muzzle brake, compensator) without consideration of whether the devices actually suppress flash. After further consideration prompted by public comments, the Department concluded that the absence of statutorily defined specific measurement standards or a statutory requirement to establish those standards demonstrates a legislative intent to identify any device that reduces or redirects flash from the shooter’s field of vision as a flash suppressor regardless of its name and intended/additional purpose. Thus, “flash hiders” are flash suppressors only if they reduce or redirect flash from the shooter’s field of vision. Conversely, “compensators” and “muzzle brakes” are not flash suppressors only if they do not reduce or redirect flash from the shooter’s field of vision. The revised definition is clearly consistent with the legislative intent of the statute as it neither includes nor excludes any particular device on the basis of its name only. Additionally, “conceals” in the original definition presented the possibility of an overly broad interpretation which could have included any device positioned between the shooter’s eye and the muzzle flash, such as the sights on a gun. To avoid such unintended interpretation, the word “conceals” was replaced with “redirects.” Accordingly, the original definition was changed to:
Page2of 8
“flash suppressor means any device that reduces or redirects muzzle flash from the shooter’s field of vision.”
This revised definition was noticed to the public during the first 15-day comment period (May 10 through May 30, 2000). Comments addressing this version of the definition prompted further reconsideration and revision. As such, the definition was revised a second time by replacing “ . . . that reduces or redirects muzzle flash . . . ” with “ . . . designed, intended, or that functions to reduce or redirect muzzle flash . . . ” This change was necessary because it became clear that flash suppressors are typically attached by twisting or screwing the device onto the threaded barrel of a firearm. Therefore, by simply making a half turn (180 degrees), an otherwise fully operational flash suppressor would not function as prescribed in the prior definition. The revised definition eliminates this potential loophole. Accordingly, this final revision “flash suppressor means any device designed, intended, or that functions to reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter’s field of vision,” was noticed during the second 15-day comment period (July 12 through July 31, 2000). Although additional comments were received, no comments were received during the second 15-day comment period that resulted in substantial revision to the definition. However, the Department made a non-substantial revision by adding “perceptibly” to the phrase “reduce or redirect” to confirm that if a reduction or redirection of flash is so minuscule that it is imperceptible to the human eye, it could not reasonably be considered a reduction.
Personally, for what that's worth, I think there are still a couple problems with this definition in terms of a reasonable person being able to tell if conduct is prohibited. 1) "perceptibly" and conversely "imperceptible to the human eye" is subject to one's own interpretation and circumstances of use of the firearm. "Does there exist someone who could tell the difference under some set of shooting conditions? How am I supposed to know that?" 2) The addition of "intended" and their associated explanation clarifies it is NOT talking about the intent of the person being charged with the crime, which makes it rather intractable for the owner of a rifle. "Does there exist someone who intends that this thing reduce or redirect muzzle flash? How am I supposed to know that?"
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 9:36 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.